The Blog For The Professional

Demonstrations: A fundamental right of citizens

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:29:00 +0000

It would be an untruth if I said I was ever a fan of Datuk Seri Najib Razak. Be that as it may, I am sorry about his coming into office, unlike all his predecessors, weighed down by the heaviest baggage imaginable, stuffed up to the neck with allegations of impropriety that I’d rather not bore you with.

I will not enumerate them either as they are too many. Also it would be pointless to waste our time dwelling upon unproven allegations that should have been nipped in the bud before they got out of hand, but for some unexplained reason, Najib had allowed them to fester like tropical sores on his credibility and honour.

I, like many other Malaysians, want very much to keep an open mind. We earnestly hope that he will give serious consideration to confronting, in a court of law, those who have defamed and reviled him.

His studied indifference might be considered by some to be an appropriate response, but he is not helping his own cause. He is pandering to the insatiable appetite of the noisy rumour mongering, chattering classes.

People are not giving Najib the benefit of the doubt that he craves for. His moral legitimacy to govern is being seriously challenged because of his cavalier attitude to these extremely damning allegations.

I am not about to dispute his legitimacy to govern based on the mandate given to the Barisan Nasional by the people as part of the electoral process, but that, without an underpinning of high ethical standards of behaviour, renders a leader morally deficient.

Conventional wisdom has it that in the sticky situation he has found himself, the only recourse is for Najib to take those who have maligned him to court and clear his name, once and for all. People are asking “Why is he fighting shy of seeking justice in a court of law unless he has something to hide?” They have a point there.

For the sake of what is left of the country’s already battered reputation, and his own, he should clear his name sooner rather than later. Najib’s 1 Malaysia requires of him that he put the interest of the nation above his own.

We cannot have a prime minister who is not prepared to answer these serious allegations about his involvement in some seedy criminal activities, or those bordering on the criminal, and yet who expects us to embrace his yet hazy and unclear 1 Malaysia and to shower him with our trust and affection.

I know all these allegations may have no basis in fact and, therefore, all the more reason for Najib to let the criminal justice system be the arbiter of truth. Perceptions may not have any basis in fact, but they are real.

Najib wants so desperately to be loved, and to be well thought of. I see nothing wrong with that. It is just a silly bit of misplaced, self-serving egoism, a very human weakness most of us suffer from, but it is a harmless desire. However, there is everything wrong, if as rumours have it, public funds are being used to pay international and local spin doctors to bolster up his position.

Mahathir, when he was prime minister, so we are told, used public funds to have a meeting with President Bush arranged to boost his flagging international reputation. We expected this of Mahathir, a man of many contradictions with few scruples, but I should like to think that Najib is made of stronger and finer moral fibre, but then I could be wrong.

I am ecstatic, more than any one can imagine, by Najib’s strong rhetoric against corruption. I use the word “rhetoric” advisedly because while we have heard many populist pronouncements rolling off his smooth silvery tongue on a variety of issues, we are still waiting to see the colour of his money. Will he deliver as promised?

For someone who has been on the receiving end of countless allegations of perceived unethical public conduct relating to purchases of military assets during his watch as defence minister, he is right to want to distance himself from any further insinuation of impropriety.

Defence contracts are notoriously susceptible to corrupt practices the world over and because of this, people simply will not believe that a defence minister can be clean and pure as the driven snow, or be like Caesar’s wife, completely above suspicion especially when the procurement process is shrouded in secrecy and mystery, as ours is and has been for years.

For this, if not for any other reason, if I may be so bold as to advise Najib, he should order a complete review of the defence ministry’s procurement rules and procedures at once and bring them in line with best international public procurement practice.

The purpose of any procurement systems review is to ensure the highest degree of transparency. Without transparency, there is no accountability. Najib has a lot on his plate, and as they say, he has his work cut out for him, lucky him.

Minutes before writing this article, I had just finished reading, for the second time after a lapse of some years, F.W. De Klerk’s “The Last Trek – A New Beginning.” He was, of course the President of South Africa who dismantled apartheid and gave the people of that troubled nation a new democratic constitution which saw the once proscribed African National Congress in the seat of power after winning the general elections in 1994.

I mention all this because in spite of the fact that the Republic of South Africa had been under a state of emergency and under siege, De Klerk, in 1989, a few months before his inauguration as President, made a conscious political decision to legalise protest demonstrations that had been made illegal until then, much to the consternation of his security advisers. They thought it was madness on his part given the circumstances prevailing at the time. Why did he do what he did? Let him tell us in his own words:

“We were faced with the fact that it would be impossible to avoid the gathering of thousands of people committed to the march. The choice, therefore, was between breaking up an illegal march with all the attendant risks of violence and negative publicity, or of allowing the march to continue, subject to the conditions that could help to avoid violence and ensure good order. These were important considerations, but none of them was conclusive. The most important factor, which tipped the scale, was my conviction that the prohibition of powerful protests and demonstrations could not continue. Such an approach would be irreconcilable with the democratic transformation process that I was determined to launch and the principles of a state based on the rule of law, which I wanted to establish.”(Italics mine.)

In terms of the security and public order situation then obtaining in South Africa, and the situation in Malaysia today, where peaceful demonstrations are illegal, the two situations do not bear the remotest resemblance.

The justification trotted out with regular monotony by the government is so outrageously dishonest as to insult our intelligence. A government that sees a need to continue to impose an undemocratic law has no place in a parliamentary democracy. For F.W De Klerk, the man who worked himself out of a job, it was nothing more than “restoring what was regarded throughout the world as a basic democratic right.” (Emphasis mine)

Perhaps De Klerk’s most inspiring statement in defence of democratic principles is “…..no vision of the future can justify any government to ignore the basic human rights of the human beings involved. No cause is so great that we should allow it to dilute our sense of justice and humanity.” (Emphasis mine)

On that note, as our legal friends would say, I rest my case. Now over to our self-proclaimed reformist prime minister. (TMI)

What is Internal Security Act, 1960 (ISA)

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:45:00 +0000

INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, 1960 (Act 82) is an Act to provide for the internal security of Malaysia, preventive detention, the prevention of subversion, the suppression of organised violence against persons and property in specified areas of Malaysia, and for matters incidental thereto. [West Malaysia - 1st August. 1960; East Malaysia - 16th September 1963.]

“WHEREAS action has been taken and further action is threatened by a substantial body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia-

(1) To cause, and to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear, organized violence against persons and property; and

(2) To procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of the lawful Government of Malaysia by law established;

AND WHEREAS the action taken and threatened is prejudicial to the security of Malaysia;

AND WHEREAS Parliament considers it necessary to stop or prevent that action;”

1. WHAT IS ISA?

The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) is a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia.

Any person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which allegedly prejudices the security of the country.

After 60 days, one may be further detained for a period of two years each, to be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs, thus making indefinite detention without trial.

In 1989, the powers of the Minister under the legislation were made immune to judicial review by virtue of amendments to the Act. Now, only the courts are ‘allowed’ to examine and review technical matters pertaining to the ISA arrest.

2. WHEN DID THE ISA BECOME LAW?

The precursor to the ISA was the Emergency Ordinance 1948 -1960 promulgated by the British Colonial Regime to counter the then Communist Insurgency.

The ISA came into force on 1^st August 1960.

3. WHY WAS THE ISA INTRODUCED?

The Government of Malaya legislated the ISA as a continuation of the Emergency Ordinance 1948 to specifically deal with the threat of the Communist Insurgency.

When the ISA was introduced in 1960, solemn promises were made in Parliament by then prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, his deputy Tun Abdul Razak and the Minister of Home Affairs Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, that the law will be used judiciously and only against communists, terrorists and subversives.

The Communist Insurgency officially ended in 1989 with the signing of the Haadyai Peace Accord.

4. WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENT’S REASONS FOR RETAINING ISA AFTER THE PEACE ACCORD OF 1989?

No country can do without preventive detention laws to safeguard internal security.

Security and stability are pre-requisites to ensure economic prosperity. Laws like the ISA are indispensable tools for maintaining the racial, religious and social harmony.

Preventive laws like the ISA are needed to deal with the potential problems and conflicts in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural society.

The ISA is not only about preventive detention. It deals with such matters as ban on quasi-military organizations and subversive publications, restriction on the movement of undesirable persons and proclamation of security areas.

The ISA is needed in this age of cross-border terrorism to safeguard the sovereignty of the nation.

5. HOW MANY ARE IN DETENTION?

Since August 1960, 10,662 people have been arrested under the various preventive detention laws.

4,139 were detained under Internal Security Act.

2,066 were served with restriction orders governing their activities and where they live.

12 people were executed for offences under the ISA between 1984 and 1993.

As of July 2009, 13 people are still under detention.

6. WHO ARE THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED BY THE ISA DETENTIONS?

The spouses, children and close family members who are deprived of their loved ones and; often times the primary source of their household income.

The family members are faced with the social stigma, and in many cases are ostracised by relatives, neighbours, and friends.

The family members have also known to face ‘harassment’ from the authorities.

7. WHY THE ISA IS CONSIDERED A DRACONIAN LAW BY CIVIL SOCIETY?

The ISA is contrary to fundamental principles of international law, including the right to liberty of the person, to freedom from arbitrary arrest, to be informed of the reasons for arrest, to the presumption of innocence, and to a fair and open trial in a court of law.

The ISA goes against the right of a person to defend himself in an open and fair trial. The person can be incarcerated up to 60 days of interrogation without access to legal counsel.

A person detained under the ISA during the first 60 days is held incommunicado, with no access to the outside world.

Torture goes concurrently with ISA detention. Former detainees have testified to being subjected to severe physical and psychological torture. This may include one or more of the following: physical assault, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, round-the-clock interrogation, death threats, threats of bodily harm to family members, including threats of rape and bodily harm to their children.

Prolonged torture and deprivation have led to detainees signing state-manufactured ‘confessions’ under severe duress.

The Internal Security Act (ISA) remains the core of the permanent, arbitrary powers to detain without trial available to the Executive.

The ISA has been consistently used against people who criticise the government and defend human rights. The Act is an instrument maintained by the ruling government to control public life and civil society.

Since 1960 when the Act was enacted, thousands of people including trade unionists, student leaders, labour activists, political activists, religious groups, academicians, NGO activists have been arrested under the ISA. Many political activists in the past have been detained for more than a decade.

Beyond the violation of basic rights experienced by particular individuals, the ISA has had a wider, intimidating effect on civil society, and a marked influence on the nature of political participation and accountability in Malaysia.

The ISA has been used to suppress peaceful political, academic and social activities, and legitimate constructive criticism by NGOs and other social pressure groups. It limits the political space for important debates on issues of economic policy, corruption and other social challenges.

8. WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR ABOLISHING THE ISA?

The ISA permits the executive to detain any one it likes without a court trial, without any possibility of judicial review of the minister's decision and without any limits on how many two-year periods of detention may be ordered.

The ISA is a blatant violation of all international canons of rule of law, natural justice and due process.

Article 149 of the Constitution under which the ISA is enacted permits special legislation when subversive action has been taken or threatened "by any substantial body of persons". The use of the ISA to detain individual dissidents indulging in non-violent opposition to the Government in peace time is a violation of the letter and spirit of Article 149.

National sovereignty is a shield against foreign aggression but it cannot be used as a weapon against one's own people. There is a difference between national security and security of the government. The 1SA has often been used to safeguard the latter and not the former.

The overall effect of the ISA is that the executive is allowed to play the role of accuser, investigator as well as adjudicator. No government can allow one man to exercise such complete power over another's life and liberty.

9. HOW WILL THE NATION COUNTER THE THREAT OF CROSS-BORDER TERRORISM IF THE ISA IS ABOLISHED?

The Government can introduce an Anti-Terrorism Act specifically designed to counter cross-border terrorism. However due process must be incorporated in this legislation to ensure the rights of the individual.

10. WHY SHOULD I SUPPORT THE MOVEMENT TO ABOLISH THE ISA?

You, your family, your friends are not ‘safe or immune’ from detention under ISA.

A police officer with the rank of Inspector and above can arrest without a warrant and detain you for a period of 60 days with or without ‘good’ reasons for suspicion.

You need to defend your democratic right to freedom of speech, assembly and association as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

11. WHAT CAN I AS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN DO TO SUPPORT THE “NO2ISA” MOVEMENT?

Educate yourself first, then your family, friends and co-workers on the basics of the ISA.

Lobby your MPs and Aduns to pressure the Government to abolish ISA.

Join and contribute to initiatives organised by civil society groups to abolish ISA.

Prepared by: Anak Bangsa Malaysia

Teoh Beng Hock was still under custody when he died

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:45:00 +0000

The statement that he was released at 3.45am is utter bullshit. Teoh would not walk out of the MACC office at 3.45am without his hand phone or at least a receipt that the MACC had confiscated his hand phone. This is a requirement under the MACCA.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The MACC says that Teoh Beng Hock was released at 3.45am after a gruelling marathon interrogation session that lasted the whole night. But Teoh was not under arrest or even a suspect in a crime, says the MACC. He was merely a witness, and a very cooperative witness on top of that, claims the MACC.

If Teoh was merely a witness, as what they say, why was there a need to interrogate him throughout the night? Could not his interrogation have been done during normal working hours?

Even when under Internal Security Act (ISA) detention, the Special Branch is supposed to interrogate detainees during ‘office hours’. They are not allowed to interrogate detainees at night or outside ‘office hours’. And, in particular, detainees should not be subjected to marathon interrogation sessions or subjected to sleep depravation, a form of torture.

And these are ISA detainees, mind you, said to be ‘threats to national security’ and/or suspected ‘terrorists’. Yet there are certain rules to be observed. What more if one is merely a witness to a suspected crime, not even established yet whether a crime had or had not been committed?

But in Teoh’s case he was subjected to a marathon interrogation session and outside ‘office hours’ on top of that. He was subjected to sleep depravation. And he was not a detainee, he was not under arrest, and he was not a suspect in a crime, claims the MACC. He was merely a witness to a suspected crime, and a very cooperative witness too.

After Teoh’s statement was recorded he was released and allowed to go home at 3.45am, they say. He was supposed to return at 8.00am for the interrogation to continue. And he was supposed to go home and come back at 8.00am with some documents that the MACC required.

But Teoh decided instead to sleep on the sofa at the MACC office. At 6.00am he was alleged to have ‘disappeared’. He never returned at 8.00am for his interrogation to be continued. And the MACC never bothered to go look for their witness who had ‘absconded’. The pathologist says he died between 8.30-9.30am. But they never found his body until lunchtime.

Was Teoh released at 3.45am and allowed to go home, as what the MACC claims? Or was he still under custody right up to the time of his death around 8.30-9.30am?

Teoh was never released at 3.45am. He was still under custody right up to the time of his death at around 8.30-9.30am.

One very important point that many may have overlooked is that Teoh’s hand phone was not found on his body. His hand phone was still with the MACC. And the police confirmed this. And that hand phone is now with the police.

If Teoh had been released, his hand phone would have been in his pocket or beside his body (or on the sofa where he had slept). It would not have been in the ‘safekeeping’ of the MACC.

If the MACC had released Teoh at 3.45am but wanted to retain his hand phone then they would have had to issue a piece of paper listing down all Teoh’s property that was going to be retained for further investigation.

Assuming the MACC was going to retain Teoh’s hand phone then this paper would not only list down all the property to be retained but full details such as make, model, serial number, and so on.

In short, Teoh would walk out of the MACC office at 3.45am without his hand phone but with a piece of paper confirming whatever property the MACC was retaining for further investigation with full details of that property. And both Teoh and the MACC officer would have to sign this paper.

This provision comes under Section 33 of the MACCA.

And this is what the Act says:

Section 33(1): …any movable property which is the subject matter of an offence or evidence relating to the offence shall be liable to seizure.

Section 33(2): A list of all movable property seized pursuant to subsection (1) and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by the officer of the Commission affecting the seizure and signed by him.

Section 33(3): A copy of the list referred to in subsection (2) shall be served on the owner of such property or on the person from whom the property was seized as soon as possible.

In Teoh’s case, the list of moveable property seized under Section 33(1) of the MACCA was not issued nor served on him, which is a requirement under Section 33(2) and Section 33(3) of the MACCA. This confirms that Teoh was still under custody and was not released at 3.45am as claimed. If not, Teoh would have this paper on his body confirming that his hand phone had been retained by the MACC.

In short, Teoh died between 8.30am and 9.30am while still under the custody of the MACC. The statement that he was released at 3.45am is utter bullshit. Teoh would not walk out of the MACC office at 3.45am without his hand phone or at least a receipt that the MACC had confiscated his hand phone. This is a requirement under the MACCA. If not how would Teoh later prove that his hand phone was still with the MACC? He would need evidence of that.

Furthermore, what if they find incriminating evidence in his hand phone and Teoh later denies that it is his hand phone? The MACC would need to prove that they had confiscated Teoh’s hand phone to be able to use this evidence in court. And that would make the paper very crucial for both Teoh and the MACC. And both Teoh and the MACC would need to sign this paper for it to be valid.

The government wants to set up a Commission and Board of Inquiry to investigate Teoh’s death. The crucial question is: did Teoh die while still under custody or had he already been released by then? Our investigation shows Teoh was still under custody. And the absence of that piece of paper required under Section 33 of the MACCA proves it. Teoh’s hand phone was with the MACC when he died. If he had been released they would either return his hand phone or give him a receipt confirming they are retaining his hand phone. None were found on his body.

Courtesy of Malaysia today

NHB : Matlamat tidak menghalalkan cara

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:18:00 +0000

Malays who say “matlamat menghalalkan cara” (the ends justify the means) are munafiq Muslims. Malays who support and defend the ISA are munafiq Muslims. Munafiq Muslims are those who do not walk the talk. Munafiq Muslims are those who talk about Islam but do what Islam forbids.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

ISA dan oportunis politik
Ruhanie Ahmad

Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri atau ISA tidak menjadi isu jika tidak dipolitikkan oleh sesetengah pihak. Sebelum tragedi 9/11 Presiden George W. Bush pun pernah membidas ISA. Tetapi sesudah 9/11 dia kata ISA amat relevan untuk era terorisme.

Pada awal 1980-an Amnesty International membuat isu pasal ISA. Maka KDN jemput wakil Amnesty International melawat beberapa tahanan ISA di Kemunting. Sesudah itu NGO antarabangsa itu tidak lagi membangkitkan soal ISA.

Kali ini ada orang politik nak anjurkan perhimpunan besar-besaran pada 1 Ogos 2009 sebab hendak berarak ke Istana Negara untuk membantah ISA. Pada hari ini juga satu lagi NGO akan adakah perhimpunan di Kuala Lumpur untuk menyokong ISA dikekalkan.

Ini bermakna ada pihak membantah ISA dan ada satu lagi pihak menyokong ISA. Seperti saya pernah tulis dalam Utusan Malaysia kira-kira sebulan lalu, ISA perlu untuk keselamatan rakyat, keselamatan ekonomi dan keselamatan negara.

ISA cuma dijadikan isu oleh sesetengah oportunis politik yang meraih sokongan menerusi isu. Jika tidak ada isu kumpulan ini akan layu tanpa sokongan.

Kumpulan ini silap jika mereka nak berarak ke Istana Negara sebab ISA. Mereka nak tnnjuk kekuatan kononnya mereka disokong oleh rakyat. Mereka tidak sedar bahawa antara silent majoriti pun ramai yang sokong ISA.

Jika mereka tak percaya, teruskanlah perarakan pada 1 Ogos depan dan lihat berapa ramai rakyat yang akan bersama pihak yang menyokong ISA yang juga akan berhimpun pada hari berkenaan.

Apa yang membimbangkan ialah kemungkinan adanya golongan provokator di kalangan pembangkang untuk menimbulkan huru-hara dan kemudiannya ditudingkan kepada pihak pemerintah.

Kumpulan provokator ini juga mungkin akan dikirimkan menggangu perhimpunan pihak penyokong ISA. Bayangkan apa akan jadi jika huru-hara tercetus.

Seelok-eloknya, batalkan cadangan perarakan pada 1 Ogos depan supaya pihak penyokong ISA juga akan membatalkan rancangan mereka. Ini elok kerana kerajaan pun sudah bercadang untuk meminda ISA.

Jika kita benar-benar prihatin hantarkanlah memorandum kepada kerajaan supaya diberikan pertimbangan dalam pindaan yang dicadang akan dilakukan. Jika pemerintah tidak memberikan reaksi, jadikanlah ISA sebagai manifesto dalam PRU13.

Cara ini lebih budiman dan berhemah. Lagi pun ISA bukannya undang-undang yang buruk. Ianya hanya diberikan imej yang buruk oleh pihak-pihak yang mempunyai buruk sangka terhadap pemerintah.

Secara peribadi saya syakki adanya pihak-pihak tertentu yang kini sengaja nak menghangatkan isu ISA untuk melencongkan pandangan rakyat daripada isu-isu politik yang lebih explosive dan controversial membabitkan sesetengah pemimpin pembangkang.

Jangan korbankan keselamatan negara dan keselamatan rakyat demi masalah peribadi yang sedang membelenggu diri seseorang.

http://kuda-kepang.blogspot.com/2009/07/isa-dan-oportunis-politik.html

*************************************************

It is so tiring having to write about the same old issue over and over again. I have written about this so many times I thought I can stop writing about it by now. Apparently they will not allow me to stop. They keep raising the same issue, which I have already addressed. And they keep raising the same arguments, which I have already replied to.

It looks like I will have to, again, argue my case. And I sincerely hope this will be the last time I will have to do this but I doubt it. On 1 August 2009, PEKIDA is going to organise a pro-ISA demonstration so I suspect the issue will be very much alive for some time to come.

Yesterday, Tan Sri Sanusi Junid wrote about the Internal Security Act in his Blog (http://sanusijunid.blogspot.com/2009/07/internal-security-act-isa.html). Above is a posting by Ruhanie Ahmad, which I lifted from his Blog. I don’t think I need to explain who Sanusi and Ruhani are.

It appears that the ISA issue can be easily compartmentalised into two categories -- those who support the ISA and those who oppose it. Those who support it are the pro-government supporters while those who oppose it are the pro-opposition supporters. Simply put, pro-government means pro-ISA and anti-ISA means pro-opposition.

Those who support the ISA say it is necessary to have a detention without trial law for the sake of national security and they accuse those who oppose the ISA as political opportunists who oppose the ISA for political mileage.

They make the issue sound so simple and they try to explain it exactly that way, in very simple ‘logic’. Well, allow me to also use simple logic to explain the issue the way I normally do.

Let’s paint a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say Parliament passes a new law that says all Malaysians have to choose whether they want to be a Malay or a Muslim. The new law says you can’t be both. You can’t be both Malay and Muslim. You must choose one or the other. If you choose to be a Malay then you can’t be a Muslim, and vice versa.

So all 15 million Malays have to submit their declarations. On this document they have state whether they want to be Malay or Muslim. If they mark ‘Malay’, they will no longer be Muslim. And if they mark ‘Muslim’ then they will no longer be Malay.

You can bet that 99% of Malays would mark ‘Muslim’. They will choose to be Muslim over being Malay. Being a Muslim means you automatically get to go to heaven even if you are so evil you send shivers down the spine of the devil. Being a Malay who is no longer a Muslim means you automatically go to hell.

That, simply put, is the Malay psyche.

A Malay would never in a million years dare reject Prophet Muhammad or the Quran. Doing so would mean his or her soul would be condemned for eternity. They will kill or die in defence of Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. Life is cheap if it is lost in the defence of the dignity of Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. Your life is even cheaper if they need to kill you as punishment for insulting Prophet Muhammad or the Quran.

That is the Malay psyche.

Nevertheless, while these people will swear they choose Islam over all else and are prepared to kill and die for the sake of Islam, they will also be the last person on earth to adhere to Islamic teachings.

Islam abhors injustice. Islam forbids detention without trial. Islam is opposed to the ISA. But these Umno people want the ISA to be retained in spite of the fact that this detention without trial law violates Islamic teachings.

Tell me what I should do about such people. Tell me I am going overboard by criticising Malays. Tell me I being unfair in my comments about the Malays.

No, don’t tell me anything. Let me instead tell you. The ISA violates Islam and those who defend the ISA are defending a haram law. And let me repeat what I have said so many times before. Malays who say “matlamat menghalalkan cara” (the ends justify the means) are munafiq Muslims. Malays who support and defend the ISA are munafiq Muslims. Munafiq Muslims are those who do not walk the talk. Munafiq Muslims are those who talk about Islam but do what Islam forbids.

Courtesy Of MalaysiaToday

NHB : There is many a truth in the parody

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:45:00 +0000

So the heat was on. Friday was the dateline. They wanted Tan Sri Khalid and his team arrested that same day. And they would have to use force if necessary to get Teoh to say what the MACC wanted him to say to meet this dateline.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Some of you may think that the MACC Downfall Parody video is in bad taste. I mean, how can we make fun of Teoh Beng Hock’s death when we should instead be mourning him? Yes, it was a hard decision to make as to whether to publish that video or not. But we decided to do it anyway not with intent to make fun of Teoh’s death but to reveal the real circumstances behind his death. And the video best describes the events behind what really happened.

Many months ago, soon after Perak fell, Malaysia Today had revealed the plan to bring down the Pakatan Rakyat state governments of Selangor, Penang and Kedah. Unfortunately, instead of taking corrective measures by strengthening their defences against the onslaught, Pakatan Rakyat became embroiled in inter-party and intra-party bickering. And most of the bickering was about petty and personal issues involving personalities and egos.

Perak was supposed to be the beginning. Selangor, Penang and Kedah were supposed to follow suit. In time, all the states under Pakatan Rakyat, save Kelantan, would be back in the hands of Barisan Nasional.

The Selangor plan was simple. The Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, and a few of the Selangor State EXCO Members would be arrested for corruption. They would be held a day or so in the lockup and then dragged to court to be charged. The trial would be speedy so that their resignations or disqualifications would come fast. And that would be the end of the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government.

The modus operandi would be the same as what they did to Anwar Ibrahim in 1998. One need not actually receive money or benefit financially for it to be regarded as corruption. Even if your office is used in what could be perceived as an abuse of power or you personally instruct someone to ‘do something’ -- even if it does not involve money or financial gain -- that too would be considered corruption and you can be sent to jail.

So the MACC was instructed to build a case against various people in the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government, from the Menteri Besar down to his team of EXCO Members. And to implicate these people in corruption the junior officers would be hauled in and forced to make statements that their bosses instructed them to ‘do certain things’. This would be the ‘evidence’ they use to arrest and charge the Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

We must remember, Anwar Ibrahim was arrested, charged, put on trial, pronounced guilty, and sent to jail for six years in exactly the same manner. All they needed to do was to get the Special Branch to ‘reveal’ that Anwar had instructed them to ‘interfere’ in a police investigation. And that was strong enough evidence to send Anwar to jail.

This whole thing came out in Anwar’s trial back in 1998 although many did not understand the implications at that time. The Special Branch officers testified that Anwar had summoned them to his office. And in Anwar’s office they engaged in a conversation. And the conversation involved Anwar asking the Special Branch to help force the witness, Azizan Abu Bakar, to retract his allegation of sodomy.

Azmin Ali, Anwar’s political secretary at that time, testified that Anwar did not summon the Special Branch officers to his office. They had in fact come to Anwar’s office with a request to meet Anwar. Azmin told them that Anwar is busy and would not be able to meet them. But they told Azmin it is important that they meet Anwar and insisted that they be allowed to meet him.

And when they met Anwar they tried to persuade him to give them permission to arrest Azizan so that they could interrogate him and find out who are the ‘forces’ behind the allegation of sodomy. But Anwar was reluctant to allow them to do that and told them he would have to think about it first.

Anwar then went to meet Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to seek his advice. Mahathir advised Anwar to just ignore the allegation. Mahathir said if he acted on every allegation made against him he would have no time to do any other work.

The Special Branch officers came to meet Anwar again and Anwar told them what Mahathir had said. The Special Branch officers, however, insisted that Anwar allow them to arrest Azizan. This matter involves national security, they said. It is not about Anwar. It is about ‘certain forces’ plotting the downfall of the Deputy Prime Minister and it is important that the police find out who they are for the sake of the nation’s security.

Finally Anwar had no choice but to say yes.

The issue is simple. Did Anwar summon the Special Branch officers to his office or was it they who came to see Anwar? And was it Anwar who wanted them to arrest Azizan or was it the Special Branch who sought permission to arrest Azizan?

Anwar and Azmin said it was the Special Branch officers who came to Anwar’s office and it was they who insisted that they meet Anwar. Anwar did not summon them to his office. And Anwar did not agree for them to arrest Azizan. It was the Special Branch that insisted Anwar allow them to arrest Azizan. But before they could do that Anwar would first have to make a police report.

The court accepted the Special Branch’s version of the story rather than Anwar’s and Azmin’s although during the trial the Special Branch officers testified that they were prepared to lie while on the stand if ordered to do so. Nevertheless, Anwar was found guilty and was sent to jail.

So it is not difficult to send someone to jail for corruption. All you need to do is to get someone to testify that someone instructed him or her to ‘do something’. And if that ‘something’ is considered an abuse of power then you go to jail.

The MACC wanted Teoh to say that he too was ordered to ‘do something’ by those in the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government. If he says that then the MACC would have a case against the Pakatan Rakyat leaders. And they wanted the whole thing done fast. It must be settled by Friday because that was the day they wanted to arrest Tan Sri Khalid and a few of his EXCO Members.

So the heat was on. Friday was the dateline. They wanted Tan Sri Khalid and his team arrested that same day. And they would have to use force if necessary to get Teoh to say what the MACC wanted him to say to meet this dateline.

And in their eagerness to get Teoh to talk they killed him. So the crucial witness was now dead. And they could not arrest Tan Sri Khalid and his team of EXCO Members on Friday as planned after all.

So it is back to the drawing board. They will now need new ‘witnesses’. Other junior officers in the Pakatan Rakyat state government would need to be hauled in as ‘witnesses’ and would have to be made to testify under force that they had been instructed to ‘do certain things’ by ‘certain people’. Then these ‘certain people’ can be arrested and charged for corruption. And only then will the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government fall as planned.

Yes, watch the MACC Downfall Parody video again. There is many a truth in that parody. The video may appear funny. It may look like it is meant as a joke. But it is not at all humorous in what they did to Teoh in their effort to bring down the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government.

Courtesy Of MalaysiaToday

A tribute to the 1st man on the moon after 40 years on

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:43:00 +0000

Forty years ago on July 20, 1969, American astronaut Neil Armstrong realized the oldest dream of human civilizations when he became the first man to walk on the moon.

As an estimated 500 million people around the world waited with bated breath and crowded around fuzzy television screens and radios, Armstrong stepped down the lunar module's ladder and onto the lunar surface.

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," Armstrong intoned, his words slightly distorted by distance and communications equipment, in a phrase now etched forever into the history books.

The excited crowds burst into cheers as he was joined by fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin who described the "magnificent desolation" of the lunar landscape, never before witnessed in close up on Earth.

Only 12 earthlings have walked on the surface of the moon, the Earth's lone mysterious satellite, which has fuelled our dreams and imaginations since the earliest humans walked the planet.

And the last moonwalk was already more than a generation ago in 1972.

But at the height of the Cold War, the Apollo program succeeded in proving America's dominance in the space race. Planting an American flag on the surface of the moon in 1969 scored major morale-boosting points over the Soviet Union.

The Apollo program, which led to six successful moon landings between 1969 and 1972, had begun eight years earlier in 1961 when then president John F. Kennedy threw down a bold challenge to Congress to put a man on the moon within the decade.

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth," Kennedy said.

The decision to shoot for the moon was above all a political one, said John Logsdon, curator and expert at the National Air and Space Museum.

The Soviet Union had been the first nation to put a satellite into orbit in 1957, with the launch of the Sputnik, and in 1961 Yuri Gagarin became the first man to fly in space.

"The Soviet Union had defined space achievement the measure of power and desirability of a modern society and President Kennedy decided that leaving a dramatic space achievement only to the USSR was not in the US interest," Logsdon told AFP.

The space race became symbolic of the Cold War battle for dominance between competing ideologies and polarized world powers.

In 1970 just months after the lunar landings, Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov in an open letter to the Kremlin wrote that America's ability to put a man on the moon proved the superiority of a democracy.

"NASA had been studying a mission to the moon prior to Kennedy's decision and had concluded that there was no major technological barrier," Logsdon said.

"On the other hand, there was little experience in building the kind of large and complex systems required to carry out the mission."

Thanks to America's growing prosperity and their scientific and technical achievements, the US swiftly put into motion the Apollo program. In 1969 it was estimated at some 25 billion dollars -- about 115 billion at today's value, or more than six times NASA's current budget.

But the Apollo program hit some setbacks. In 1967, three astronauts were killed in an accident on the ground.

Then in December 1968 Apollo 8 blasted off, and America's first manned flight around the moon took place.

Six months later it was followed by Apollo 10, a lunar reconnaissance trip with three astronauts on board.

Then on July 16, 1969, Armstrong, the mission commander, Aldrin and Mike Collins settled themselves into the orbiting command module Columbia on the Apollo 11, which was taken up into space perched on the Saturn V rocket.

The huge rocket, towering some 111 meters (330 feet) high, lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center at 9:32 am (1332 GMT).

Four days later, Armstrong manually maneuvered the lunar module, dubbed "Eagle," to land on the moon's Sea of Tranquility.

"Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed," he told mission control in Houston, Texas.

At 22:50 pm (0250 GMT), the 38-year-old Armstrong left the module and stepped down a short ladder. With a small leap, he landed on the moon's surface at 22:56pm and 48 seconds (0256 GMT).

Twenty minutes later he was joined by the 39-year-old Aldrin.

Together they spent 21 hours on the moon's surface, planting the American Stars and Stripes and a steel plaque bearing a message of peace.

They collected some 21 kilos (43 pounds) of rocks and then returned to Columbia where Collins was awaiting them for a triumphal return to Earth.

They landed back on July 24, ditching into the Pacific Ocean.

AFP

NHB : DID I NOT TELL YOU?

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:43:00 +0000

The Chinese call these people running dogs. I would not call them that though. I think it is not right to call them running dogs. I love dogs. I think dogs are lovely creatures. Why should we honour these 13 non-Malay members of Barisan Nasional by calling them running dogs?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Umno papers slam MACC critics in Teoh’s death
The Malaysian Insider, 19 July 2009

Umno-controlled newspapers, Berita Harian and Mingguan Malaysia, today slammed critics for demonising the country’s graft-busters over Teoh Beng Hock’s death, with one suggesting there is an agenda to weaken Malay-controlled institutions.

Both newspapers accused the opposition of politicising the political secretary’s death on July 16, with Mingguan saying the federal opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) was using the incident to divert attention away from internal problems and weaknesses.

But Berita Harian suggested the agenda was to weaken Malay-controlled institutions in the article, “Kematian Teoh timbulkan pelbagai spekulasi politik”, written by the New Straits Times group managing editor Zainul Ariffin Isa.

He wrote that political opportunism can turn grief into political capital, and death can be made a catalyst to stoke anger and racial sentiments.

“It is not just the Chinese or supporters of the Pakatan Rakyat who know anger and seek justice.

“Suspicions have been raised especially among the non-Malays that MACC, which like other departments have many Malay officers, selectively chose non-Malays to be investigated,” he wrote.

The new boss of the Umno-owned New Straits Times group did not, however, address complaints raised by two DAP men who were also, like Teoh, brought in for questioning.

The two DAP men, one a Chinese and the other a mixed Malay-Chinese, claimed racial insults were hurled at them by the MACC officers.

Like Teoh, both men were not suspects, but “witnesses,” according to MACC officers.

So far, leaders of the PR alliance, led by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, have not referred to race in their statements demanding the MACC be held responsible for Teoh’s death.

Zainul appeared to suggest that Teoh’s death was an accident and that the MACC officer involved was Malay when he wrote in Berita Harian that “when a victim of an accident was non-Malay, who was previously investigated by a Malay, the speculation is great.”

By suggesting anti-Malay sentiment in Teoh’s death, he also appeared to suggest that government departments were Malay-based institutions rather than a non-partisan civil service.

“Why did the Selangor MB, a Malay, question those of his own race to act fairly?” Zainul wrote.

Mingguan Malaysia, which is also owned by Umno, also attacked the PR alliance for politicising the death.

The newspaper said the controversy could not be resolved through demonstrations or wild accusations.

Mingguan suggested instead that the opposition was using Teoh’s death to distract attention from its own problems.

*************************************************

I have tried to explain this in the past but it has fallen on deaf ears. Some even think I may be seeing ghosts in the shadows. But I have attended enough Umno gatherings in my lifetime and have enough Umno friends in high places to know what I am talking about. Nevertheless, most of those who disagree with my views are those who comment from the comfort and safety of their homes and offices and would most likely not be at the Kelana Jaya stadium today. This means, basically, they do not really have their ears to the ground and comment without the benefit of having their fingers on the pulse.

Let me put this to you in plain words and as clearly as I can. Umno considers the government machinery as a Malay vehicle. The government machinery -- whether it be the Election Commission (SPR), police, the anti-corruption agency (MACC), the Information Ministry (that controls the mainstream media and radio and television stations), institutions of learning (from kindergartens right up to universities), etc. -- are there to serve Malay interests. And make no mistake about this.

There is a government propaganda outfit called Biro Tata Negara (BTN) whose job is to conduct courses and deliver lectures around the clock to government officers and students before and after they enter university. BTN’s main focus is to indoctrinate Malays with the idea that Malaysia is a Malay country. The Chinese, Indians and ‘others’ are immigrants. After allowing them citizenship status these Chinese, Indians and ‘others’ now demonstrate ingratitude and start demanding all sorts of unreasonable things such as equal rights -- forgetting that they are mere guests in this country and are therefore second-class and not first-class citizens.

The army is Malay. The police is Malay. The universities and all institutions of higher learning are Malay. In fact, you name it and it is Malay. There are no two ways about it. And if the Chinese, Indians and ‘others’ refuse to accept this then they should leave this country and go back to the country where they originally came from -- be it China, India, or wherever.

Okay, you may argue that today’s Chinese, Indians and ‘others’ were all born in Malaysia. None were born in China, India, or wherever. Their grandparents or great grandparents may have been born in China, India, or wherever. But almost all the Chinese, Indians and ‘others’ were born here in Malaysia. So that automatically makes them citizens and not immigrants although they may be descendants of immigrants.

I mean, every single US citizen (other than the native Indian) is a descendant of immigrants even if they themselves may have been born in the US and did not migrate to America. So, grandchildren or great grandchildren of immigrants are not called immigrants but are called US citizens. And all US citizens are regarded equal. No US citizen has more rights than another US citizens based on which country his or her forefathers came from.

But that is in the US. That does not apply to Malaysia. In Malaysia, the descendants of the immigrants who came from one of the Indonesian islands have more rights than the descendants of the immigrants who came from China, India or any territory that is not part of the Indonesian islands. That is how it works in Malaysia.

And the Malays are constantly reminded about this. And all those descendants of immigrants not from one of the Indonesian islands will also be constantly reminded that they are guests in this country, do not have equal rights, and are classified as second-class citizens akin to an immigrant.

And that is why Chinese, Indians and ‘others’ are treated more brutally when arrested or detained. They not only suffer verbal abuse and racial slurs but will be physically abused as well. And that is why the death under detention rate for those who are not descendants of immigrants from one of the Indonesian islands is very high. Most, however, die ‘sudden deaths’ or collapse and die for no apparent reason other than medically related ‘natural causes’.

Let me make it clear, again. The Malaysian government is a Malay government. The government’s job is to serve the Malays and protect Malay interests. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said so in case anyone may have forgotten this. And this will remain so as long as Barisan Nasional stays in office. Umno has promised the people this.

And any Malay who wants to change this arrangement is a traitor to his race. His or her citizenship should be withdrawn and he or she should be expelled from the country. This, Umno has made very clear more than once.

The descendants of immigrants from China, India or any territory not within the Indonesian islands have no problem with this though. They accept the fact that they are second-class citizens under the classification of pendatang. And that is why they are members of Barisan Nasional. And the job of these 13 non-Malay members of Barisan Nasional is to ensure that Umno stays in power although Umno has less than half the seats in Parliament. On its own Umno is out of office. With the 13 other non-Malay members giving Umno the mandate it can stay in office.

The Chinese call these people running dogs. I would not call them that though. I think it is not right to call them running dogs. I love dogs. I think dogs are lovely creatures. Why should we honour these 13 non-Malay members of Barisan Nasional by calling them running dogs?

Courtesy Of Malaysia Today

NHB : Mustapha Hussain: Malay Nationalism Before UMNO

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:18:00 +0000

THE MEMOIRS OF MUSTAPHA HUSSAIN, 1910-1957

Politically isolated as leftwing, Mustapha and his KMM compatriots were initially opposed to UMNO, but when all political channels were closed with the outbreak of the communist insurgency in 1948, many of them joined UMNO.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Acknowledgements

This abridged and edited translation of Mustapha Hussein’s memoirs will appear two decades after his passing. This would not have been possible if not for the initial translation effort by his devoted daughter, Insun Sony.

I have edited this translation very heavily, partly to reduce redundancies, and also to make clearer some historical and cultural references that may not be immediately obvious to many English language readers. Clarissa Koh kindly checked this edited translation. If not for Insun’s initiative and Clarissa’s voluntary efforts, this translation would not have been prepared for publication.

Jomo K. S.
University of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur
October 2003

Foreword

Mustapha Hussein’s memoirs present an interesting insight into a sharp, sensitive mind who turned to ethno-nationalism and later struggled for moral integrity, justice and recognition.

Perak-born Mustapha, a cousin of the first President of Singapore, Yusof Ishak, was an armchair, pipe-smoking, leftwing intellectual who taught at the Serdang Agricultural College before the war, but who fell on hard times after the war.

He loved to ride a fast motorcycle. He was an avid reader and a member of the (British) Left Book Club. He might have gone through life as a happy-go-lucky fellow if he had not been discriminated against in the colonial civil service by white Europeans.

Life for him would have remained idyllic, being almost the equal of an Englishman, teaching, reading and doing research, and ‘dressing and behaving like a white man’ on pay-days. But racial discrimination made him a bitter diehard Malay nationalist. Nationalist anger consumed his soul.

He owed his English education to his father, a land surveyor. His socialism he attributed to a few European teachers and to books by Gandhi, Nehru, Edgar Snow and other leftwing writers.

He married Mariah binti Haji Abdul Hamid (formerly Dorothy Aida Fenner) in 1934. She was only 14, he 25. Once the children came, he was anxious to further his (academic) career, but the lack of job promotions unsettled him.

He joined other young disillusioned Malay College graduates like Ishak Haji Muhammad and Ibrahim Yaacob, all angry young men like him imbued with nationalist ideals, to form the Young Malay Union (Kesatuan Melayu Muda) in 1938. He became its vice-president.

“KMM was founded by a group of radical left nationalists in their twenties. Influenced by world history in general, and political events in Turkey in particular, they desired a political body similar to the Young Turks,” he recalls. “One bone of contention was (the) British policy of allowing tens of thousands of ‘others’ into Malaya.”

But he little realized what trouble the KMM would get him into. For, without consulting him or the other KMM leaders, its president Ibrahim Yaacob had contacted the Japanese through their Consul-General in Singapore, Ken Tsurumi. For large sums of money, Ibrahim committed KMM members to serve as espionage agents and guides to assist an invading Japanese army in Malaya.

The Japanese Army attacked Kota Bharu in December 1941. British military intelligence belatedly intercepted a Japanese radio broadcast which announced that a Malay fifth column organization KAME (meaning ‘tortoise’ in Japanese) would assist the invading Japanese Army.

The name sounded too similar to the KMM. Without wasting any time, the British police rounded up over 100 KMM leaders and members in all parts of the country, including Ibrahim Yaacob and Ishak Haji Muhammad, who were detained and sent to Changi Jail in Singapore.

Mustapha, however, was in the Kuala Lumpur Hospital for treatment of a nervous disorder. Unaware that there was a warrant of arrest for him, he had discharged himself, gone back to the Agricultural College to collect his belongings, and left with his family for his father’s village in Matang, Perak, to recuperate. Three days later, the war began.

After the fall of Taiping, Japanese troops, accompanied by KMM members, entered his village looking for him. They asked him to come with them. “I was ‘invited’ to attend a crucial meeting in Taiping, after which I would be sent back to Matang (but this turned out to be false),” says Mustapha.

“How could I say no. I remember a Malay adage: jika tiada senapang, lebih baik beri jalan lapang, or ‘if one has no guns, it is best to give way.’ I tried to explain my legs were weak from a nervous disorder but a Japanese officer snapped, ‘Never mind! Four Japanese soldiers can carry you on a chair!’”

Thus, Mustapha’s forced collaboration with the Japanese began. Once he realized that he had no alternative, he began to cooperate. He used his influence with the Japanese to help family, friends, and any Malay in trouble, including captured Malay soldiers who had fought on the British side. This was what he did all along the way down to Singapore where the Japanese troops took him.

Mustapha’s candid memoirs confirm why memory of the war in multi-racial Malaya is so ethnically divisive and sensitive. Recalling Malay wartime roles and experiences tries to play down what he calls ‘collaboration’, conscious of the Japanese atrocities and massacres of the Chinese community or the role of anti-Japanese Chinese guerrillas.

Even before his death in 1987, his memories had been badly scarred by his deep sense of anguish, disillusionment, shame and betrayal brought on by the nightmare of ‘collaboration’.

With no reconciliation between him and Ibrahim Yaacob when the latter returned to Malaysia for a brief visit before his death in Jakarta in 1979, Mustapha did not forget or forgive the ‘wrongs’ done to him and others.

Mustapha, Ishak Haji Muhammad and others accused Ibrahim of not only abdicating his leadership and abandoning his supporters, but also of betraying their struggle in Indonesia for his own self-interest. In Mustapha’s memoirs, he appears as a Machiavellian manipulator, a grasping, corrupt, self-seeking, egocentric personality.

In exile in Indonesia, he became a supporter of President Sukarno, got involved in Indonesian politics, and later amassed a great fortune as a banker. When he died in 1979, he was honoured by Indonesia with burial in the Heroes’ Cemetery in Kalibata.

During the period of Indonesia’s konfrontasi against Malaysia, the UMNO newspaper Malaya Merdeka, of March 1963, described him as a “Malay coward and traitor who managed to fool many Indonesian leaders.”

Unlike Ibrahim who escaped to Indonesia, Mustapha was arrested and detained twice by the British authorities on charges of collaboration with the Japanese. He was only released after petitions were made to the British authorities by former members of the Malay Regiment, whose lives he had saved from the Japanese.

Because of the trauma he went through at the end of the war, Mustapha suffered a nervous breakdown. He endured poverty and ostracism. He was not re-employed into the civil service. To fend for himself and his family, he worked as a farmer, a fruit seller, a noodles hawker, a printer and an insurance agent.

His struggles to defend himself and clear his name engaged much of the rest of his life. Before his death, he was conferred a state award by the Sultan of Perak and received some monetary compensation in lieu of his pension from the Government, due to the intervention of a former Federal Minister.

A heavy tinge of bitterness, therefore, colours much of his memoirs.

Politically isolated as leftwing, Mustapha and his KMM compatriots were initially opposed to UMNO, but when all political channels were closed with the outbreak of the communist insurgency in 1948, many of them joined UMNO.

In what seems like a remarkable political comeback in 1951, his name resurfaced in the crisis-ridden UMNO General Assembly after Datuk Onn Jaafar had resigned as president on the grounds of the party’s refusal to open its doors to non-Malays.

Mustapha’s standing was so strong that he was nominated to stand against Tunku Abdul Rahman and Datuk (later Tun) Abdul Razak for the posts of UMNO president and deputy president respectively. But he lost to both these rivals by one vote each time.

These were contests he entered to please his old leftwing compatriots who were keen to capture UMNO. His energies were almost spent. Even had he won, Mustapha would not have lasted long in his post, given his state of health.

These memoirs make enthralling reading and were dutifully compiled and completed by his daughter Insun after his death on 15 January 1987. Throughout the memoirs, Mustapha’s voice cries out incessantly for justice and for recognition as a Malay nationalist.

In 1974, he had narrated his political struggles to a predominantly student audience at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, then in Kuala Lumpur. The encounter was an emotional experience for both Mustapha and the audience.

“I cried along with them as memories of my bitter and gruelling experiences came flooding back,” he recalls. “Involved in World War II as a Malay Fifth Columnist leader; detained in several Police lock-ups and prisons; taunted and jeered by Malays who saw me hawking food on the roadside; humiliated by people who slammed their doors in my face; asked to leave my rented cubicle in the middle of the night and even labelled as the Malay who ‘brought’ the Japanese into Malaya."

“I left them with a tremendous sense of mental and emotional fulfilment. I had sown in these educated young souls the urge to struggle for justice.”

In writing these memoirs, Mustapha was clearly able to release and assuage the cries of his own tormented soul for justice and recognition.

Cheah Boon Kheng

Translated by Insun Mustapha
Edited by Jomo K. S.

Publisher: Utusan Publications & Distributors Sdn Bhd
No. 1 & 3, Jalan 3/91A, Taman Shamelin Perkasa, Cheras, 56100 Kuala Lumpur. Tel: 03-9285 6577

Foreign Distributor: Singapore University Press Pte Ltd

Mybooks.com.my
Price: RM50.00

Courtesy Of Malaysia Today

The Real Uighur Story of Xinjiang

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:18:00 +0000

When the Chinese government, with the comfort of hindsight, looks back on its handling of the unrest in Urumqi and East Turkestan this week, it will most likely tell the world with great satisfaction that it acted in the interests of maintaining stability.

What officials in Beijing and Urumqi will most likely forget to tell the world is the reason why thousands of Uighurs risked everything to speak out against injustice, and the fact that hundreds of Uighurs are now dead for exercising their right to protest.

On Sunday, students organized a protest in the Döng Körük (Erdaoqiao) area of Urumqi. They wished to express discontent with the Chinese authorities’ inaction on the mob killing and beating of Uighurs at a toy factory in Shaoguan in China’s southern Guangdong province and to express sympathy with the families of those killed and injured.

What started as a peaceful assembly of Uighurs turned violent as some elements of the crowd reacted to heavy-handed policing. I unequivocally condemn the use of violence by Uighurs during the demonstration as much as I do China’s use of excessive force against protestors.

While the incident in Shaoguan upset Uighurs, it was the Chinese government’s inaction over the racially motivated killings that compelled Uighurs to show their dissatisfaction on the streets of Urumqi.

Wang Lequan, the Party Secretary of the “Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region” has blamed me for the unrest; however, years of Chinese repression of Uighurs topped by a confirmation that Chinese officials have no interest in observing the rule of law when Uighurs are concerned is the cause of the current Uighur discontent.

China’s heavy-handed reaction to Sunday’s protest will only reinforce these views. Uighur sources within East Turkestan say that 400 Uighurs in Urumqi have died as a result of police shootings and beatings. There is no accurate figure for the number of injured. A curfew has been imposed, telephone lines are down and the city remains tense.

Uighurs have contacted me to report that the Chinese authorities are in the process of conducting a house-to-house search of Uighur homes and are arresting male Uighurs. They say that Uighurs are afraid to walk the streets in the capital of their homeland.

The unrest is spreading. The cities of Kashgar, Yarkand, Aksu, Khotan and Karamay may have also seen unrest, though it’s hard to tell, given China’s state-run propanganda. Kashgar has been the worst effected of these cities and unconfirmed reports state that over 100 Uighurs have been killed there. Troops have entered Kashgar, and sources in the city say that two Chinese soldiers have been posted to each Uighur house.

The nature of recent Uighur repression has taken on a racial tone. The Chinese government is well-known for encouraging a nationalistic streak among Han Chinese as it seeks to replace the bankrupt communist ideology it used to promote.

This nationalism was clearly in evidence as the Han Chinese mob attacked Uighur workers in Shaoguan, and it seems that the Chinese government is now content to let some of its citizens carry out its repression of Uighurs on its behalf.

This encouragement of a reactionary nationalism among Han Chinese makes the path forward very difficult. The World Uighur Congress that I head, much like the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan movement, advocates for the peaceful establishment of self-determination with genuine respect for human rights and democracy.

To achieve this objective, there needs to be a path for Han Chinese and Uighur to achieve a dialogue based on trust, mutual respect and equality. Under present Chinese government policies encouraging unchecked nationalism, this is not possible.

To rectify the deteriorating situation in East Turkestan, the Chinese government must first properly investigate the Shaoguan killings and bring those responsible for the killing of Uighurs to justice. An independent and open inquiry into the Urumqi unrest also needs to be conducted so that Han Chinese and Uighurs can understand the reasons for Sunday’s events and seek ways to establish the mutual understanding so conspicuously absent in the current climate.

The United States has a key role to play in this process. Given the Chinese government’s track record of egregious human-rights abuses against Uighurs, it seems unlikely Beijing will drop its rhetoric and invite Uighurs to discuss concerns.

The US has always spoken out on behalf of the oppressed; this is why they have been the leaders in presenting the Uighur case to the Chinese government. The US, at this critical juncture in the East Turkestan issue, must unequivocally show its concern by first condemning the violence in Urumqi, and second, by establishing a consulate in Urumqi to not only act as a beacon of freedom in an environment of fierce repression but also to monitor the daily human-rights abuses perpetrated against the Uighurs.

As I write this piece, reports are reaching our office in Washington that on Monday, 4,000 Han Chinese took to the streets in Urumqi seeking revenge by carrying out acts of violence against Uighurs. On Tuesday, more Han Chinese took to the streets. As the violence escalates, so does the pain I feel for the loss of all innocent lives. I fear the Chinese government will not experience this pain as it reports on its version of events in Urumqi, and it is this lack of self-examination that further divides Han Chinese and Uighurs. — WSJ

*Rebiya Kadeer is the president of the Uighur American Association and World Uighur Congress.

Kedah abbatoir issue : Improve communication to avoid future problem

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:53:00 +0000

Wanna kill Pakatan just because of an abattoir?

If DAP could pull out from the Pakatan state government in Kedah this easily, very soon we will see PKR pulling out from the Penang state government as well.

Next, perhaps PAS will withdraw from Selangor state government, and then Perak... Oh, no more Perak now!

I am just trying to say, if all these are changed to BN state governments, then there would be nothing else to argue about!

This is not meant to poke fun at anyone. As a matter of fact, DAP and PKR are fighting tooth and nail within the Penang state government. In Selangor, PAS and PKR are trying to pull each other's leg...

Where this is concerned, Pakatan is a long way behind BN.

This is a question of political maturity.

The science of political management is not unlike corporate management. We need to have truly forward-looking and open-minded managers, sound internal communication and coordination, as well as mutual understanding among all the constituents.

If the purchasing and production departments within a company do not like each other, could the purchasing department say it wants to pull out from the company and become an independent entity?

A matured way of dealing with such matters is consultation. What does the production department really want? And what must the purchasing department supply to it?

Back to the question of abattoir. I have studied very carefully what both sides have said and conclude that both have their points as welll as unfounded arguments.

The PAS state government says the abattoir has no operation permit and is therefore illegally run. As if that is not enough, residue from the abattoir (you know what I mean) has not been disposed of properly over the years and some has even been dumped into the river, much to the disgust of the Muslim residents.

The municipal council has ordered the abattoir's closure, while the state government has given a grace period. The abattoir will only be closed after it stops its operation upon expiry of the grace period.

The state government has identified a suitable site at Kampung Cina, Pendang, for a new abattoir.

Now the other side of the story.

DAP has not refuted PAS' accusations on the hygiene of the abattoir as well as religious complications. Nevertheless, it says the state government should not tear down the abattoir before a new one has been built.

To be fair, if the abattoir creates environmental pollution and has a direct impact on the life and feelings of Muslim residents, then it should be relocated.

DAP and the Chinese community must not defend or oppose blindly whenever an issue involving "pigs" is encountered. They must calmly assess the situation and see whether their move is reasonable.

It should be everyone's understanding that an illegal abattoir creating environmental pollution and religious sensitivity should not remain. That said, to provide a suitable site as soon as possible that meets the hygiene requirements is the obligation of the state government.

If both sides have the same common understanding and are keen to hammer out the right solution through negotiation, then this whole incident will not have taken place at all.

Even as the abattoir has been demolished, the Pakatan state government must still go on! (By TAY TIAN YAN/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)

Rosmah Mansor Perempuan Puaka! Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:35:00 +0000

Today Malaysia Today unleashed another version, the 4th episode of 'Rosmah Perempuan Puaka'. This video is available at youtubbe as shown below.

Courtesy of Malaysia Today

Malaysia gets ready to go after nuclear energy

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:50:00 +0000

In growing signs that Malaysia may soon set up its first nuclear power plant, another two senior government ministers have spoken encouragingly on the controversial subject.

In France for an official visit, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin said the country has offered to help Malaysia build its first nuclear power plant as an alternative source of energy supply.

“They have also invited Malaysian experts to visit France to discuss the benefits of developing such a plant,” he was reported as telling the Star.

The DPM was speaking to reporters after meeting Elysee Palace secretary-general Claude Gueant, a senior advisor to President Nicolas Sarkozy.

According to Muhyiddin, France has very advanced nuclear power technology which provides nearly 90 percent of its energy needs.

He also said Gueant wanted to send French teachers over to teach the language. Both men agreed to encourage high-level ministerial visits, including by Sarkozy and Prime Minister Francois Fillon, to Malaysia.

Economical but how safe will we be from nuclear accidents?

National electricity utility Tenaga Nasional Bhd has already expressed hopes of starting its first nuclear power plant by 2025 if it gets the green light from the federal government.

Given that Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Maximus Ongkili will also be leading a delegation to South Korea on Sunday to study the country’s use of nuclear power, it looks like Tenaga will get its wish sooner than expected and Malaysia its first-ever nuclear plant.

According to Ongkili, South Korea already has 20 power plants in operation, eight under construction and another 10 under planning.

“The nuclear plants are also said to be zero-risk with monitoring done every 15 seconds. South Korea is able to build safe nuclear reactors right next to villages,” Ongkili said in a statement.

He will also visit the Energy Farm and Kori Nuclear Power Plants operated by Korean Hydro & Nuclear Power Co Ltd in Gori in Busan, as well as the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute in Daejon.

Prime Minister Najib Razak had started the ball rolling earlier this month, saying Malaysia was keen to learn from South Korea on ways to develop a small-scale nuclear reactor for power generation.

According to Najib, a small-scale reactor was more economical and quite safe. A small reactor generating between 200,000 and 300,000 kilowatts of energy could even be built right next to an urban area requiring electric power, he said.

The PM is keen to make the switch to nuclear energy, which has its advantages and disadvantages. Not only is he eager to score a first for the country, the massive infrastructure needed to be built will provide him with the vehicle he needs to prime the economy.

However, analysts question the safety aspects and the high-costs involved and if Malaysia needed another fancy mega-project right now.

If Malaysia goes ahead, it would be the second in Southeast Asia after Indonesia to build a nuclear power plant, beating even the highly industrialised Singapore which is still relying on traditional sources of energy.

“The prospect of Malaysia opting for nuclear technology cannot be discounted, only that we will look at other alternatives first,” Najib was quoted as saying by Bernama.

“Using nuclear as a substitute to fuel however depends on the government’s decision as the transition to nuclear energy will incur high costs to develop the infrastructures and facilities.” (SK)

Is it flying with AIRBUS is SAFE?

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:16:00 +0000

Why are we asking this now?

A little over a month after an Airbus 447 crashed into the sea off the coast of Brazil, killing all 228 people on board, another of the manufacturer’s aircraft has been involved in a disaster.

This time, there were 153 people on the A310 in question, a Yemenia Air flight which dove into the sea as it tried to land on the Comoros islands, an archipelago of volcanic islands off the south-east coast of Africa in the Indian Ocean.

The plane was heading from Yemen to the Comoros, but many on board had begun their journey in France.

So what exactly happened?

So far, we don’t know much. While at least three bodies have been recovered and a 14-year-old girl, Bahia Bariki, has survived, the rest of the passengers are unaccounted for.

The circumstances of the crash will become clearer once investigators find the plane’s black box, but initially they have pointed to atrocious weather and the late-night landing time as possible contributing factors.

More worryingly, the condition of the aircraft itself has been called into question. The families of many of those on the flight, who were Comorans returning to the French overseas territory from holiday from France, have bitterly blamed the state of the Yemenia Air fleet.

“They put us aboard wrecks, they put us aboard coffins, that’s where they put us,” one relative told French television.

“It’s slaughter. It’s slaughter.”

The Comoros’ honorary consul in Marseille, Stephane Salord, called the Yemenia aircraft “flying cattle trucks”.

“This A310 is a plane that has posed problems for a long time,” he said. “It is absolutely inadmissible that this airline, Yemenia, played with the lives of its passengers this way.”

The French Transport minister, Dominique Bussereau, told parliament yesterday that the Yemenia Airbus 310 which crashed was not permitted to fly into France, and raised concerns about the transfer of passengers from a plane classed as safe to one that crashed into the sea.

Most had flown on a different Yemenia aircraft from Paris or Marseille before boarding flight IY626 in Sanaa, the capital of Yemen.

An Airbus A340-300 takes part in a flying display during the 48th Paris Air Show at the Le Bourget airport near Paris June 17, 2009. — Reuters pic

So is it likely that the plane itself is to blame?

Yemenia’s fleet has certainly come in for considerable criticism in the past. Most damningly, French inspectors who looked at the plane at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris in 2007 noticed a number of faults.

The aircraft was banned from flying in French airspace and, under the EC’s safety directives, they instructed Yemenia to carry out stricter checks on the place in future.

But Yemen’s Transport minister, Khaled Ibrahim al-Wazeer, insisted it had since been rigorously checked under the supervision of Airbus experts.

Why was the plane still allowed to fly if French officials had flagged it up?

For one thing, even though the EU was due to investigate Yemenia’s safety record following the 2007 inspection, the airline was not added to the “blacklist” of airlines banned within the EU.

Even if it had been, there would have been nothing to prevent the flight from Yemen to the Comoros; that would be the responsibility of the Yemeni and Comoran governments.

Is there another viable explanation besides a technical failure?

David Learmount, safety editor at Flight International magazine, thinks human error is most likely the cause of the crash, pointing out that a tired pilot would have been coming in at 1.30am into a strong wind.

The pilot would have had to make a “non- precision” approach without radar, using his eyes rather than instruments – a method which is three to five times more likely to result in an accident. If it was indeed such an incident, Learmount says it is hard to avoid, adding: “Accidents like this happen. They always have.”

Is this crash anything to do with the recent Air France disaster?

It seems not. That aircraft, an A330, was a different model entirely.

Whereas yesterday’s crash happened on the final descent to the airport, Flight AF447 went down in ordinary flight, making it more likely to have been a technical failure than a human error. But two crashes so close together are a public relations disaster for Airbus. The share price of its parent company, EADS, fell by 3.6 per cent yesterday.

What does Airbus do after selling an aeroplane to ensure its safety?

Once an aircraft is sold, a manufacturer is no longer responsible for its safety. They do sometimes work for airlines in a safety advisory role, but they do not offer maintenance services. Legally, the responsibility lies with the operator.

So should I worry about flying by A310 in future?

You should certainly think carefully about travelling with Yemenia. The EU transport commissioner Antonio Tajani has announced a new investigation into the airline’s practices, and that may well result in the company being added to the next airline blacklist, which is published in two weeks.

Other airlines flying the same model are as trustworthy as ever. Nevertheless, those of a nervous disposition may think twice on any carrier.

The A310 is an older model designed in 1986 – the one that crashed yesterday was built in 1990 – and older aircraft are statistically more likely to crash than newer ones. The A310 has also been in more accidents than its main competitor, the Boeing 767.

ebris from the missing Air France flight 447 is seen at the Air Force base in Recife June 12, 2009. — Reuters pic

And what about flying on an Airbus in general?

Airlines would not buy Airbus jets if they had serious doubts about their safety record, which is respectable and comparable to its rival, Boeing.

Some pilots have expressed reservations about the Airbus “Fly-By-Wire” approach, which automates more processes than Boeing’s system does – but Airbus firmly believes its method is safer and eliminates opportunities for pilot error.

There may have been a string of recent Airbus accidents – last year, the Fly-By-Wire system led to a Qantas A330 plunging 650ft in seconds – but it is probably only a matter of bad luck.

“That’s the throw of the dice,” says Learmount. “There are only two major aircraft manufacturers in the world. Any crash is bound to be one or the other.”

What can be done to improve air safety?

One practical step already proposed by Tajani is to extend the EU blacklist system to a global version. That would not have stopped this crash but it might give travellers peace of mind to know that dozens of airlines banned in Europe will not be operating elsewhere either. It would also ensure that, if Yemenia was added to that group, it could not continue to operate regardless.

Should I continue to fly in the meantime?

Flying disasters are often horrifying, and the concentration of deaths in a single incident can make air travel seem uniquely risky. In fact, while it is never risk-free, it is certainly not the most dangerous way to travel.

In the US in 2006, for instance, there 42,642 deaths were caused by car accidents and only 1,500 involved aircraft. While there are 117 fatalities per billion air journeys, there are 170 deaths per billion bicycle journeys. So, unless you are also planning to travel on only foot in future, your routine should probably not change.

Are there good reasons for concern about travelling on an Airbus?

Yes...

* Airbus aircraft have been involved in a string of accidents, and no firm explanation has yet been found for the crash of Air France AF447

* Some pilots worry about relying on the company’s automated “Fly-By-Wire” navigation system

* No manufacturer or airline can entirely legislate for human error

No...

* There is no reason to think the two recent disasters are linked; they involved different models of Airbus in different circumstances

* With only two plane-makers, accidents are bound to be with one or the other

* The risks of flying are no worse than those of many other activities — The Independent

Petronas governance, oil and talent

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:02:00 +0000

There are reports of a supposed tussle of wills between the prime minister and the board of Petronas over his choice of a non-executive, independent director for the board. I find the way this discussion is being framed in the press and on the blogs a little puzzling.

To begin with, the question of a tussle of wills, so to speak, between the board of Petronas and the prime minister does not arise. The Articles of Association governing Petronas give the prime minister the absolute power to appoint and remove every single member of the board and management. The prime minister has the right to appoint or remove anyone, from the president and chief executive officer down to the company drivers. In particular, every member of the board is an appointee of the prime minister, and represents him on the board.

Therefore it is puzzling that appeals are being made for the prime minister not to interfere in the composition of the board of Petronas, when it is in fact his duty and sole prerogative to appoint members of the board who will help him in his function of overseeing the running of this wholly state-owned enterprise and seeing to the disposal of the wealth that it generates. Let us not suddenly forget the extent to which previous prime ministers directed the decisions of Petronas in service of their conceptions of the national interest.

Many discussions which raise the issue of corporate governance refer to Petronas as a GLC, and refer to governance practices proper to GLCs. But these GLCs have multiple shareholders and indeed publicly traded stock. Petronas is unlike any other GLC. It has only one shareholder: the state. Almost unique among national oil companies the world over, the entire oil and gas wealth of Malaysia is vested in Petronas. It has supervisory power over the major oil companies operating in our territory. It was not formed to privatise our oil and gas reserves but to safeguard our national sovereignty over them and to manage them more effectively as the common inheritance of all Malaysians. It is charged with ensuring our energy security.

Petronas’ sole owner is ultimately the Malaysian people. The person charged with stewardship of the people’s ownership is the prime minister, and he is accountable to the people through a democratic political process. Every member of the board is appointed by him to help him discharge this stewardship. In that situation if, as reported, any member of the board disagrees on principle with the prime minister’s decision to appoint someone, he should resign. This is the proper way for board members all appointed by a sole shareholder to express strong objection to an appointment.

Those calls being made in the name of good governance for the prime minister “not to interfere” unwittingly advocate bad governance because they are framed on a misunderstanding about the nature of Petronas and therefore about who it is accountable to, and how it should be governed.

Because Petronas is charged with the stewardship of public assets we need to understand the governance of Petronas in terms of a public process; that is to say, the political process. The Petroleum Development Act that I had the privilege to help design did not envisage Petronas becoming a mega-corporation accountable only to privileged insiders. The real framework for understanding governance in Petronas is its accountability to the people of Malaysia through the prime minister of their elected government. This could hardly be otherwise for an organisation vested with such awesome resources and responsibilities.

On scholarships and talent

When we started Petronas we could not find enough local talent. The late Tun Abdul Razak said to me: “Let’s use foreign talent only as consultants. Let’s staff Petronas with Malaysians.” I started the Petronas scholarship programme in my first year as chairman. We set aside 3,000 scholarships a year. In that first year we only managed to give out 1,000. Our intention was to flood Malaysia with returning talent, for whatever industry or sector. The scholars were not bonded, except where they had skills essential to Petronas such as geophysics or petroleum engineering. Understanding our role as custodians of the greatest single source of the people’s wealth, we deliberately pursued a broad rather than narrow scholarship programme to serve the national interest by building its human capital. So we gave out scholarships in fields of study as far from Petronas’ direct interests as architecture and medicine. We did not bond these scholars. I wonder if people understand the spirit of the Petronas scholarships when they are so quick to stigmatise a young person of ability with the title “scholarship defaulter.”

We should try to raise our level of public debate above the gutter of name-calling, racial slurs and the assumption of guilt by association. We should stop looking under our beds for ghosts and shadowy conspiracies. I’m disappointed to find such mean-spirited resentment of talent and of youth precisely when we desperately need those two ingredients in and around government. In our focus on the excesses of certain young people, we may have forgotten the excesses of the old and the decrepit.

I started by talking about the reported tussle between the PM and the board of Petronas. But this is a more real and consequential tussle involving a resource more valuable even than our oil and gas reserves: our people. There is now a generational struggle, in every political party, throughout the civil service, and wherever politics rather than merit governs promotions and appointments, between the young of this demographically very young country and self-interested incumbents blocking their rise with the Catch-22 argument that they are too inexperienced. How else will they gain that experience than by taking up those responsibilities?

We face a generational loss that will destroy our future if we continue to discourage talented and highly educated Malaysians in their thirties and forties from taking up key roles in our society. (KuLi)

Perak Sultan has no explicit powers to dismiss MB

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:55:00 +0000

LoyarBurok is privileged to have received this comment piece from Kevin YL
Tan on the on-going Perak constitutional crisis.

Kevin has taught constitutional law for over 20 years. He currently holds
Adjunct Professorships at the Faculty of Law, National University of
Singapore and the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang
Technological University. He is co-author (with Thio Li-ann) of the leading
constitutional law textbook "Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore"
widely used as standard reading material in universities; "Introduction to
Singapore's Constitution" and numerous articles on constitutional law in
Singapore, Malaysia and the region.

Introduction

HRH Sultan Azlan Shah's (HRH) appointment of Dato' Dr Zambry bin Abdul Kadir
(Zambry) as Perak's Menteri Besar on 17 March 2009 precipitated a
constitutional crisis that culminated in the case now before the courts. The
facts of the case are by now, fairly well-known and merit only a brief
recount.

Following nation-wide general elections in March 2008, the Pakatan Rakyat
(PR) won 31 seats in the 59-member Legislative Assembly (LA) and Dato' Seri
Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaludin (Nizar) was appointed Menteri Besar (MB) of
Perak. The Barisan Nasional (BN) held the remaining 28 seats. In February
2009, three PKR members announced their resignations from the LA, leaving
each party in control of 28 seats each.

On 4 February, Nizar approached HRH to dissolve the LA to "resolve the
deadlock". The next day, HRH met with 31 members of the LA, satisfied
himself that they supported Zambry as MB, and then informed Nizar that his
request for dissolution had been rejected. Among the 31 members present at
this meeting were the three PKR members who had earlier resigned. They had
apparently withdrawn their resignations and transferred their support to
Zambry. HRH then informed Nizar that he no longer commanded the confidence
of the LA and asked him to tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
Nizar did not comply, and the Sultan's office issued a press statement
declaring the office of MB vacant and that Zambry had been appointed the new
MB since he commanded the confidence of the majority of LA members.

On 11 May 2009, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that as there had been no
vote of confidence on the floor of the LA, Nizar remained the rightful MB of
Perak. Zambry appealed against this decision and on 22 May, the Court of
Appeal overturned the High Court decision and declared that Zambry had been
rightfully appointed as MB. At the time of this article going to press, the
Court of Appeal has yet to deliver the grounds for that decision. Even so,
Nizar's lawyers filed an application for leave to appeal against the Court
of Appeal decision 19 June 2009. This application is scheduled for hearing
on 9-10 July.

Issues Raised by the High Court Decision

As the High Court's decision is the only one available, this commentary
relates to this judgment. The key issues in this case are whether HRH Sultan
Azlan Shah:

a. could dismiss the Executive Council when Nizar refused to tender the
Council's resignation after the Sultan refused to his request to dissolve
the LA;

b. was constitutionally empowered to appoint Zambry the new MB when Nizar
refused to tender the resignation of the Executive Council; and

c. had a discretion to determine if Nizar had lost the confidence of the
majority of members of the LA in any other way than by a vote on the floor
of the Assembly.

Ambit of Article XVI(6)

The key to answering these questions is Article XVI(6) of the Perak
Constitution which provides:

If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the
majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless
at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative
Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

The High Court Judge, Dato' Abdul Aziz J, adopted the "golden rule of
interpretation" requiring a court to give the words of the Constitution a
plain and ordinary reading if the words are unambiguous. Finding that
Article XVI(6) of the Perak Constitution "contains no ambiguity whatsoever",
Abdul Aziz J held that the Sultan had no power to dismiss Nizar; neither was
he allowed to deem the office of MB vacant when Nizar refused to resign. To
do so, he added, would be to do "violence to the language" of Article
XVI(6).

The learned Judge held that when Nizar requested HRH to dissolve the LA, he
had not done so with "any reference to any provision in the Perak's State
Constitution" and in the absence of reference to any specific provision in
the Constitution, Nizar was thus requesting HRH to exercise his royal
prerogative under Article XXXVI(2) which gave HRH a general power to
"prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly."

The Textual Argument

A textual reading of Article XVI(6) supports the High Court's interpretation
of this key provision. Article XVI comes under the heading "The Executive
Council" and the relevant provision is the 6th of its 8 sub-clauses. Though
headings, sub-headings and marginal notes do not technically form part of
the constitutional text, they help us understand the structure and
organisation of the Constitution. On the face of it, Article XVI is clearly
intended to deal specifically with matters relating to the Executive Council
and not generalities.

A general request for the dissolution of the LA and the Sultan's discretion
thereof is governed by Article XXXVI(2) read with Article XVIII(2)(b). That
means that the Sultan has a general power to dissolve the LA and may act in
his discretion in withholding a request for dissolution. Such a general
request for dissolution does not fall under Article XVI(6) which is to be
deployed in a very specific instance. This is immediately discernible when
we read it sequentially: A MB who has already ceased to command the
confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly must
tender the resignation of the Executive Council, but only if HRH exercises
his discretion to refuse to dissolve the Legislative Assembly upon that MB's
request for dissolution.

Following from this reading, it is clear that the determination as to
whether and when the MB has lost the confidence of the majority of the
members of the LA - as opposed to whether the MB was likely to command the
confidence of the majority of LA members under Article XVI(2) - is a matter
for the LA itself. It is not an executive decision.

The Argument from History

Does history support the High Court's reading of Article XVI(6)? Back in
1956, various representations were made to the Reid Commission on the status
and powers of the Sultan and on his power to act. Back then, debates still
raged over what necessary constitutional amendments needed to be made to
make the Sultans "constitutional rulers" and whether the MB should hold
office at the Sultan's pleasure.

What is quite clear from the resulting deliberations is that the Commission
was determined to ensure that (a) the organization of government in the
states mirrored that of the Federation; and (b) the Malay Rulers should no
longer preside over their state executive councils and involve themselves in
executive decision-making save in very limited instances. These concerns led
the Commission to set out the meaning of "constitutional ruler" in paragraph
177 of their Report:

. a constitutional Ruler is a Ruler with limited powers, and the
essential limitations are that the Ruler should be bound to accept
and act on the advice of the Menteri Besar or Executive Council,
and that the Menteri Besar or Executive Council should not hold
office at the pleasure of the Ruler or be ultimately responsible to
him but should be responsible to a parliamentary assembly and
should cease to hold office on ceasing to have the confidence of
that assembly. (emphasis added)

By the Commission's reckoning, there was no intention to give the
constitutional ruler a power to dismiss the MB or the Executive Council at
will. Further support can be gleaned from a memorandum on "The State
Constitutions" prepared by Sir Ivor Jennings (CO 889/2 p. 156 dated 31 Aug
1956) - certainly the most important and influential member of the
Commission - when he noted:

The Rulers will become constitutional monarchs and executive
government must be placed under the control, direct or indirect, of
the State Councils. It is assumed that the Ruler . would appoint a
Menteri Besar . who would have, or hope to obtain, a majority in
the State Council. . It is assumed that the Ruler would have power,
on the advice of the Menteri Besar, to dissolve the State Council, but
that, like the Queen, he need not accept the advice. The Ruler would
not be empowered to dissolve without advice, though, of course, he
could always appoint a new Menteri Besar who was likely so to
advise because he had no majority.

Historical precedent is consonant with the High Court's reading of Article
XVI(6). The Sultan was entitled to refuse a request to dissolve the LA, be
it a general request - for example when early elections are to be called or
where the LA is sharply divided over a key policy or the budget - or a
specific request under Article XVI(6) after the MB has already lost the
confidence of the majority of the LA.

Dismissal of the Executive Council

Both the textual and historical arguments support the High Court's reading
of Article XVI(6). However, this does not resolve the question as to whether
the Sultan was empowered to (a) declare the office of the MB and Executive
Council vacant; and (b) following from that declaration, proceed to appoint
a new MB.

The Perak Constitution is not explicit on this point. What is clear is that
the Executive Council is appointed by the Sultan on the advice of the MB. Al
though Article XVI(7) states that members of the Executive Council hold
their office at HRH's pleasure, Article XVIII makes patently clear that HRH
may not dismiss them at a whim, but only upon the advice of the MB. This
reading is borne out by the Reid Commission Report that stated (at paragraph
181):

As the Executive Council is to be collectively responsible to the
Legislative Assembly the appointment of its members must lie in
the hands of the Mentri Besar and a new Mentri Besar must be
free to appoint a new Executive Council in the same way as the
Prime Minister appoints his Ministers. This result follows from our
recommendation that members of the Executive Council should
hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler because in appointing or
terminating the appointment of a member of the Executive Council
the Ruler must act on the advice of the Mentri Besar.

So, what happens if an MB, who has lost the confidence of the majority of
the LA, refuses to resign his position and that of the Executive Council
after the Sultan rejects that MB's request for a dissolution of the LA? This
happened in Kelantan in 1977 when its MB, Datuk Mohamed Nasir refused to
resign even though he had lost a vote of confidence motion in the Kelantan
LA, been sacked by his own party, and had his request for dissolution of the
LA refused by the Sultan of Kelantan. The impasse led to the declaration of
a state of emergency by the Federal Government that lasted three months,
after which the LA was dissolved for fresh elections.

Alas, this single precedent is not particularly instructive. No legal
solution was possible and ultimately, the situation was resolved politically
by the Sultan dissolving the LA and allowing fresh elections to be called.
Perhaps, all rulers and governors should, as a matter of course, accede to
requests by their respective MBs to dissolve the LA for fresh elections to
be called unless the ruler has a premonition that a calamity might befall
the state if he so acceded. That way, new mandates are quickly determined
and the business of government can proceed once a new leadership is
established. Indeed, the Sultan of Perak supported this view of a ruler's
powers when he was Lord President. In his 1982 essay, "The Role of
Constitutional Rulers", he opined:

. under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for
dissolution of Parliament. His role under such a situation is purely
formal.

This point was picked up by counsel for Nizar and cited with approval by the
High Court.

The Sultan has no explicit power to dismiss an MB under the Perak
Constitution. Indeed, neither is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong empowered to
dismiss a Prime Minister under the Federal Constitution. Originally, the
Reid Commission had prepared a draft Article 36(2) which, among other
things, gave the Yang di-Pertuan Besar power to remove the Prime Minister
from office. However, as the High Court duly noted, the words were changed
when the present Article 43(4) was promulgated. This provision is almost
word-for-word the same as Article XVI(6) of the Perak Constitution save for
the nomenclature used.

Conclusion

We return to the three questions posed at the start of this article. If, as
the High Court rightly held, Nizar's request to dissolve the LA was made
under general provisions rather than under Article XVI(6), then HRH had no
power either to declare the office of MB vacant nor to dismiss the members
of the Executive Council. And since HRH had no power to declare the office
of MB vacant, he was correspondingly prevented from exercising his
discretion under Article XVI(2) to appoint Zambry as MB and to act on Zambry
's advice to appoint members to the Executive Council.

The third question posed - whether HRH had a discretion to determine if
Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of LA members - does not arise
for consideration on the facts of this case. The question as to whether or
not a show of confidence or support can be demonstrated in any way other
than by a formal vote on the floor of the House is moot since HRH is not
being asked to exercise his discretion under Article XVI(2) to determine
support or confidence for the purposes of appointing a new MB.

Even if HRH was called upon to exercise his discretion on this matter, I
would argue that the only way to determine confidence (or otherwise) in any
individual as MB is to have a formal vote on the floor of the LA. This is
especially crucial in a political system that is not constrained by
anti-hopping laws, and which allows assemblymen and assemblywomen to
transfer loyalties at a drop of a hat. A formal vote will require
formalities to be met, membership of political parties to be ascertained,
and resignations or change of affiliations registered. Most importantly, it
will provide for certainty.

One possible way to avoid future confusion over the Sultan's discretionary
powers with respect to requests for a dissolution might be to require the MB
to state clearly in his request for dissolution, whether his doing so under
the general provisions to which Article XXXVI(2) applied or because he has
lost the confidence of the majority of the LA members under Article XVI(6).
That way, there can be issue of how the Sultan is to deploy his discretion.
This can be done as a matter of constitutional practice and will not require
a constitutional amendment.

In the meantime, the problem remains. Two men claim to be the rightful
Menteri Besar of Perak and two groups claim to be members of the Executive
Council. As scholars of constitutional law and keen observers of Malaysian
politics, we anxiously await the written judgement of the Court of Appeal as
we eagerly await the wisdom of the Federal Court to find a legal solution to
an essentially political issue.

Courtesy Of Loyarburok

NHB : How race and religion are part of the Malaysian political scene

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:13:00 +0000

How can we talk about politics without touching on the matter of race and religion when everything about Malaysian politics involves race and religion? In fact, not only when it comes to politics, almost everything in Malaysia is about race and religion.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Police report against Nik Aziz for 'inciting hatred'
The Star, 25 June 2009

The Kelantan Umno Youth has lodged a police report against Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat for allegedly inciting hatred, anger and possibly causing chaos among the people of Kelantan.

State Youth chief Anuar Safian, who lodged the police report at the Kota Baru police station at 10.30am Thursday added that the police report was lodged to enable the authorities to investigate Nik Abdul Aziz’s speech made on June 21 at Kampung Laloh, Manek Urai at a gathering.

He said Nik Abdul Aziz, who is also PAS spiritual leader, should be investigated under the Sedition Act 1948 and the Internal Security Act 1960 for allegedly inciting chaos and eliciting racial disputes and understanding.

He added that his speech was beyond the scope of a regular ceramah when he attacked Umno by likening the party similar to that of Ayah Pin and the Sky Kingdom and branded Umno as a communist and a socialist party that was anti-Islam.

In his report, he said the spiritual leader’s speech was reported in an English daily and Kelantan TV and many other publications that commented on Nik Abdul Aziz’s speech.

“I want to ask Nik Abdul Aziz how many people had Umno deviated since its involvement in politics for the past 64 years and if we were communists and did not believe in God, just look at what Umno had done for Islam and the Malays all these years.

“His attacks is beyond comprehension and it should be investigated as people might believe his words and in the end people would hate Umno that would lead to untoward incidents,” he told reporters infront of the Kota Baru police station after lodging the police report.

*************************************************

Peguam perempuan Melayu kena main dengan Keling2 di Bar Council

Lima peguam Melayu yang terdiri dari perempuan Melayu telah ditahan oleh polis kerena konon mahu mempertahankan perkumpulan yang untuk menentang kerajaan Melayu UMNO.

Semanngat kekelingan yang ditunjukan oleh peguam perempuan Melayu ini dalam memperjuang kumpulan haram yang anti Sultan Perak sangat menghairankan.

Mereka memperjuangkan Wong Chin Huat yang menghina Sulan Perak kerana menjalan tugasnya melantik UMNO sebagai kerajaan majoriti di Perak.

Kelima perempuan Melayu ini telah diperalat oleh Keling Bar council untuk menjadi heroin terhadap polis Malaysia dan Kerajaan UMNO. Yang masuk jail mereka bukan Ragunath. Kenapa jadi baruah Ragunath dan Wong Chin Huat?

Keling2 di Bar Council ini menyorok dibelakang perempuan Melayu ini dan ramai peguam Melayu yang tak sedar diri mereka dipermainkan oleh Keling2 di Bar Council.

Keadilan adalah budaya Melayu amnya dan tidak perlu Keling2 di Bar Council mengajar polis atau IGP dan Kerajaan Melayu.

Jika adapun tindakan polis di raja Malaysia adalah untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan raja2 Melayu. Kenapa mesti perempuan peguam Melayu ini menentang raja2 Melayu dan menjadi heroin kepada mereka yang mahu mencerca Sultan Perak?

Kenapakah peguam keling satu dan Cina langsung tak ada tidak terlibat dalam 5 peguam ini?

The lawyers , Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal, Syuhaini Safwan, Murni Hidayah and Puspawati Rosman mengikut NST mahu memperjuangkan mereka yang menentang Sultan Perak. Walaupun mereka tidak kenal siapa yang mahu mereka perjuangkan mereka sanggup jadi pak turut Keling Bar Council dan mengaku peguam mereka.

Ramai peguam perempuan Melayu dan peguam lelaki di STAR yang mempromosikan agenda keling di Bar Council dan menidakkan hak orang Melayu sebagai tuanpunya Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Mereka benci kepada hipokrasi PAS tapi lupa kemajuan Melayu adalah kerana dasar liberal UMNO dan kesultanan Melayu bukan PAS.

wallahuallam bisawab

Penulis adalah ahli pejuang hak dan kerajaan Melayu sedunia

*************************************************

The first item above is The Star news report about a police report made against the Kelantan Menteri Besar, Nik Aziz. The second is an e-mail a Malay lawyer friend sent to me. Understandably, my friend was most upset about the matter and he requested me to address the issue.

Now, read this against the backdrop of the statement by the Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, that it is un-Islamic for PAS to reject the Umno call to sit down to discuss ‘Malay unity’ and what do you see?

I know. Many can’t see things in its proper perspective unless it is laid out like a story in a kindergarten book. Even then, after I write a long-winded cheong hei article, readers still miss the point and make comments totally unrelated to the issue.

Some readers have asked me to stop writing about Islam. Others condemn the racist tendencies of many Malaysians. Yet others feel that religion should be kept out of politics and that political parties should not be race-based. Some even call for the banning of race-based political parties.

Just to digress a bit, whenever I am asked about my solution on how to end racism in Malaysia, I respond by saying that we should ban and make illegal same-race marriages. Malays should not be allowed to marry Malays, Chinese marry Chinese, and so on. You are only allowed mixed-race or inter-race marriages.

This can never happen of course and I am only joking. Probably 99% of Malaysians would marry someone from their own race. Does this mean 99% of Malaysians are racists? I would not go so far as to put it that way but maybe we could safely classify them as ‘soft’ racists -- as opposed to ‘hard’ racists like the Ketuanan Melayu gang.

How can we talk about politics without touching on the matter of race and religion when everything about Malaysian politics involves race and religion? In fact, not only when it comes to politics, almost everything in Malaysia is about race and religion.

Yes, we seek social and economic reforms. But none of this will happen until there is a political will to introduce these reforms. So we also need political reforms. But when politics is centred on race and religion then we need reforms in these areas as well. So there is no way you can avoid talking about race and religion before we can see political reforms, which in turn will bring about the social and economic reforms that we clamour for.

Can you now see the vicious cycle? And can you also now see why I hammer the race and religion issues like there is no tomorrow? Race, religion, politics and economics come as a package. One can’t change without the other also changing. To attack one you have to attack all. Only then will we be able to see total reforms in Malaysia.

Courtesy Of Malaysia Today

NHB : How you wish there were no heaven and hell

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:09:00 +0000

Sheesh! So not only will you not go to heaven if you support Barisan Nasional. You will also not go to heaven even if you support PAS. This is because PAS is also involved in an un-Islamic system of government. PAS is as un-Islamic as Umno or Barisan Nasional is.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Mad fish?: scientist warns that farmed fish could be a source of mad cow disease

Jeremy Hance, news.mongabay.com
June 17, 2009

In a paper that shows just how strange our modern world has become, Robert P. Friedland, neurologist from the University of Louisville, warns that farmed fish could be at risk of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, or Mad Cow Disease.

Currently, farmed fish are fed cow by products—a food source they would never find natural environment (unless society started dumping cow carcasses in oceans or lakes).

Friedland and co-authors raise the issue in the Journal of Alzhemier’s Disease and call on food regulators to ban feeding cow bone or meat to farmed fish until it can be determined if the practice of feeding fish cow-parts is safe.

“We have not proven that it’s possible for fish to transmit the disease to humans. Still, we believe that out of reasonable caution for public health, the practice of feeding rendered cows to fish should be prohibited,” Friedland said. “Fish do very well in the seas without eating cows.”

Mad Cow Disease is a fatal disease that can be contracted by eating parts of a cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). After an outbreak in Britain due to infected beef, 163 people died.

“The fact that no cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease have been linked to eating farmed fish does not assure that feeding rendered cow parts to fish is safe,” warns Friedland. “The incubation period of these diseases may last for decades, which makes the association between feeding practices and infection difficult. Enhanced safeguards need to be put in place to protect the public.”

Along with cow, farmed fish are also fed significant amounts of antibiotics to keep them disease-and-parasite free. Farmed fish pose additional health hazards due to the possibility of mercury contamination.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0617-hance_madfish.html

*************************************************

So there you have it. You thought that by avoiding beef and by just eating fish you can avoid being inflicted with Mad Cow Disease. Then you suddenly wake up one morning and a scientist or doctor tells you that you can still get Mad Cow Disease by eating fish, not to mention mercury poisoning.

So what do you do? You become a vegetarian. But just as you thought you are now safe and will live to a ripe old age of 100, another scientist or doctor tells you that the vegetables you are eating have been sprayed with insecticide to prevent plant pests from attacking them. And these insecticides can’t be washed off even if you soak the vegetables for hours before cooking them.

No wonder the vegetables looked so perfect and when you buy your vegetables you always choose the most perfect looking ones and avoid those that look like they have been attacked by plant pests. Now you find out that the more perfect they look the more harmful they actually are.

Okay, I have a solution, you may think. I will grow my own vegetables in my garden plot and will make sure that they are not sprayed with anything harmful. I will also rear my own chickens and goats and feed them with natural food that do not contain any chemicals. This will ensure that only the safest food gets into my belly. That will offer me the guarantee that I get to eat only contaminated-free food.

Then a Blogger starts writing articles telling you that the food you are buying and eating may be medically safe, but they are not halal. They are still ‘contaminated’ with elements of haram.

“How can they be haram?” you argue. You never touch anything that does not have a ‘halal’ sticker on them. But lo and behold, you suddenly discover that the halal turkey costs more than the turkey that does not have a halal sticker on them. You then ask the turkey supplier whether this is a conspiracy to discriminate Muslims. Why is the halal turkey more expensive than the non-halal turkey?

The turkey supplier then whispers a little secret into your ear. They have to pay the people who issue these ‘halal’ stickers under-the-table money. Yes, that’s right. Those Muslims in white robes and skullcaps take bribes. You have to bribe them to get them to certify your turkey as halal. If not they will not give you permission to stick those ‘halal’ stickers onto your turkey.

So now you avoid halal food altogether. Instead of buying your food from the halal section of the supermarket you buy them from the non-halal section. The turkey, chicken, lamb and beef mixed amongst the pork, ham and bacon is more halal than those sold with ‘halal’ stickers on them. Okay, they may not have been slaughtered the ‘correct’ way, but at least they are not ‘contaminated’ with bribery, which is worse than eating ‘not properly slaughtered’ meat.

You want to be a good Muslim. You want to avoid anything that is considered haram from ever touching your lips. You avoid food that will endanger your health because Islam is against you doing anything that endangers your health, smoking included. You also avoid food that is considered haram from the Islamic perspective. So you avoid food that have ‘halal’ stickers on them knowing that the supplier has to bribe the government officers to get this halal certification.

You are a good Muslim. So you are now assured of going to heaven.

To strengthen your case when you one day die and finally get to meet your Maker, you do not drink or gamble as well. You lead a very pious life. But hold on a minute. You work for the government. And the government taxes gaming and liquor. And this money is used to pay your salary. So you are actually ‘eating’ haram money, money procured from taxes on gaming and liquor.

Furthermore, according to one-time Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, 90% of the personal and private businesses taxes is paid by the Chinese. And the Chinese are involved in all sorts of non-halal businesses. They run lotteries and gambling outlets. They run bars, pubs, nightclubs and discos. They run brothels, massage parlours and karaoke centres that are actually fronts for the ‘China Dolls’ racket. They run banks, finance companies and money-lending businesses. You name it and the Chinese run it. And all these are haram according to Islam. And they pay taxes on all this and this tax money is used to pay the salaries of the government employees.

Sheesh, what do you do now? There is only one option open to you. You resign from the government and run your own but small business. You set up a driving school. But none of your students pass their driving test. They will never pass unless you pay the Road Transport Department tester a bribe, the usual under-the-table money. So you will have to bribe the tester or else none of your students will pass their driving test and you will eventually have to close down because no one will come to your driving school any longer.

So you close down your driving school and open a tuition centre instead. But you can’t get a licence to operate a tuition centre unless you also pay a bribe. Okay, forget about the tuition centre. You will instead set up a small stall selling cakes and nasi lemak. But you can’t get your hawker’s licence unless you also bribe the local authorities.

Sheesh, forget about the whole thing. You decide to go back to your kampong to become a padi farmer. Your late father left you a piece of land, which he used to grow padi on. It has of course been neglected all those years because you chose to work for the government instead of becoming a padi farmer. Now you decide to grow padi on that neglected land. You also sell your house and car and surrender your credit cards to avoid having to pay haram interest on your loans and credit cards.

You will become a true Muslim by just planting padi.

You apply for fertilizer from the government but are told you need to become an Umno member to qualify for fertilizer aid. If not you will have to buy your own fertilizer from the Chinaman supplier and that would mean your production cost would be too high. The only way to keep your cost down would be to get a fertilizer subsidy but you must first become an Umno member. Furthermore, you need to sell your padi to Bernas and they will pay you a low price if you do not pay the purchasing officer a ‘commission’ and show him your Umno membership card.

It troubles you that you must become an Umno member to get government subsidies. It troubles you even more that you must bribe the purchasing officer to get a fair price on your padi. Your late padi-farmer father once told you that you must support PAS if you want to go to heaven. Now you have to become an Umno member to get the fertilizer you need for your padi field. And you still can’t escape bribery even as a padi farmer.

Will that mean you will be going to hell instead?

Lo and behold, the Deputy Prime Minister said you could still go to heaven even if you vote for Barisan Nasional. You need not vote for PAS to go to heaven after all. Barisan Nasional too can help send you to heaven. You just pray that it will be later rather than sooner.

Halleluiah! Your soul has been saved. You can now safely become an Umno member to get your fertilizer and still go to heaven. You need no longer support PAS. Allah is most kind and merciful after all.

Then you discover something most depressing. The Westminster form of government and western-style parliamentary general elections are not Islamic after all. The so-called western concept of democracy is an un-Islamic concept. There are no such things in Islam. Islam does not choose its leaders in this manner.

This is most depressing. Islam says you are not supposed to choose kufurs, mushriks, fasiks and whatnot as your leaders. And in the Westminster system of general elections the worst kind of people are elected as the country’s leaders. You are supposed to choose noble and pious people as your leaders. The current system allows only slime-balls and scumbags into office.

Sheesh! So not only will you not go to heaven if you support Barisan Nasional. You will also not go to heaven even if you support PAS. This is because PAS is also involved in an un-Islamic system of government. PAS is as un-Islamic as Umno or Barisan Nasional is.

Aiyah! So better you don’t become a member of any political party. And better still, you don’t vote as well. But if you don’t then you are allowing bad people to get into power. By doing nothing you are aiding and abetting sin. So you must do something. But what can you do? Every option available to you is haram and un-Islamic.

What a dilemma! The whole problem is you were born a Muslim. No, the real problem is you were born, full stop. If not then you would not be faced with any dilemma. This is actually the REAL Malay dilemma. You can never be a proper Muslim in this modern world, especially not in Malaysia. You start to wonder what it was like in the old days before we saw ‘progress’. You always suspected that progress is bad for you, especially as far as your soul is concerned.

Courtesy Of Malaysia Today

Dynamic Architecture in Dubai Project

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:53:00 +0000

The Dynamic Architecture building, which will be constantly in motion changing its shape, will be able to generate electric energy for itself as well as for other buildings.

Courtesy Of SJSandTeam

Rosmah Mansor Perempuan Puaka! Part 3 (With Subtitles)

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:06:00 +0000

Due to popular demand, we have rehashed some of the earlier parts 1 and 2 with subtitles. This is to enable those who do not understand the dialogue to follow the events before moving on to the rest of the series of videos.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Time to come clean: the real story behind the unity government

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:04:00 +0000

But this does not mean that DAP, PKR or PAS joins Barisan Nasional. The opposition parties would still remain outside Barisan Nasional. And neither would those who joined the government resign from DAP, PKR or PAS and become members of one of the 14 component parties of Barisan Nasional.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) is in the midst of amending its party constitution to allow its members to appoint its leaders direct. Currently, PKR is structured almost like Umno where the leaders are appointed by its 2,000 or so delegates to the general assembly, and those who can contest the leadership must be nominated by the division during the division meetings.

This is how Umno does it. It is not the 3 million or 3.5 million Umno members who appoint their leaders. It is the 2,500 or so delegates to the general assembly. But the nominations that will determine who can and cannot contest the party leadership must come from the 191 Umno divisions.

Most times the 191 divisions will nominate those whom the division leaders support. In short, it is not the 3 million or 3.5 million Umno members who make that decision but the 191 division heads. And whom the division heads support will be whomsoever the Umno President supports.

The bottom line is, one man, the President, decides who gets nominated and the 191 division heads make sure that the 3 million or 3.5 million members endorse the President’s wish by nominating these people. Nominations are normally based on block-voting or chais. Very seldom can those not on the chai get in although a few have been known to get through the 'roadblock' in the past -- especially if they are popular ‘independent mavericks’ like Shahrir Samad. But this would be the exception rather than the rule.

It is good that PKR breaks away from the ‘Umno tradition’ by allowing all the members to have the right of direct voting instead of the current ‘nominee’ system where their votes are 'engineered' through the delegates to the general assembly who in turn are ‘guided’ by the handful of division heads. This not only eliminates block-voting based on ‘the President’s wish’ but it will also eliminates ‘money politics’ where aspiring candidates can buy votes. Buying 2,000 delegates is easier than buying a couple of million members.

Nevertheless, while we may applaud PKR’s or Anwar Ibrahim’s move to allow ‘proper democracy’ to prevail -- where all members get to choose their leaders rather than a mere 200 division leaders or the 2,000 delegates -- we must give credit where credit is due. This idea was actually mooted by Tengku Tan Sri Razaleigh Hamzah long before the 8 March 2008 general election.

Ku Li’s aspiration was to see reforms in Umno. He wanted to see a one-man-one-vote system prevail, almost like how things are done in the US. Why should just 191 division leaders or 2,500 Umno delegates decide the future of this country of 27 million Malaysians? The contestants whom 191 division heads or 2,500 Umno delegates choose as their leader will not just become Umno leaders but leaders of Malaysia as well. Should a mere 191 division heads or 2,500 delegates of one political party decide what happens to 27 million Malaysians?

Now, while on the subject of Ku Li, the controversial unity government idea was also mooted by Ku Li. And this was also mooted long before the 8 March 2008 general election.

Two fasting months ago, back in 2007, a meeting was held in Ku Li’s residence cum office to discuss this matter. About 30 to 35 Bloggers and civil society movement leaders from both sides of the political divide attended this meeting, which ended in a buka puasa that evening. There were people from Umno as well as the opposition in that meeting, some of those Umno Bloggers who of late have become my adversary.

The 2007 buka puasa meeting was actually the highlight. Prior to that many meetings were held with Ku Li in what could be considered exploratory meetings to see in which direction Ku Li was going to take Umno and what reforms he was proposing for that dominant party that will be running the government and which will decide all its policies.

Back in 2005-2006, when the meetings were first held, we were not naïve in thinking that the opposition would be taking over come the next general election, whenever that was going to be. The latest the elections would have to be held would be March 2009. But we did not see yet, at that time, the possibility of an opposition alliance the likes of Pakatan Rakyat.

The 2004 general election was a disaster. It was the worst the opposition had ever performed. It did not appear like the opposition would even agree to an electoral pact, let alone a coalition. We expected three- or four-corner fights in many constituencies with Barisan Nasional against more than one opposition candidate. This was what happened in 2004 and the opposition candidates, because of the three- or four-corner fights, not only lost but in some cases lost their deposits as well.

The alternative, back in 2005-2006, appeared to be some form of unity government. But it was not meant as a unity government with Umno per se. It was supposed to be the opposition entering into a unity government with Ku Li.

That was the initial idea.

No doubt, the unity government with Ku Li would be with Ku Li as the head of Umno. We did not think, at that time, Umno would be wiped out in the general election. Umno would still be the main player in Barisan Nasional and Barisan Nasional would still form the federal government as well as the state government in most states. And the opposition would remain the opposition. The only thing we did not know yet at that time was whether the opposition be a strong opposition like in 1999 or a weak opposition like in 2004. Whatever it may be though, the opposition would still remain the opposition and the only way it could be in the government would be in the form of a unity government with Ku Li.

Along the way, things developed beyond our expectations. First, Ku Li did not get the nominations required to make it as Umno’s President. His people had earlier told us that Ku Li had more than enough nominations to contest the Umno Presidency. We had in fact written many times that Ku Li would have no problem winning the Umno Presidency if he can obtain the required nominations. It is getting the nominations that would be difficult.

Back in 2004 Ku Li got only one nomination. And that nomination was from his own Gua Musang division. Even then the Gua Musang Wanita chief voted against him so in that sense you can say he got only half a nomination. How can he be assured of getting 60 nominations this time around instead of just one like in 2004?

Well, he ended up, again, getting just one nomination like what happened in 2004. This means he would not become the new Umno President and all his plans for the reformation of Umno, including the one-man-one-vote system, was going to be a non-starter. And this means the idea for a unity government would also be a non-starter. There was no way the opposition would form a unity government with Umno without Ku Li as its head. This idea was personal to holder. It was supposed to be with Ku Li as head of Umno. Not with Umno whoever may be the head.

Anyway, the 2008 general election proved better than expected. Umno and Barisan Nasional were not kicked out but neither was the opposition wiped out like in 2004. And the opposition did not engage in three- or four-corner fights. Furthermore, they did better than just enter into an electoral pact. They actually formed an opposition coalition.

What was perceived viable back in 2005-2006 is no longer viable today. The uncertainties of 2005-2006 made the idea of a unity government a very viable proposition. But it was not an open proposition. It was a proposition with terms and conditions attached. And the first condition was that Ku Li would become head of a reformed Umno where amongst the many reforms would be the one-man-one-vote system like what PKR is pushing through today.

There were many in PAS, PKR and DAP who, of course, opposed the idea of the unity government, even if it was with Ku Li as the head of Umno. There were some who felt that if it was with Ku Li then they would agree to it, but anyone other than Ku Li and it would be no-go. Then, of course, there were those who did not see any light at the end of the tunnel unless it was on the basis of a unity government -- seeing that the three opposition parties could never sit down and agree to anything.

If we wanted to see changes in this country there were only two alternatives open to us back in 2005-2006. Either the opposition takes over, or, Umno and Barisan Nasional reforms. Now, back in 2005-2006, we did not see any possibility of the opposition taking over. DAP said they would not even sit at the same table with PAS, let alone form an opposition coalition with PAS, unless PAS agrees to publicly declare that it is abandoning the Islamic State agenda. PAS, on the other hand, agreed to drop the Islamic State agenda and no longer talk about it. But they will not openly declare that it is abandoning the agenda.

PAS even bought a full-page advertisement in The Star (I know because I had arranged for it and even went over to The Star’s office to pay for the advert) to show that its party constitution does not even mention an Islamic State. This means the Islamic State is not in the party’s constitution. It is an aspiration just what the New Economic Policy is to Umno, an aspiration. It is not ‘law’.

DAP wanted an open and public declaration from PAS. PAS would only agree to quietly bury the issue and no longer raise the matter without making a public declaration. This means the idea of an opposition coalition is a non-starter. Where, then, do we go from there? How would the opposition be able to play a role in running this country? The next best thing, the second prize, would be to team up with Ku Li in the form of a unity government where some of the opposition leaders could join the government and help play a role in running this country and push for reforms.

But this does not mean that DAP, PKR or PAS joins Barisan Nasional. The opposition parties would still remain outside Barisan Nasional. And neither would those who joined the government resign from DAP, PKR or PAS and become members of one of the 14 component parties of Barisan Nasional.

This is probably what many of those opposed as well as supportive to the idea of a unity government do not comprehend.

Of course, that was in 2005-2006 when we saw no hope of any form of opposition alliance. In fact, back in 2005-2006, we did not even know when the general elections would be held let alone how the opposition would fare in that election. So the next best thing, the only alternative that appeared open to the opposition, would be to team up with Ku Li and help him not only reform Umno but reform the government as well. If the opposition can’t get in to bring about these reforms then at least let us assist Ku Li in bringing about these reforms. Either way we shall see the reforms that we seek.

On hindsight we now know that the unity government idea will not work. But it will not work because it is no longer Ku Li we are talking to. And it will not work because Umno will certainly not reform since Ku Li will not be able to bring reforms to Umno -- in fact, Umno appears to be taking the country backward rather than forward. Furthermore, we now appear to have some resemblance of an opposition coalition in the form of Pakatan Rakyat -- which we did not have back in 2005-2006 and which, going by the statements by DAP and PAS, we would probably never see.

I hear what many are saying. And what most say is that they are opposed to any form of unity government with Umno or Barisan Nasional. That is fine now, after the 8 March 2008 general election. Now, people see the possibility of Pakatan Rakyat taking over the government one day and Umno and Barisan Nasional being sent into the opposition aisle.

But that is taking advantage of hindsight. Everyone is an expert on hindsight. In 2005-2006 we did not know this. We did not even know whether there would be a Pakatan Rakyat. And from what DAP and PAS were saying it seemed to point to the possibility that there would not be a Pakatan Rakyat.

So, what other alternative did we have, back in 2005-2006, other than to explore the possibility of forming a sort of unity government with Ku Li, on condition he makes it as the Umno President, and on condition he brings about those reforms he talked about, which includes but is not restricted to the one-man-one-vote system that PKR is going to introduce today?

Courtesy Of Malaysia Today

US says Malaysia among worst offenders in human trafficking

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:00:00 +0000

WASHINGTON — The US State Department expanded a blacklist of governments it believes are not doing enough to stop human trafficking to 17, out of 175 countries it monitors in its annual "Trafficking in Persons" report.

Chad, Malaysia, Niger, Mauritania and Zimbabwe were included among the worst offenders, putting them at risk of losing some US aid.

Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea have received the lowest ranking in each year they have been included in the report started nine years ago.

The lowest ranking means the United States could withhold aid that is not humanitarian or trade-related.

Millions of people around the world are living in bondage and the global financial crisis has made many more vulnerable to labour and sex trafficking, the State Department said yesterday.

In its annual report, which tracks "modern slavery" like forced labour and the sex trade, the State Department said growing poverty around the world has sparked an increase in both supply and demand for human trafficking.

"In a time of economic crisis, victims are more vulnerable, affected communities are more vulnerable," Luis de Baca said as he presented the report.

"Persons who are under economic stress are more likely to fall prey to the wiles of the traffickers who often get their victims through promises of a better life, promises of better earnings," he said.

De Baca said human trafficking can be valued at about US$50 billion (RM175 billion) a year. That includes about US$31 billion profit earned by the traffickers plus about US$20 billion in opportunity cost from lost labour of the people who are put into bondage.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged governments to work to eliminate forms of human trafficking.

"This year, there is a new urgency in this call," she wrote in a letter prefacing the report.

"As the ongoing financial crisis takes an increasing toll on many of the world's migrants — who often risk everything for the slim hope of a better future for their families — too often they are ensnared by traffickers who exploit their desperation."

"We recognise their immense suffering and we commit to aiding their rescue and recovery."

According to the International Labour Organisation, about 12.3 million adults and children are in forced labour and sexual servitude at any time in the world. Nearly 1.4 million of those are victims of sex trafficking, ILO figures show.

"They labour in fields and factories, under brutal employers who threaten them with violence if they try to escape," Clinton said at an event to present the report. "They work in homes for families that keep them virtually imprisoned. they are forced to work as prostitutes or to beg in the streets, fearful of the consequences if they fail to earn their daily quota."

"This is modern slavery," she said. "A crime that spans the globe, providing ruthless employers with an endless supply of people to abuse for financial gain." — Reuters

NHB : Rosmah Mansor Perempuan Puaka! Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:59:00 +0000

We continue with part 2 of the series of videos on Rosmah Mansor. Hear what the family has to say about Malaysia's 'First Lady'. As many appear unable to understand the local Negeri Sembilan slang we have added Bahasa Malaysia subtitles to the video.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Courtesy Of Malaysia Today

NHB : When a spin becomes the gospel

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:23:00 +0000

I am going to transfer ownership of Malaysia Today to a group of people and allow them to decide how the site is to be run. They will have full authority to decide on the form and function of Malaysia Today. After that Malaysia Today will be out of my hands.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are those who accuse Malaysia Today of spinning. I suppose it all depends on your interpretation of what a spin is and whether spin means lying, distorting the truth, or spy-war. Spinning means different things to different people. I always jokingly tell people that Malaysia Today does not spin. Malaysia Today just tells our version of the truth.

After all, what is truth? Truth is different things to different people. Some say Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Others say he died on the cross. Yet others say that both these ‘truths’ are in fact false and the real truth is that Jesus was merely a Prophet and that there are 25 such Prophets mentioned by name in the Quran while there were 124,000 Prophets in all since the beginning of time. To these people, the truth is that Muhammad was the last of the Prophets but others say that this is false and that the last Prophet was actually Jesus Christ.

Is one or the other lying? Those who say that Jesus was the Son of God or that he died on the cross are lying in the eyes of those who say that Muhammad was the last Prophet. And those who swear that Muhammad was the last Prophet are also lying to those who view Jesus as the Son of God and believe that he died on the cross.

Actually, it is not about lying at all. Neither side is lying. They say what they say with full belief and commitment. They believe what they say to be the truth. And there are many amongst them who will kill or die to defend what they believe to be the truth.

Who are we to say whether the Christians are lying or whether the Muslims are the ones who are lying instead? It all depends on your belief and ultimately only God would know which side is right. Christians would certainly consider Muslims, if not lying, at the very minimum are misguided or misinformed. And the same would apply when Muslims evaluate the Christian belief, which they would consider equally misguided or misinformed.

So, just like in the example of religion, spinning would all depend on which side of the political divide you happen to stand on. One man’s spin would be another man’s gospel.

When I whack Malays and Muslims, those who hate Malays and/or Islam would cheer me on and equate me to Mandela and Gandhi both rolled into one. And there are many such people in Malaysia Today. Of course, the Malays/Muslims in turn view me as a traitor to my race and an apostate to my religion both rolled into one.

When I whack Chinese or Indians, then these same people who earlier sang my praises now consider me a sell-out, a Trojan Horse, someone who is promoting a secret Umno agenda, maybe it’s not really me writing those articles after all but someone else writing them in my name, I have changed, it must be that life in exile has made me mad, I am so grumpy nowadays, and so on and so forth.

Yes, one man’s spin is another man’s gospel. The only thing we need remember is that we can’t please everyone. When we say white those who like black will not agree. And when we say black the white supporters get upset. And when we mix black and white and come out with grey then both sides would not be happy while those who like grey will suddenly come out in support.

Even a simple thing like that can become complicating. And they purposely go looking for faults so that they can whack you. For example, the instant they can’t log in to the site they will write long essays in their blogs accusing Malaysia Today of banning readers and of censoring postings. They also list down the names of others who, according to them, have been banned as well.

Of course, when we investigate, we find it is not true. None of them were banned. But the allegation has been made and suddenly Malaysia Today is now an Umno website and the Administrators are probably Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman.

I wrote about this before but maybe it is time to repeat what I said in the past. People scream about freedom of expression. Sure, Malaysia Today is trying its best to allow that. In fact, we are not just allowing it, we are trying to promote and encourage it.

But many forget that Malaysia Today, although it can now be considered ‘public property’, still has an owner. And you are allowed in to Malaysia Today as a guest and at your request. But the owner has the final say about what goes on in his domain, which is his home.

You no doubt have a right to express yourself. But in someone’s home you must treat that right as a privilege. You can’t demand privileges to be transformed to rights just because that is how you like it.

For example, in my own home, I can smoke my cigars or pipe when I am writing. But when I am on the computer doing my work in my friend’s home I do not smoke in his/her home. Even if my friend smokes I do not automatically light up. I wait until he or she starts smoking and then I ask whether he/she minds if I too smoke. If not I walk outside and smoke in the garden or on the veranda.

Sure, smoking is my right. I do that in my own home. Why can’t I also do that in your home? Why are you denying me my right? Well, because it is not a right but a privilege.

I know what you are going to say now. You can’t compare smoking with commenting in Malaysia Today. Smoking has issues of health attached to it. Well, commenting in Malaysia Today is also about my health. I was detained under the Internal Security Act in September last year for various ‘crimes’, one of them related to comments in Malaysia Today. So, comments can also be detrimental to my health -- my mental health when I am under solitary confinement and 'tortured' with many hours of religious sermons from the JAKIM people dressed in white robes and skullcaps. And what you comment determines my mental health. So I can ban what you comment just like you can ban me smoking my cigars and pipe in your house.

Your house, your right. My house, my right. Get it?

Let’s look at another scenario. Say you are a member of Selangor Club, Lake Club, the National Press Club, or whatever. All clubs have rules such as dress code and code of conduct. They can disallow you entry into the club if you wear slippers or collarless T-shirts. If you quarrel with other members or shout four-letter words at the top of your voice they can suspend you or sack you from the club.

No doubt you are a paying member. You could even be a committee member of the club. But there are rights and there are privileges. And you do not have the right to do certain things considered in breach of the club rules or else your membership privileges will be withdrawn. In your own home you can walk around naked and curse your mother’s pussy and nobody cares.

Anyway, I am going to solve this once and for all. It is time we settled his matter because the issue appears to crop up time and again. I am going to transfer ownership of Malaysia Today to a group of people and allow them to decide how the site is to be run. They will have full authority to decide on the form and function of Malaysia Today. After that Malaysia Today will be out of my hands. Let Malaysia Today become a fully-fledged public domain run by members of the public for members of the public. I shall not interfere in the management of Malaysia Today.

I shall of course continue writing articles for my columns until such time they decide they have had enough of me and give me my walking papers. Malaysia Today will cease to be Raja Petra and Raja Petra will cease to be Malaysia Today. I will be reduced to merely a contributor or columnist of Malaysia Today and no longer its owner or manager. Then you all can do what you like.

Okay, back to the issue of spinning. Anwar Ibrahim has said that Chin Peng should be allowed to return to Malaysia. Now, the mainstream media is going to spin this issue over the next few days. But why do they not call it spinning? And why if we counter what they say it is declared spinning?

So what if Malaysia Today spins? What’s wrong with that? I make no excuses or apologies for that. When we are attacked we need to defend ourselves the best way we can. All is fair in love and war.

Take the Rosmah Perempuan Puaka series of videotapes as an example. Umno has embarked on a campaign to run down those opposed to the government by attacking their families. And the mainstream media has been instructed to portray Rosmah as a loving mother who travels all over the country giving speeches about family values and how to raise children and so on.

Then they play up stories about Anwar Ibrahim buggering every handsome young man within three feet of him, about Elizabeth Wong being a porn star, about the son of Raja Petra being a gang leader and hired killer. They have even set up special websites about my family and me. My daughter is portrayed as a Bohsia (slut) and my wife as a closet Christian. They say she still goes to church and that I also have converted to Christianity and follow her to church. They even say that my wife ‘entertains’ other men in our home when I am ‘away’ in Kamunting.

I suppose the Special Branch had been monitoring my house when I was in Kamunting and when Bernard (Zorro) slept at my house they jumped at the opportunity to expose this ‘sex scandal’ involving my wife. And when Bernard came to Kamunting the next day to see me and joked that since I am inside he is now dating my wife, the hidden microphones in Kamunting picked that up as well. Then, when I was released, Azmi Sharom, during a candlelight vigil in Petaling Jaya, said in front of 200-300 people, “Welcome home Pete. Unfortunately, now that you are home, I won’t be able to spend time with your wife any longer.” Invariably, the Special Branch records all speeches made at the candlelight vigils in Petaling Jaya and this is even more ammunition to use against me.

Anyway, the bottom line is, I am not in public office and if they want to use all this ‘material’ to run down my family it does not perturb me one bit. I am not saying that two wrongs make a right. But when they expand the boundaries of what is kosher, and when families now become fair game, then they should not grumble when I also play by the rules that they have established. I can be as dirty as they are. In fact, I can be even dirtier.

Now they are going to attack Anwar for his statement on Chin Peng. He is going to be painted as a traitor to the Malay race. They are even going to get the armed forces people to make statements condemning Anwar. Their objective is to attempt to turn the Malays against Anwar, in particular the Malays in the opposition -- the Umno Malays will not support Anwar anyway even if he makes a statement saying that he will defend the New Economic Policy till the last drop of his blood.

So, in short, what will Umno and the mainstream media do? They will spin. And how, therefore, do we fight back? Well, we also need to spin. A spin versus a spin. Do we have any other options? What alternatives are there open to us?

We must note that the Emergency was from 1948 to 1960. An estimated 5,000 people died, half of them armed forces personnel. But not all were Malays. Many were Mat Sallehs from UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. There were Ghurkhas who died as well.

Because of this Chin Peng can’t be allowed to return to Malaysia and Anwar Ibrahim is a traitor to the Malay race for suggesting he be allowed to return. And the other traitor who wants Chin Peng to be allowed to return is Zaid Ibrahim who yesterday joined PKR. But Chin Peng was not the only CPM leader. There were many others in the CPM hierarchy, Malays included. And they were allowed to return. And they too carried arms and shot people and killed Malaysians. Why were they allowed to return when they are as guilty as Chin Peng?

This is how we need to counter-spin in reply to the Anwar and Zaid are traitors to the Malay race argument.

What about the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation from 1963 to 1966? Many Malaysians as well as Mat Sallehs were also killed in this Konfrontasi with Indonesia. But the government has never raised this issue to remind Malaysians how dangerous and cruel the Indonesians were.

Indonesia wanted to bring about the destruction of Malaysia. They said so openly. They sent their military into our territory to kill many of our soldiers. Aren’t the Malays and military personnel upset about this as well? How do they propose we punish Indonesia the way we are punishing the CPM?

If you want to spin, then do it intelligently. And if you want to spin then expect us to counter-spin. And when we use the same tactics you use to attack us to attack you in return, do not cry foul. You established the rules. We are just playing by your rules. And when you spin that our family members are hired killers and sluts then expect us to hit you back with similar responses.

For years we have had to endure personal attacks. Even as far back as 1999 they were spinning stories about Nurul Izzah and the ‘affair’ she was having with Ezam Mohd Nor, the then PKR youth leader. Now that Ezam has joined Umno and is travelling the country to attack Anwar they have, of course, stopped this spin. If not we would still be hearing about the so-called sex scandal between Nurul Izzah and Ezam.

I repeat, I am not saying two wrongs make a right. But in a war we use the best weapon we can get our hands on. And we have to defend ourselves the best way we can when under attack. And sometimes the best form of defence is to attack. So expect us to attack whenever we can. And what is considered a spin to one person could be viewed as the gospel to another.

Courtesy Of Malaysia Today

First Lady Perempuan Puaka Youtube Video

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:46:00 +0000

Rosmah Mansor’s family talks about the real ‘First Lady’, something which is still unknown to most Malaysians-at-large. See what they have to say in this YouTube video recording EXCLUSIVE to Malaysia Today. Since it is exclusive to Malaysia Today, this also becomes exclusive to The Mighty Pen.

Rosmah’s disgusted brother has now left the country to join RPK in self-imposed exile. We are not connecting this to Malaysia Today as we expect Rosmah’s anger towards RPK will increase to a very high boiling point. God knows how she will react to this.

Courtesy Of SJSandteam

Anwar accuses Public Prosecutor of ‘political persecution’

noreply@blogger.com (nik) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:42:00 +0000

KUALA LUMPUR– Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is crying foul. With less than a month before he goes on trial for sodomy again, the opposition leader has yet to receive key documents from the Public Prosecutor (PP), which he says he is entitled to under the law.

In a statement yesterday from his lawyer, the former deputy prime minister accused the PP of purposely withholding information and denying him a fair trial.

He also charged the PP of taking part in a political conspiracy against him and demands the sodomy charges against him be dropped immediately.

“The Public Prosecutor has much to hide and as such, this prosecution of Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim is clearly an abuse, frivolous, unjust and is tantamount to a political persecution,” Sankara Nair said on behalf of Anwar.

Sankara noted the PP seemed to be repeating tired methods to deny Anwar a fair trial, employing an “ambush prosecution” tactic used in the Sodomy I case back in 1998/ 99.

Among the documents asked for are testimonies from witnesses, the original DNA samples sent for testing, medical notes, photographs and CCTV (closed circuit television) recordings showing Anwar with his accuser, a 23-year-old former male aide.

Sankara claimed that he had written to the PP asking for copies of the various pieces of proof as early as Sept 8 last year.

Several reminders sent out since January have been largely ignored, Sankara said.

“Save for the earlier delivery of just one statement and a few photo prints picked out of a purported CCTV recording, nothing else that was requested by us have been supplied,” he said.

He added that the last they heard from the PP was on June 6, when they received a letter rejecting their requests except to provide the results of the DNA tests.

“We are deeply disappointed and rather perturbed that the Public Prosecutor has acted most unprofessionally and unethically,” he said.

Sankara said Anwar was left with little choice but to apply to the High Court for an order to force the PP to release the pieces of proofs they plan to use in the upcoming trial.

Anwar's trial will run starting from July 1 to 24.

The 61-year-old father of six is charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at Desa Damansara Condominium in the leafy enclave of Damansara Heights in June last year.

If found guilty, he can be jailed up to 20 years and whipped under Section 377B of the Penal Code. (TMI)