JATI Bergantung Pada Jentera PERKASA dan Pemuda UMNO?

2012-06-04T15:25:00Z

Tulang Besi terserempak dengan seorang kenalan dari zaman Tulang Besi aktif di dalam Perhubungan PAS Selangor. Setelah berborak panjang lebar, dia pun buka kesah Hasan Ali.

Rupanya, di awal penubuhan JATI oleh Hasan Ali, beliau antara yang yang diharap oleh Hasan Ali untuk menyokong usaha Hasan Ali.

Pada mulanya beliau mahu juga menolong Hasan Ali. Namun, pada suatu hari, beliau mendapat telefon dari salah seorang barua Hasan Ali meminta beliau menganjurkan ceramah Hasan Ali. Beliau lantas bertanya jentera manakah yang beliau harus gunakan untuk menganjurkan ceramah itu.

Beliau diberitahu untuk bekerjasama dengan PERKASA dan Pemuda UMNO kawasan beliau. Pada saat itu, beliau terus insaf dan sedar.

Segala usaha Hasan Ali ini rupanya didalangi UMNO. Patutlah Hasan Ali dalam masa yang begitu pendek boleh menganjurkan ceramah seluruh Malaysia.

Juga, Hasan Ali mengharapkan Anwar Ibrahim didapati bersalah atas tuduhan meliwat Saiful Bukhari Al Kazzab. Ini kerana beliau mensyaratkan semua penyokong beliau dalam usaha JATI ini memperjuangkan kononnya Anwar Ibrahim adalah seorang peliwat.

Dengan kata lain, antara syarat menjadi aktivis JATI adalah melakukan dosa Qazaf dengan mempercayai dan berkempen Anwar Ibrahim meliwat.

Syukur kenalan Tulang Besi ini terus istiqamah dalam PAS. Beliau amat aktif dalam PAS Kawasan dan mungkin akajn jnaik lebih tinggi lagi selepas ini, inshaalah. Pada Hasan Ali, berhentilah jadi penipu.

Video "Murtad" yang beliau tunjukkan kepada umum tu pun tiada siapa yang percaya. Akhirnya, Hasan Ali berjuang untuk menaikkan parti yang memusuhi Islam, yakni UMNO.

TULANG BESI

Hishammuddin’s assurance of “order during and after GE” quite meaningless if not coupled with public pledge by Najib and key UMNO Ministers that BN will leave Putrajaya peacefully if it loses election

2012-06-04T08:36:55Z

WWW15 profligacy — The Malaysian Insider

2012-06-04T10:18:32Z

JUNE 4 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak brought up a point today that many in Malaysia seem to ignore, that the world is grappling with an economic slowdown for the second time in three years and risks entering a sustained period of economic volatility.

That would explain his Economic Transformation Programme (ETP). That could explain why it will take time for Malaysia to be a high-income nation. That also explains why Cuepacs, the umbrella centre for government unions, have complained about the rising price of housing that has affected the regular civil servant.

But it does not explain why Health Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai’s officers had to bid RM24,200 on the “WWW15” vehicle registration number for his new official car that will replace his current vehicle.

The simple solution is to keep the existing number, and save the government some money. The Road Transport Department (RTD) allows for registration numbers to be transferred to new cars.

The Chinese media reported today that Liow said the ministry needs to replace the current official car, hence the need to bid for the particular registration number. As to who had paid for the number, the report said he replied, “This is official car... is official.”

The minister justified the purchase, saying that every minister is given an official car, including Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, whose official car carries the “PG1” number plate. Isn’t that an old number, Mr Health Minister?

We hope the minister and his officials know that they are paying for the number with public funds. Public funds, which, as everyone knows, are to be used for public good. Not for a vanity plate or an exclusive number.

And before they spend such money, at least consider the government servants whom Cuepacs say earn about RM3,000 monthly and find it difficult to fork out up to RM1,000 a month for a house that can cost beyond RM180,000 in Kuala Lumpur, Johor Baru or Penang.

The sum spent on “WWW15” is some government officer’s salary for six months. It is also enough for 48 Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) handouts.

If this isn’t profligacy, what is?

Yes, our ministers might need new cars in which to travel in comfort as they are working for us, but they certainly don’t need vehicle registration numbers, do they?

Or does “WWW15” represent the open-ended question “WWW IS ... a) a waste of money, b) a waste of time, or c) a foolish purchase?”

Whatever it is, the minister and his officials have to account for that money, especially at a time when Malaysians are asked to adjust their lifestyles and watch their pennies while the government works on subsidies to ride out the rough economic times.

Never let your guard down — Lim Mun Fah

2012-06-04T08:35:32Z

JUNE 4 — A baby girl was reported missing with her babysitter. The babysitter was found injured and hospitalised, and the baby girl was found dead.

Later, it was reported that two babies under the same babysitter’s care had died of suffocation and brain damage. The development of the event is alarming and the deeper we think about it, the more terrible it is!

Why has one baby after another under the same babysitter’s care, died? How did the babysitter get injured? How could four-month-old girl Lim Xiu Yao die of suffocation? Why were the babysitter’s alibis inconsistent? Were the three cases involving the same babysitter an unfortunate coincidence?

The truth cannot be hidden. If the babysitter has really done nothing wrong, she should then courageously come forward, not only to clear herself, but also to make it clear to the baby girl’s parents.

But whatever the truth, the babysitter cannot evade the responsibility or escape from being questioned and condemned by the community and families of the victims.

The incident has not only caused a great concern in the society, but also raised doubt on whether the police investigation on the previous two cases has been rigorous enough.

In 2010, a baby boy under the woman’s care choked to death while drinking from a milk bottle. It is understood that his parents refused an autopsy as they could not bear it. However, did the police carry out a serious investigation and were suspicious clues missed before concluding the case as a sudden death?

The same goes for the baby girl who died of brain injuries. Did the police conduct appropriate investigations after her parents lodged a report? Did the police find that the same woman was involved in the “sudden death” of another baby nine months ago?

Clearly, the police must immediately restart investigations of the two cases. If someone should be responsible, then the person must be charged in court. Otherwise, the person’s name must be cleared.

We heard about accidents caused by babysitter’s negligence from time to time in recent years. Apart from feeling shocked, we must also take seriously the problem of babysitter negligence.

Most parents of the previous generation took care of their children themselves and took it as their own responsibility. However, to many parents from double-income households today, it is not that they are not willing to take the responsibility, but the environment and conditions do not allow them to do so!

The social culture has been changing and multi-generational families are rarely seen nowadays. However, problems between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law have not been eased following the tendency of the younger generation to form small families.

Also, as it is not easy to find a good nursery, the demand for babysitters has surged and, thus, it has given rise to new social problems. How should the government control the industry and set conditions to set up more quality and reliable nurseries? How should parents choose babysitters or nurseries for their children? These problems should no longer be ignored.

In any case, we must be very cautious in choosing a babysitter for our children. My advice would be to harbour no ill intention against others, but never relax vigilance against evil-doers. — mysinchew.com

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

‘So you say pigs can fly, do you?!’ — Clive Kessler

2012-06-04T08:08:56Z

JUNE 4 — Over the weekend a succession of strange emails reached me.

I had been extensively cited, I was told, on TV3’s prime-time 8pm news last Friday.

What had I done to earn this attention?

I had expressed the view, it seemed (or so some friends now told me), that the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition was a shambles, that only the Umno-led BN coalition could govern Malaysia, and that people should therefore support it, not the opposition.

Like Margaret Thatcher, it would seem, I had here, in talking about the Umno-led BN’s role in national politics, pronounced the verdict of TINA: There Is No Alternative.

Well, hold on just a moment...

As I tried to absorb this news, echoes of an earlier experience started to sound in my head.

On that earlier occasion it had been the Australian media who had honoured me with such surprising prominence.

The nation’s leading privately-owned television station with its very influential news service (and its larger-than-life proprietor’s insistent political agenda) had been involved.

Around that time, about 10 years ago, the Australian government was trying to suggest that its critics were ridiculous, held absurd ideas, and were not to be believed on any matter about which they might express an opinion.

So I found myself somewhat notoriously featured on the prime-time news, apparently declaring that pigs could fly.

Or something equally unlikely.

“So you say that pigs can fly, do you?!” That was the rebuke that a friend offered when he saw that news bulletin.

Well actually, I had not said that.

The topic was not in fact about whether pigs can fly.

But that claim can be taken as the clear example to clarify this current question concerning my surprising if only implied appearance on last Friday’s TV3 news.

Back to the past, to the explanatory example.

The Australian government at the time (on a question of national immigration law and policy towards refugees) wanted to suggest that all of its critics were “loonies.”

To discredit them all, it wanted to capture “on record” somebody whom it might cast as an enemy really saying that pigs can fly — or its equivalent.

(The issue at the time was that many of the government’s critics wanted to argue not that Australia should maintain totally open borders and accept, no questions asked, anybody and everybody who might arrive on our shores. Rather they argued that there had to be a set of procedures, or an administrative “regimen”, for handling those “boat people” who arrived that recognised international human rights and norms. The government wanted to suggest that all its critics really wanted to throw open the borders, something that was clearly as insane as the claim — to use the Australian vernacular expression — that “pigs can fly.” If it could do that, then it could prove all its critics to be nothing but “loonies.”)

There was a public event at which the matter was discussed. I was a speaker.

The pressure from various political actors, and from the press who were eager to “develop” the story and capture the tension of the moment, was immense.

The media were doing all that they could to get somebody to assert publicly that indeed pigs could fly (or its equivalent).

When my moment came, I spoke very carefully and deliberately.

“I am not saying that pigs can fly,” I said firmly. “But I am affirming that pigs, when they are not rolling about in the mud, can walk, and also that despite some prejudice against them, they have often proved themselves very intelligent animals. They are also useful for preparing insulin injections for diabetics and in providing transplant components such as heart valves.”

That, by way of an analogy, will suggest the kind of argument that I was making about the complexities, both administrative and ethical, of immigration and refugee policy. I was speaking not about pigs but about immigration matters, but that analogy will suggest the nature of my remarks.

The TV crews simply did not get, from me or anyone else who was there, the moment or the quotation that they wanted. But their story depended upon it, upon getting those words recorded and made the centre of their story.

So they did what may come quite naturally to a desperate journalist who has to “nail down” his story — and who has impatient news editors and demanding proprietors to please.

They trimmed and edited my remarks to suit the needs of the story that they wanted to run.

They simply cut out one word, the word “not”, from my crucially important prefatory words that “I am not saying...”.

In a determined, clear and forthright manner, I publicly declared on prime-time TV news that “pigs can fly.”

Or that was how things were made to appear.

Something similar seems to have happened in Kuala Lumpur last Friday.

Regular readers may recall my column in The Malaysian Insider some weeks ago (May 11) entitled “Where do I stand politically?”

Those who read my column with ordinary care and attention readily understood my meaning.

I was voicing a profound disquiet and anxiety, perhaps even an impending sense of despair, about Malaysia’s current political climate and condition.

I did so because, having spent a lot of my time and mental energy since the early 1960s thinking about its evolving political destiny, Malaysia is one of those countries about which I greatly care, and for whose people I have a deep affection and concern. My argument in that column had two parts.

First, I was not convinced that the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition had yet achieved any real coherence in matters of political organisation and long-term policy.

Their remarkable agreement was an effective device for avoiding damaging contests between rival opposition candidates in bitterly fought three-way electoral contests against the BN under the “first-past-the-post” electoral system (which, by the way, is yet another of the ridiculous aspects of the political legacy left to Malaya, and then Malaysia, by the departing British colonial “lords of humankind”).

A no-enemies-pact among the BN’s adversaries, yes. But a prospective government with a coherent policy, political strategy, and prospective Cabinet structure? Not yet, it seemed to me.

That was one half of the problem.

The other half was BN.

Since Pakatan had not yet proved itself, to me at least, as a persuasive and viable alternative government, one had to look to BN to see what it offered and what its immediate prospects now were.

It remained the fact, I observed, that the only effective ruling coalition that had yet emerged and come to power, and then proved its ability to hold the reins of government, had been the Umno-led coalitions, first the Alliance Party and then its successor, Barisan Nasional.

So in principle, I argued, and in the absence of any plausible alternative, the country was still likely, until something else of real plausibility came along, to be governed by the Umno-led BN coalition.

That was in principle.

In practice, however, in the light of developments over the last decade and more, such a coalition (so I again argued, as I have often done in recent times) could only be led by a genuinely reform-minded Umno: an Umno that was committed not just to reforming, or some fanciful tinkering with, the state’s administrative machinery but, far more important, reforming itself, its own political character, style and identity).

That was an Umno that did not simply talk about administrative reform with its entire “alphabet soup” of KPIs and the like.

To go on ruling the country, to ensure and provide itself with the authority to do so, Umno had to show that it was capable of effectively addressing its most urgent task: the challenge of reforming itself, of a genuine and substantive inner transformation.

Just as the opposition Pakatan coalition had yet to prove to me that it had achieved a sufficient degree of political coherence to be able to rule, so too had Umno failed, and quite abjectly, to prove itself capable of reforming itself and so heading (as it now must) a genuinely centrist, reform-minded national government.

Both sides, I said, were failing, had failed.

They were yet to prove themselves capable of delivering the future that the nation now needs.

My column found both sides wanting.

And if either side or both thought I was wrong, or felt I had been unfair, then it was clear what they needed to do.

They had simply to prove me wrong.

That is, to do, and show that they had done, what I said still remained their unfinished business, their neglected challenges.

Pakatan had to lift its game. It would have to prove itself capable of fusing its secularists and Islamists, its multiculturalists and its Malay-minded career professionals and “aspirationalists”, its religious liberals and moderates with its new Islamic middle-class “pietists.”

Not easy, but it needs to be done.

Similarly, and no less difficult: if Umno did not like my conclusion, it had simply to move beyond its abstract and turgid talk about reform and its ungrounded claims of moderation and ethnic conciliation.

It must soon provide a national leadership and government that is prepared to “walk that talk” — and to live courageously with the consequences of that choice.

To do that it will have to forsake some of its venerable past and embrace a plausible and energising future, one that is both more adventurous and principled than all the habitual verities which has long invoked and served — and it must be prepared to do so explicitly, not by evasive dissimulation.

So my column was an endorsement of the politics of neither Pakatan Rakyat nor of the Umno-led BN.

It was a sombre statement about the limitations on both sides. It was a gloomy assessment of the prospects of both — and, either way, of the Malaysian nation under their stewardship.

It was a plea to both to recognise how dire the national political scene and immediate prospects have become — and to face up intelligently and responsibly to that challenge.

It was a call to both sides, or to only one of them (and it might be either of them, I had no favourite!) if the other was incapable of doing so, to prove me wrong.

My argument was not an endorsement, it was a warning.

It took the “logical form” of a “dilemma.”

I remember my university logic lecturer analysing such situations.

“If a certain condition or policy leads to a given outcome and if the pursuit of the opposite measure or policy leads to the same outcome, then that is the outcome that will result. No matter what you do, you get that outcome. So, in choosing what to do, you have only a choice of means, not of ends.

“That,” he continued, “is what you call a dilemma.”

“And if the outcome to which you are being delivered, like it or not, is an unwelcome, unpleasant and unbearable one, then what you are facing is a disaster.

“That is a really unpleasant kind of dilemma to be facing.”

That is what I was saying.

That if neither of the two main contending coalitions is capable of addressing the challenges that they face, then the nation’s prospects are a matter of concern, its fate a matter of real anxiety.

One may choose one side or the other, one coalition or the other. But in either case, it seems to me, the outlook is worrying.

Unless the rival coalitions find the will to do what they must, the ensuing result will be, in one form or another, a national political impasse.

Failure may take different forms, but any failure will be a national failure.

Malaysians are now heading, so it seems to me, towards an election where they must choose between an opposition that may not be ready to govern, and has yet to fashion its own basis for doing so, and a government that may no longer be able to govern, to lead from the centre, even to have the broadly-based authority to hold things together.

Why do I say such dire things?

Simply because that is how I now, most unhappily, see things.

I do not find it at all pleasant to see a country and people for whom I care greatly confronted by so dire and immediate a political predicament.

But that is how I see things, that is how I believe things now stand.

So, I say that pigs can fly, do I?

In the Malaysian case before us now, not really, not exactly — no matter what the media have reported and how they may have drawn upon and presented my views.

In many countries, including Australia and Malaysia, working journalists will often “cut corners”, trim a story to fit their needs, selectively “cut and paste” somebody’s words to fit and support their preferred “narrative.”

It’s a sad truth.

But scholars must go on analysing and writing about matters of public concern in their areas of established expertise.

And you cannot decide to remain silent on the grounds, or from a fear, that what you have to say may be misquoted.

To give in to that fear, to accept that limitation, is to be complicit in the silencing of intelligent commentary, analysis and public discussion.

No flourishing country can afford that.

My role in this area is that of a scholar and writer.

I am not a Malaysian citizen, not a “player” in the game of this country’s national politics.

But as a scholar I treat Malaysia as a “normal country”, in the same way that I deal with and treat any other country.

That is, I try honestly to understand, to analyse, to sympathise and at times also to probe areas from which others, unwisely in my view, may turn away their gaze.

And, when I reach what I consider a proper conclusion, I try to say what I think, as directly as I can.

I do so not to offend or provoke, not to scandalise, not to “play favourites” or offer personal endorsements to one side or another.

Some things simply need to be said.

And sometimes it takes a scholar, bystander, a somewhat detached but still committed friend to say what he thinks, to describe what he sees, to “call things” as he thinks they are, or may soon be.

So you still say that pigs can fly?

I think not.

No flying pigs here.

* Clive S. Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology & Anthropology at The University of New South Wales, Sydney.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

Stunt-man politicians — Ali Kadir

2012-06-04T05:30:37Z

JUNE 4 — “Actors” are running amok in Malaysia these days, with their mouths and actions.

First there was the sometimes DPM (sometimes because sometimes he behaves like the PM) Muhyiddin Yassin saying that that the skirmish at Bersih 3.0 was a precursor to violence by Pakatan Rakyat once they lose the elections.

Today, Information Minister Rais Yatim said that Anwar Ibrahim must behave like a gentleman and accept the election results and not riot, etc.

It is interesting till today Najib Razak has not given his word that the BN will leave Putrajaya peacefully if it loses the election. You know why he is silent? Because his party has already unleashed the troublemakers and they are called Perkasa, Pekida, the petty traders association and the Rempits.

In fact, not one senior Umno leader has said that they will accept the people’s verdict.

I am tickled that Muhyiddin and Rais (yes, Malaysians, this is the quality of our ministers) are reading from the same script. The script is aimed at creating the impression that the opposition and Bersih are troublemakers/spoilsports and that BN is confident of victory.

Let me tackle the notion that BN is confident of victory. Could this be the reason why till today the PM is dithering over the date of the polls and the de facto PM Mahathir Mohamad says that the government is weak?

I suppose fiddling with the electoral rolls is a sign of strength as is the use of thugs to disrupt opposition rallies as is the unprecedented use of government funds to buy support, pay cybertroopers.

I get the game being played by Muhyiddin and Rais. They expect some trouble if/when BN lose and they are laying the foundation to blame the opposition/Bersih.

But most Malaysians know the machinations of Umno/BN. We have lived with scoundrels for a long time.

* Ali Kadir reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

Hanif: No duplication with Suhakam probe

2012-06-04T13:21:05Z

KUALA LUMPUR: The independent advisory panel, tasked with probing the
alleged abuses during the April 28 Bersih 3.0 rally, said its investigation will not be a duplication of Suhakam’s inquiry into the same matter.

Panel head, former inspector- general of police Hanif Omar, said his team – unlike Suhakam – would look into a more “wider scope of things beyond human rights abuses.”

“Our job scope differs from Suhakam,” he told reporters today.

“They (Suhakam) are merely looking into human rights abuse whereas we are looking into 10 issues and are inquiring into a wider scope of things… there will be no duplication,” he added, after charing the panel’s second meeting.

Among others, the panel would investigate if there had been “random, widespread and wanton physical assault and brutality by the police” on the public and media during the rally.

The panel was also investigating if the police were unlawful in confiscating and destroying photographs and video recordings of the rally.

Hanif said the panel was looking at consulting foreign experts from the UK, US and Canada on aspects of managing a large assembly of people.

There had been much criticism with regard to the panel headed by Hanif. The Bar Council had snubbed this panel as it did not see the necessity of two investigations into the same issue.

Despite this, the council said that it was still open to meeting Hanif to discuss the matter.

Hanif said he hoped the Bar Council would meet him for the “good of the country” and would like to meet a representative from the council soon.

Police briefs panel

Meanwhile, Hanif said the police briefed the panel over the rally today, adding that the police had 43 video clips totalling 73 hours.

The panel watched 40 minutes of the clips consisting of political speeches made on days leading up to the rally and some clips on the day of the rally itself.

“We will not look at all the clips as some are just recordings of the same incidents from different angles,” said Hanif.

He added that there were some seditious remarks seen in today’s clips and that the panel had asked the police to provide more information on the matter.

Hanif also revealed that these speeches were not just taken in Kuala Lumpur but around the country as well.

Asked if the clips showed a rowdy crowd which destroyed public property, Hanif said he would reserve his comments on the matter for now.

Bukit Aman criminal investigation division deputy director Abdul Samah Mat had briefed the panel.

Hanif also said that two members of the six-member panel had pulled out today.

The two were former chief justice of Borneo Steve Shim Lip Kiong who pulled out for health reasons and Petronas corporate affairs senior general manager Medan Abdullah due to work commitments.

Hanif said it was up to the panel’s secretariat to announce their replacements soon.

He also encouraged any party including the public who had additional information or complaints to come forward.

They could contact the panel’s secretariat at 03-8886 8110/ 8886 8112, fax their information to 03- 8889 4836 or email bilikgerakan@moha.gov.my

The panel would again next Monday.

Lese majesty is no longer relevant in 21st century Malaysia

2012-06-04T01:51:35Z

Sharifuddin Abdul Latiff, President MCLM

The Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) is appalled by the punitive sentence passed on Chan Hon Keong for insulting the Sultan of Perak online three years ago. To single out one person from the thousands who went online to express their anger and outrage at Barisan Nasional’s shameful coup d’etat in Perak with the sultan’s apparent complicity, is most unjust.

Chan was charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, that is, improper use of network facilities or service. But his crime is one we would call lese majesty, that is, to insult the dignity of the ruler. For that, he was given the maximum sentence which is a one-year jail term and RM50,000 fine.

That being the case, Malaysia would be one of a small handful of countries in the world to recognise lese majesty as a crime. MCLM is very concerned about this on three counts:

First, that the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 has been used to stifle free speech. It is very obvious that Chan is being made an example of by the Barisan Nasional government to deter other Malaysians from expressing their criticisms online, not just of the Malay rulers but also Barisan Nasional.

Furthermore, none of the sycophantic BN-friendly mainstream news coverage on the sentencing had reported Chan’s actions in the context of the Perak crisis.

Second, we are also concerned about the selective use of lese majesty. In 2008, after the 12th General Election, there was a crisis in Terengganu when the Sultan of Terengganu, Tuanku Mizan, decided not to reappointed Idris Jusoh to a second term as Menteri Besar, and appointed Ahmad Said instead.

During the three-week crisis, Umno members were extremely disrespectful to the sultan, to the extent of displaying banners referring to Tuanku as “natang”, which is the Terengganu vernacular for “binatang” or animal. Despite the public uproar over this insult, there was no charge of lese majesty brought against the perpetrators of this insult.

Third, the recent amended Evidence Act which includes the proviso for “presumption of fact in publication” under section 114A represents a double jeapordy for online dissenting voices. A person may get maligned through impersonation and suffer the consequences of two overlapping legislations passed recently in parliament.

MCLM would like to state that lese majesty is an outdated crime that has no place in modern Malaysian society. Ours is a democracy derived from the aspirations of participatory politics, and no longer a feudal state of old. Rulers (and political leaders) must earn the respect of the rakyat by the way they conduct themselves and fulfil their responsibilities.

While the court of law had made its judgment (pending appeal), the court of public opinion will not remain silent especially if a donation initiative of RM1 per person to garner 50,000 supporters in solidarity with Chan gathers steam.

Media Statement by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang

2012-06-02T23:52:46Z

Real reason is because Mahathir is worried that the truth will be out about all the financial scandals during his 22-year premiership if Pakatan Rakyat forms national government in next polls

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has been more than his hyper-active self in the past fortnight, not only making preposterous statements about the political situation in the country but doing his utmost to rob off any possibility that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak might stick to his earlier timetable to hold the 13th General Election in June/July.

It was in the past two weeks that Mahathir:

· Made the wild and preposterous statement that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a “preparation” and “warm-up” by Pakatan Rakyat for violent demonstrations to reject the results of the 13th general election should the opposition fail to win it.

· Made another wild and preposterous statement when warning that the defeat of UMNO would be akin to the Malays losing power in their own country, when the coalition that would replace UMNO/Barisan Nasional would be Pakatan Rakyat comprising PKR, PAS and DAP;

· Returned again and again to the theme that because of the Abdullah premiership, the Najib government is still weak and not ready for the 13th General Election which he wants to be held off until after the fasting month which ends in August.

However, the real reason why Mahathir is so hyper-active in the past fortnight and making so many wild and preposterous statements is because the former Prime Minister is worried that the truth will be out about all the financial scandals during his 22-year premiership if Pakatan Rakyat forms the national government in next polls.

In a forum yesterday in Penang on the RM30 billion Bank Negara foreign exchange losses scandal 20 years ago, a former Bank Negara insider, former Bank Negara Deputy Governor Dr. Rosli Yaakop, stepped forward to throw some light on what was undoubtedly the biggest financial scandal in the nation’s history.

Rosli named four persons constituting the “forex scandal elite club masters” as responsible for the massive Bank Negara losses two decades ago – former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed, ex-finance minister Daim Zainuddin, ex-Bank Negara Governor, the late Jaffar Hussein and current Minister in Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Economic Planning Unit Government Nor Mohamed Yakcop.

Rosli told the forum Jaffar and Nor were the biggest culprits by going overboard in the forex speculation activities, which were against the very grain of central bank principles.

He said the duo speculated and they gambled recklessly and irresponsibly with no regard to the safety of Bank Negara’s assets.

Rosli accused Nor, who is the Tasek Gelugor MP, to have directly caused the forex losses as he was the man tasked to speculate, and ultimately gamble, Malaysian Ringgit against foreign currencies.

He said Nor, then Bank Negara advisor in charge of investment department, would use his computer and other staff computers to speculate and gamble in foreign exchange market.

This has led international forex players to believe that Bank Negara had many aggressive market traders.

“But truth is it was Nor Yakcop did it all.”

Rosli said the central bank ventured into speculative forex market in a big way during Daim’s tenure as finance minister.

“The order to go and make money in the forex market was from Daim with Dr Mahathir’s blessing,” Rosli disclosed, adding that Jaffar was their “Yes Man” Governor at that time.

In 1992, Bank Negara gambled on the British Pound. It bought the Pound long and George Soros, major player in forex market, short.

When the Pound was devalued, Bank Negara lost USD5.5 billion and George Soros gained USD1.7 billion.

Bank Negara then claimed it was only paper loss of RM9.3 billion.

Rosli said experts estimated Bank Negara’s exposure for having lost that much was USD27 to USD33 billion, which was five times more than its foreign reserves and its entire assets of USD20.7 billion in 1992.

I had estimated in Parliament two decades ago that Bank Negara lost a colossal RM30 billion. But Bank Negara claimed RM10.1 billion loss in 1992 and RM5.7 billion in 1993.

Rosli said yesterday that Bank Negara claims of losses were “schematically understated”, hidden through revaluation of BNM’s gold holding and revaluation of quoted investment.

Rosli mentioned that my call in Parliament at the time for a royal commission of inquiry into the Bank Negara in forex scandal was ignored as an open investigation would prove politically disastrous as the details of the scandal can be gruesome and cause damaging embarrassment because of the involvement of people high-up.

Rosli said certain people would have been in jail as criminal elements existed in the forex scandal. The criminal elements were negligence, overstepping of power, falsification of accounts, “creative accounting”, misinformation, breach of trust and corruption.

At the Penang forum yesterday, Rosli suggested that Pakatan Rakyat, if were to capture Putrajaya, should re-open investigation on the Bank Negara forex scandal of 1992.

I fully agree with Rosli. If Pakatan Rakyat forms the federal government in the next general election, there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the RM30 billion Bank Negara forex losses scandal in 1992, as well as into all the other financial scandals during Mahathir’s 22-year premiership.

Barry Wain, in his book “Malaysian Maverick”, estimates that Malaysia lost RM100 billion just in four financial scandals during Mahathir’s premiership.

But this is what Mahathir does not want and most afraid of.

Yestedray, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was sentenced to life imprisonment for complicity in the killing of protesters during last year's uprising.

I am not suggesting that Mahathir should face jail sentences for the financial scandals in his 22-year premiership but at minimum, Malaysians are entitled to know the truth about these financial scandals which would serve as painful national lessons to prevent their recurrence.

But clearly, this is what Mahathir would not want and would do his utmost to prevent, including outclassing himself in the wild and preposterous statements about Pakatan Rakyat in the run-up to the next general election.

ADDENDUM

One disaster to cover another disaster (part 1)

One disaster to cover another disaster (part 2)

One disaster to cover another disaster (part 3)

One disaster to cover another disaster (part 4)

One disaster to cover another disaster (part 5)