Was Najib Tun Razak also behind Canny Ong’s murder?

The reopening of the Altantuya murder investigation is supposed to be the final nail in Najib Razak’s coffin. Tommy Thomas cannot seem to pin Najib down on the SRC and 1MDB cases so he needs a new weapon against Najib. Even if they cannot win a conviction they can at least keep Najib busy in court for the next few years until Dr Mahathir hands power to his yet to be confirmed successor.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tommy Thomas is desperate and he needs to find a way to put Najib behind bars

The argument behind reopening the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder investigation is that Sirul Azhar Umar and Azilah Hadri would not have murdered anyone had they not been instructed by someone higher up to do so. The logic behind that assumption is that those two SWAT police officers would not have any motive to kill Altantuya unless it was under instructions.

For the investigation to be reopened that would mean Sirul would need to be brought back to Malaysia. Australia, however, would only allow that unless the Malaysian government can guarantee the Australian government that Sirul would not be executed even if he confesses to murdering Altantuya.

Sirul’s testimony is crucial because he admitted that Azilah told him they were being paid a certain sum of money to kill Altantuya (a figure of RM50,000 was mentioned at one stage). But Azilah did not say who precisely was paying them to kill Altantuya, said Sirul. Now, Azilah says that person is Najib Tun Razak and that the fee was just RM300.

Pakatan Harapan says C4 was used to blow up Altantuya’s body but the police say no

Does Sirul know that Najib was allegedly their employer in the murder? Sirul said Azilah never told him who had employed them. Hence, he needs to go back to Malaysia to tell the court whether Azilah did or did not tell him that their employer was Najib.

The issue that many are raising, the Attorney-General Tommy Thomas included, is regarding motive. What was the motive for Azilah and Sirul to murder Altantuya? And they argue that the only logical motive was because they were ordered to do so. If not, it would not make sense for Azilah and Sirul to murder Altantuya.

True, in any murder investigation you establish motive first. Bentong Kali once shot a man to death because the chap was late in bringing him his Teh Tarik. Yes, he ordered a Teh Tarik and the man was two minutes late in bringing it to his table. Is that motive enough for murder?

Will Malaysia ever know the real story behind the Altantuya murder?

I know people who have been murdered for the crime of staring. Yes, the deceased stared at his attacker and for that reason he was stabbed. Staring is a crime that can get you killed in some parts of Kuala Lumpur back in those days. So, staring is the motive for the murder.

KTemoc Konsiders has also written about this, which you can read below. Basically, Ahmad Najib Aris had no motive for killing Canny Ong but he was still executed on 23rd September 2016. Or was Ahmad Najib, too, ordered by someone higher up to kill Canny Ong?

Najib just refuses to lie down and die and this upsets Pakatan Harapan


KTemoc Konsiders

13 years after he raped, murdered and burned Canny Ong, Ahmad Najib Aris was finally executed on 23 September 2016 at 6 am.

I was against that execution or any execution because I stand strongly against any capital punishment. It was just another form of state sanctioned cold blooded murder, the act of a barbaric state. I’m ashamed to say Malaysia or any other state that imposes capital punishment (eg. China, Sing, USA, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc) are barbaric.

Star Online reported that: The randomness of the crime – Ahmad Najib had no apparent MOTIVE – made it all the more horrific and prompted many unsolicited and baseless conspiracy theories much to the dismay of Canny Ong’s loved ones.

What was the motive for murdering Canny Ong?

Note that the murderer was said to have no apparent MOTIVE, yet in another far more famous or notorious murder, of Shaariibuu Altantuyaa, many public members, specifically those in Pakatan insist on there was, had to be a MOTIVE for any murder, meaning Shaariibuu’s murder.

But they remained strangely silent on the murderer of Canny Ong being without any MOTIVE, but such is prejudice, particularly reckless, emotional and invincibly blind double standard prejudice, especially when that prejudice has been laced with the poison of acrimonious politics.

But I have to acknowledge that most Pakatan supporters have been absolutely right in that there is no such thing as a murder without MOTIVE. Even the ISIS murderers on a senseless killing spree did and do have a motive – please work that one out yourself.

Yes, I would say that if someone has been killed, there was definitely a MOTIVE.

The famous British crime author, P.D. James, who served for thirty years in various departments of the British Civil Service, including the Police and Criminal Law Department of Great Britain’s Home Office, as well as a magistrate and as a governor of the BBC, wrote in her book The Murder Room that “All the MOTIVES for murder are covered by four Ls: Love, Lust, Lucre and Loathing.”

Who ordered Ahmad Najib Aris to murder Canny Ong?

Ahmad Najib Aris who murdered and then burnt the body of Canny Ong was MOTIVated by LUST, which saw him raping her before killing and attempting to get rid of her body through burning the corpse to hide his crime.

I was monitoring the news and some blogs to see what they would say about the nonsense of Canny Ong’s murder being without apparent MOTIVE. But obviously no one or at best, very few cared about Canny Ong or for that matter, Shaariibuu Altantuya.

The latter, Shaariibuu would only be useful if her murder could convict someone, a particular person. Otherwise, Shaariibuu was just like Canny Ong, a murdered person of fleeting interest in a highly politicised Malaysia.

Much as I was then a pro-DAP person (before Lim KHAT Siang allied himself and his DAP with Mahathir), I have to say the bias has been sheer eff-ing bloody double standards by Pakatan supporters when they have been insisting that Shaariibuu murder must have had a sinister MOTIVE which the court failed to reveal, but remained silent on Canny Ong’s case of no apparent MOTIVE for the murderer.

It’s not that Shaariibuu Altantuyaa’s case had no MOTIVE for her murder, but those Pakatan supporters wanted a MOTIVE which fits into their wish-list and the MOTIVE must be that of one specific person. That’s dangerous, emotional and without justice, very reminiscent of the mindset of WWII Kempetai and current religious types.

Two police officer were convicted of her murder and sentenced to death. What were their MOTIVES? If you ask Mahathir, Mahfuz Omar or Pakatan supporters, they would tell you those two guys were INNOCENT and NAIVE and probably still virgins, and only acting on higher instructions. But where is the evidence for such a belief?