MAHATHIR REGRETS - Missed by Malaysiakini

SNIPPETS BY TUN MAHATHIR - Can we expect many more regrets Tun.

PUTRAJAYA

1. Putrajaya, dedicated to Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra is a city built on a greenfield site.

2. It has attracted a lot of visitors, both local and foreign. Many countries have studied the development of Putrajaya when they are planning their new administrative capital.

3. Malaysians are divided in their opinions of this artificially developed city. Some think it is a mega project which costs too much. Some seem to like it.

4. I was still Prime Minister when work on Putrajaya began. I saw the completion of the Prime Minister's complex, the mosque and a part of the buildings lining the boulevard (not to be called boulevard now).

5. I had noticed that the impressive boulevard was to be lined with Government buildings. I had spoken to (the late) Tan Sri Azizan Zainal Abidin, then Chairman of Petronas, the agency chosen to build Putrajaya, remarking the boulevard has only imposing Government Ministries lining it.

6. In America the cities all have central business districts where all the major corporations have their impressive office buildings. In the daytime the area is crowded with business people, office workers etc. Big American cars dropped and picked up the Executives along the main street.

7. The area is usually beautifully landscaped with fountains and monuments dotting the area.

8. However at night the place becomes deserted as all the office workers and businessmen go home. Quietness descends on the area with only an occasional taxi driving through. The fast food restaurants are shut.

9. It is dangerous to venture into the area at night as you may be coshed and robbed.

10. Remembering this I wanted to have the Putrajaya boulevard full of people at night. If you have only Government Offices and Ministries, the place would be deserted at night.

11. Unfortunately the planners want the place to have imposing Government buildings. The businesses should be tucked away somewhere.

12. As I drive through the boulevard at night I am enchanted with the number of lights lining it and the side roads. But there is no life as all the great Ministries are shut up tight, although they are beautifully floodlighted.

13. There are no shops at all, not even a coffee house. Those who have visited gay Paris will remember the brightness and the throngs of people strolling along or sipping drinks at roadside tables in front of brightly lit restaurants. The famous Lido would be crowded with people going to see the shows. Busloads of tourists would throng the bright side streets or sit at café tables watching people going by. The scene is very animated.

14. Famous restaurants and some fast food outlets as well as other shops lined the side roads parallel to the boulevard. Traffic flowed to and fro, unimpeded along the tree lined central boulevard.

15. I can understand why Paris is called the City of Light.

16. Putrajaya has lights almost as bright as those in Paris. But there are almost nobody strolling along the boulevard. It reminds me of the business districts in American cities.

17. I have talked to several people about the importance of having shops and theatres along the boulevard to give life to this beautiful city. But nothing has happened. I believe a big glass-fronted building has been built to house business corporations. It too would be closed at night.

18. More offices are being built but no shops, no restaurants or coffee houses and certainly no places of entertainment of any kind.

19. One of the effects of this rigid confinement to Government buildings on the boulevard is to make Putrajaya a Malay city. Ninety five percent of the people living in Government built flats are Malay Government workers. Although the Government built flats are available to non-Government servants, there are hardly any buyers for them. Certainly there are no Chinese or Indian.

20. I admit being guilty of setting up Putrajaya as the administrative capital. It is very well planned. But it is dull. 21. Not being in the Government, I cannot influence anything anymore. But I hope the powers that be will read this snippet on Putrajaya.

Zaid resign - Malaysiakini

Malaysiakini - reported that Zaid has resigned. Way to go - Zaid. We Malaysians salute you. UMNO's arrogance is in play. Its not Government's (Barisan Nasional) decision, it is UMNO's decision with Syed Hamid Albar as the spokesman. Syed Hamid Albar = Zainuddin Maidin. His reasoning cannot even convince the kids. Syed Hamid Albar have shown his true colour.

See what The Star says:

Cabinet members or Barisan Nasional component party leaders should be consulted before the Government issues any detention order, said MCA secretary-general Datuk Seri Ong Ka Chuan. “We hope in future there will be more consultation among Cabinet members or component party leaders because we were not informed about this,”

MCA against it - MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said MCA felt that if the ISA was really necessary, it must only be invoked in the most extreme cases.

MIC against it - Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam said the Government should be sensitive to the feelings of the people and not be blind to the fact that a significant proportion of the rakyat abhor the ISA and would prefer it not to be used.

GERAKAN against it - Gerakan acting president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon said Gerakan had called for the amendment of the ISA but not its abolition. He said the Act should be used only when dealing with national security and not against journalists carrying out their duties.

DOMPOK against it - Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Bernard Dompok said the arrests of reporter Tan Hoon Cheng, Seputeh MP Teresa Kok and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin had put the Government in a bad light. “For any arrest there must be a reason and it must be clearly explained to the public,” he said.

Malaysians (Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Kadazans) - Be Calm, Be Patient and be polite even if it is your enemy. Register yourselves as voters and get whoever you can convince to register as Voters so that we could kick UMNO out in the next election.

RELEASE OUR BELOVED RAJA PETRA KAMARUDDIN & THERESA KOK IMMEDIATELY.

ABU - Anyone But Umno.

Permatang Pauh MP bersumpah - Malaysiakini

Malaysiakini confirms today that Anwar Ibrahim, MP for Permatang Pauh have sworn in as MP and has been appointed as Opposition Leader. What a comeback tale. Love it.

Anwar Ibrahim Bersumpah (1998 to 2008) - Malaysiakini

September 1998

August 2008

September 2008 - In Parliament

September 2008, DSAI will be in the Parliament to Korek, Korek & Korek. Glad that Tun Dr Mahathir is still alive to witness this. Malaysiakini reported that DSAI has been sworn in as MP for Permatang Pauh and now as Opposition Leader of Malaysia. Great day & moment for Malaysia.

1998 to 2008 - The journey of Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

September 1998 is still fresh in my mind as I witness;

1. The everyday night Gathering at the home of DSAI in Damansara; the crowd, the stalls, speeches, interview with foreign journalist etc etc
2. The gathering at Masjid Negara, which was early scheduled at Dataran Merdeka on the closing ceremony day of Commonwealth day. Queen Elizabeth were at the Church across Dataran Merdeka.
3. The March to UMNO building with a song titled Inilah Barisan Kita by multiracial crowd from Masjid Negara. The FRU have to give way simply looking at the large crowd.
4. The day DSAI were arrested by bacalavas or balacavas wearing cops.
5. The protest and reformasi gatherings at Kampung Baru Mosque.
6. The gathering across the river from the Court building everytime DSAI brought in from Sg Buloh prison and the waving everytime the white jeep pass by us.
7. One of very few who eyewitnessed Tian Chua who sat in the front of FRU Truck at the bridge near the current Bar Council building during one of the protest.
8. The day DSAI were found guilty and sentenced by Paul Augustine were still fresh in my mind when tyres and dbkl dustbins were burned on the roads and parking meters were uprooted and thrown.

Fed up of sodomy "Govt may cut fuel price" - Malaysiakini

Malaysiakini reports today that Govt may cut fuel price. We Malaysians are simply fed up with all this sodomy stuffs. We are getting annoyed for being treated like fools and it’s a challenge for the Malaysians’ intellect to hear and read nonsense news and views day in and day out.

Today, at the end of the month of July, we are glad to hear something nice i.e. that fuel price may come down. How nice if that happens and we Malaysians should pray that the Government and Opposition work towards the betterment of Malaysians at large.

DNA & SHA (Syed Hamid Albar). Police mull court action - Malaysiakini

Malaysiakini reported today that the police is considering court action to compel anwar to give DNA. It is also reported in Malaysiakini that Anwar will only agree if there is a court order. Lets see what NST says:

Question : "What is Anwar Afraid of?"


http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2296707/Article/index_html

Answer : Anwar fears tampering of DNA.

De facto Parti Keadilan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim refused to give his blood sample for DNA test for fear that the evidence would be tampered with to implicate him in the sodomy allegation.

"Why should I give my blood sample when police have refused to give my lawyers a copy of the police report lodged against me?" ask Anwar.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2296708/Article/index_html

Conclusion : found in last para of lawyers' opinion

Lawyer Haresh Mahadevan, meanwhile, said DNA evidence alone was not conclusive to prove that a person was involved in a crime."It is merely corroborative evidence to support the prosecution's case," he said, adding that it was possible to plant samples like hair, sweat particles or blood of a person at the crime scene to implicate him or her.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2296712/Article/index_html

Road-blocking BN's popularity - Malaysiakini

Do the UMNO-BN Government really care about public opinion? Do they still think that Malaysians are bunch of fools??? Malaysiakini should conducts polls on road blocks.

Anwar's Arrest at 12.55pm (Appt at 2.00pm)

Note the policemen who are happily chatting under the umbrella while we the rakyat suffer the traffic jam, wastage of time and petrol etc etc. This is what happens all over the roadblocks. The Policemen are simply there to cause inconvenience. Whose security these guys are talking about? And our brilliant PM says Roadblocks needed to keep order see here .. http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/7/15/nation/21822758&sec=nation

Any body language expert?

Under Duress on 03/07/08?

Or under duress on 04/07/08?

Body language expert should be able to give hints at which stage the PI were under duress.
Pics from The Star & Bernama.

Law Lesson - Statutory Declaration

Balasubramaniam has made an about turn and released a new statutory declaration. From media reports, it appears that he claims that those parts of his original Statutory Declaration that pertained to the Deputy Prime Minister were made under duress.

He has not been forthcoming with particulars of his purported duress. This is unfortunate as it raises many questions that the Malaysian public is deserving of answers to. As I understand it, the inflicting of duress in law requires the subjecting of a person to the kind of treatment that would leave that person with no doubt that he or someone close to him would be in grave danger, life and limb, unless that person cooperated with the person inflicting duress.

Is Balasubramaniam saying that representatives of Keadilan inflicted duress or that his previous lawyer did? We cannot overlook the statement given by Anwar Ibrahim at the same press conference yesterday in he explained how Balasubramaniam had come to make the Statutory Declaration. From this perspective, the accusation of duress is not a trivial one as it carries grave implications and consequences.

In the same vein, if in fact the police were in contact with Balasubramaniam yesterday, after the press conference at which he released his original (and now retracted) Statutory Declaration as the media suggests, the police should also make it clear to the rakyat what it is that transpired, if only to clear up any doubt as to the circumstances in which Balasubramaniam retracted his original statement.

I say this because the original Statutory Declaration was itself of grave importance and carried with serious implications. I have noted that some writers have been quick to question or dismiss the value of the original Statutory Declaration for it allegedly being hearsay, or put another way, containing only second hand information not directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam.

I do not share this view. Allow me to explain why.

The law requires direct evidence of a fact. Second-hand knowledge is considered to be unreliable. However it does not follow that ‘hearsay’ evidence is not admissible or irrelevant in all cases. Evidence is multi-faceted and is never merely proof of one fact. Considered from different angles, a single piece of evidence may tell more than one story.

For example, A tells B that A had stolen some money. B then tells C. C’s evidence of the conversation is not admissible as an admission by A or as proof of theft. Put another way, A could not be convicted purely on the say so of C. Evidence of A having committed the theft would have to be put before the court, in one form or the other. This is the essence of the hearsay rule.

However, this does not mean that the fact of B telling C is of no relevance. The fact is that A and B had that conversation and though C’s evidence may not be able to establish the truth of what was told to him by B, it can establish that such a conversation took place. The law permits this. If admitted, such evidence could be considered as ‘circumstantial evidence’.

Seen in this light, it is clear that the original Statutory Declaration was of great significance. In it Balasubramaniam categorically stated that he gave information to the police about the conversations he had had with Razak Baginda and Altantuya AND that such information was excluded from his statement AND that the Prosecution did not ask him any questions about this aspect of the information he gave to the police. These pieces of evidence were not hearsay as they were matters directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. They were also manifestly relevant.

Additionally, for the reasons explained above, the fact of the conversations between Balasubramaniam and Razak Baginda and Altantuya respectively were also of relevance for equally suggesting an alternative or additional line of enquiry that the police ought to have looked into but apparently did not.

The about-turn and the possible, though as yet uncertain, involvement of the police do not do any good for the already seriously undermined confidence of the rakyat in the justice system.We deserve better.

visit : malikimtiaz.blogspot.com

2nd Statutory Declaration

I, Balakrishnan a/l Perumal (NRIC 600928-08-6235) a Malaysian citizen of full age and residing at No 32, xxxxxxx, Selangor Darul Ehsan do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as constable in 1981. I was subsequently promoted to the rank of Lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 1998.

2. I currently work as a freelance Private Investigator.

3. I wish to refer to the Statutory Declaration I affirmed on 1st July 2008. I refer specifically to paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52, wherein I have stated inter-alia that:

(a) Razak Baginda informed me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaaribu by a VIP;

(b) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;

(c) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak instructed Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaaribu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister;

(d) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaaribu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;

(e) Altantuya Shaaribu wanted money in the sum of USD$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;

(f) Altantuya Shaaribu met Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in Singapore;

(g) Altantuya Shaaribu wanted to arrange to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak;

(h) I told the police about the relationship between Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Altantuya Shaaribu but when it came to sign my statement, this detail was left out;

(i) The prosecutor during the course of the trial in the High Court of Shah Alam did not ask me any question in respect of Altantuya Shaaribu's purported relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of a phone call I received from one DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and/or his wife;

(j) Razak Baginda informed me that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before be was arrested but did not receive a response; and

(k) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak sent an SMS to Razak Baginda on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Razak Baginda to remain calm.

4. I wish to retract alol the statements that I have made in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49, and 50 to 52 of my Statutory Declaration dated 1st July 2008. The statements contained in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52 of my Statutory Declaration dated 1st July 2008 are inaccurate and not the truth. I wish to expressly state that:

(a) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaaribu by a VIP;

(b) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;

(c) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to look after Altantuya Shaaribu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister;

(d) At no material time did Razak Baginda or/and Altantuya Shaaribu inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaaribu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;

(e) At no material time did Altantuya Shaaribu inform me that she wanted money in the sum of USD$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;

(f) At no time whatsoever did Razak Baginda or/and Altantuya Shaaribu inform me that met Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in Singapore;

(g) At no time whatsoever did Altantuya Shaaribu inform me that she wanted me to arrange to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak;

(h) At no time did I tell the police during the course of their investigations about any relationship between Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Altantuya Shaaribu as no such relationship existed to my knowledge. Accordingly, the statement I signed before the police is complete;

(i) At no time did Razak Baginda infor me that he had Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested; and

(k) At no time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had sent him an SMS on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Razak Baginda to remain calm.In addition, I wish to retract the entire contents of my Statutory Declaration dated 1st July 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said Statutory Declaration dated 1st July 2008 under duress.

And I make this solemn declaration voluntarily and conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.

Subscribed and solemnly declared by the abovenamed )BALASUBRAMANIAM a/l PERUMAL )at Kuala Lumpur )in the State of W. Persekutuan )this 4th day of July 2008 )

unseen hands at work?

What the hell is happening??

Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda's private investigator P. Balasubramaniam on Friday retracted part of his statutory declaration which he made less than 24 hours ago. In his new statutory declaration he says that he 'was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration under duress'.

Anwar vs Najib

Interesting development and times in Malaysian Politics.

STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: xxxxxx-xx-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at xxxxx, Selangor do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-

25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.

25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-

28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.

28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.

28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

28.6That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.

33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.

34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 - 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.

43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.

45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- ” I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-

54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.

54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.

54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.

SUBCRIBED and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]
this day of 2008 )Before me,
………………………………….Commissioner for OathKuala Lumpur

Double blow to UMNO-BN

1. No-confidence by SAPP (BN component party from Sabah)

SAPP declared that they have lost confidence in BN and will move a no-confidence motion in Parliament.

2. Sanglang (Perlis) state seat declared vacant.

One down for UMNO in Perlis. Election Court declared Sanglang state seat, won by UMNO by 149 votes vacant. Re-election in Perlis.

Lets wait and see the actions of politicians in the country. Interesting times indeed.

I hate myself for loving you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is one of the Minister I had respect for and I thought all the while he is a moderate leader. Take note Bagan Datoh voters. Your MP have shown his real colour.

Pengundi Melayu tanggung padah

KUALA LUMPUR 9 Jun - Ahli Majlis Tertinggi UMNO (MT), Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi percaya orang Melayu di Selangor kini mula sedar bahawa mereka terpaksa menanggung padah kerana salah memilih kerajaan.

Menurut beliau, ini berikutan keputusan kerajaan campuran Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), DAP dan Pas negeri Selangor menghapuskan peraturan mengehadkan rumah ibadat bukan Islam di negeri itu.

Beliau berkata, walaupun Menteri Besar Selangor beragama Islam tetapi tidak mempunyai
kuasa sebaliknya keputusan yang diambil ditentukan oleh barisan Exco negeri itu.
''Apabila kerajaan campuran PKR, DAP dan Pas memerintah Selangor, bidang kuasa adalah di tangan Exco kerana kekuasaan dan keputusan ditentukan oleh mereka,'' katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian dalam sidang akhbar selepas menyampaikan anugerah Perkhidmatan Cemerlang dan Sijil Penghargaan Perkhidmatan Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (MAIWP) 2007 di Pusat Belia Antarabangsa, Bandar Tun Razak di sini hari ini.

Ahmad Zahid mengulas keputusan kerajaan negeri Selangor untuk menghapuskan peraturan mengehadkan rumah ibadat bukan Islam yang tidak boleh dibina dengan keluasan melebihi 10,000 kaki persegi.

Ia diumumkan oleh Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tetap Kesihatan, Pekerja Ladang, Kemiskinan dan Kerajaan Prihatin Negeri, Dr. Xavier Jayakumar bersama Pengerusi Tetap Jawatankuasa Tetap Kerajaan Tempatan, Penyelidikan dan Pembangunan Negeri, Ronnie Liu.

Menurut beliau, sebelum ini kerajaan negeri Selangor telah memberikan jaminan untuk melaksanakan sistem akidah Islamiah.

''Tetapi apa yang boleh dilakukan melainkan terpaksa bersetuju kerana suara mereka hanyalah suara minoriti.

''Cuma saya ingin beritahu orang Islam di Selangor, itulah harga mahal yang terpaksa mereka bayar kerana salah memilih kerajaan,'' katanya.

Beliau yang juga adalah Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri berkata, Kerajaan Pusat tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk campur tangan dengan keputusan kerajaan campuran negeri Selangor itu.

Menurutnya, keluasan sesuatu rumah ibadat bukan Islam hanya ditentukan oleh kerajaan negeri dengan melalui pihak berkuasa tempatan.

Kata beliau, wujud satu garis panduan khas kerana Islam adalah agama rasmi negara dan mempunyai garis panduan tertentu tanpa mengetepikan agama lain.

Open Reply to Dr Mahathir - Tun Salleh Saga

By Art Harun.

Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh Saga. To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you have obviously regained your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding of the Royal Commission on the Linggam tape.

I must confess that I was not moved to post anything about the Tun Salleh issue as everybody and his dog has apparently written about it. However, after having read your latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write this reply, just to put things on record and proper perspective.

It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of manipulation. When everything else fails, what better than to stoke racial sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in Johore Bahru recently when you quite irresponsible pointed out that the Malays are the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to continue. You than quickly followed it up in Japan when you reminded the Malays to unite and be strong because, according to you, other races are now asking for many things and questioning Malay rights. Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" would normally be a cliche to repeat, but in your case, I would make an exception. Just change the word "patriotism" to "racialism" and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.

When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim, I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal. How very convenient of you DrM. Of course you had conveniently overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice as the then Prime Minister. And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth, according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas be removed because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining about His Majesty's renovation work. So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask?

That is the first question which came across my mind while reading your post. The second question is this. Since when have you become a royalist so much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The King had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a letter over some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it up with a tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal Constitution? You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very same Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the powers of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the tribunal at the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the fearless Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for Royal assents to any bill of law before it could effectively be the law of the country by amending the Federal Constitution, had suddenly be so subservient to the King in relation to the sacking of Salleh Abas?

The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is of course not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not charged over THAT letter? If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writin such a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY? If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty, why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King? W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter has appeared and become an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during the Linggam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last week about the same letter? Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks. Coincidently, I wrote.

By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your beligerent attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state mass media, the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and the Malays Rulers. The whole propaganda machines were used to smear the King and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed in newspapers. Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be. And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas? Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody else who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?

DrM, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!

You then mention in your blog that it was your opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord President who was photographed with a certain lawyer oversea? Wouldn't that constitute a wrongdoing? That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a wrongdoing which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?

You now charged, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented Dr M. I remember clearly in one speech, you liken the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would now say it was all in jest. Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms, namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase "check and balance" was missing from your administrative dictionary which was probably reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.

Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to take away "judicial powers" from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M, that Malaysia, would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth ( I say Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems) whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was, and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy.

Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!

You some what denies that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a balance of probability, otherwise. Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this character later in this post. On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended, Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the haste? Nobody knows. That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas. How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond me or my intelect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this fact Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post. I am sure.

If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?

Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because, among others, of his bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal. He said he was taking notes during the said meeting. While he could remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during the meeting when asked by the tribunal members. If he was so sure that he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely, partial and momentary lapse of memory.

On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in your blog Dr M? And let the people who read it to judge the matter after having been fed with al relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own purpose and objectives.

I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time form me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have you forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?

Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the King dated 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never mentioned in any of the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary. I will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter. But what Dr M had failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on 25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that of Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal. Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly, how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to understand it, let alone grasp it.

Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of separation of powers. Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of course you then had to accuse "certain Judges" as interfering with politics. You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying down while waiting for pension?

You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration system. AS much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the attacks leveled against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him to lodge a police report over the matter?

By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politicain is trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you of course forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the law along Islamic legal principles with against the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published by you in your blog?

Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim or Abdullah Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story. And let the people, and history, be the judge.

Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)? The beauty is that it is a set of law common to all the people. That means, when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would know. The common people. Me, and your readers.

Kind regards,

Art Harun

Press Statement by Saudara Anwar Ibrahim after 41% increase of petrol and diesel prices.

Harga Minyak Melambung (Unreasonable Petrol Price increase)


Rakyat dibebankan dengan kenaikan keterlaluan! Rakyat pastinya dirundung kehidupan rumit. Bermula dari harga minyak, menjalar ka bil letrik, tertekan parah dengan kos pengangkutan dan harga barang keperluan lainnya. Arakian subsidi minyak dikurangkan, tetapi persoalannya keuntungan PETRONAS yang jenuh melimpah tertiris dan bocor kemana? Tidak ada pertanggungjawaban waima kapada Parlimen sekalipun.

Yang arif mengenai kedudukan kewangan PETRONAS hanya PM dan yang terserlah adalah projek mega dan koridor! Rakyat bukan sahaja dinafikan maklumat malah limpahan dan habuan dari khazanah utama negara tidak dirasakan. Kemenfaatannya adalah buat keluarga dan kroni yang sekonyong-konyong dianugerah kontrak dan projek. Inilah yang kami sering ungkapkan sebagai pengurusan ekonomi yang lembab dan tidak bertanggungjawab!Amalan hidup pimpinan negara terus boros, pembaziran dan rasuah terus berleluasa.

Justeru itu kami membantah keras dasar Kerajaan UMNO-BN yang mengabaikan tanggungjawab dan membebankan rakyat. Satelah gagal mengurus ekonomi dan menjamin keselesaan hidup rakyat, pimpinan UMNO-BN seharusnya berundur!

Saya ulangi pendirian saya dan Pakatan Rakyat untuk menurunkan harga minyak dan meletakkan asas ekonomi manusiawi. Dasar tsb harus menjurus kepada pertumbuhan segar dan pantas, namun tetap prihatin terhadap kehidupan rakyat.

Anwar Ibrahim

Whack from RPK

Last month, Umno Johor said that the greatest mistake they made was in giving the non-Malay immigrants citizenship in August 1957. Now that they have been given citizenship they show their ingratitude by voting for the opposition. Yes, non-Malays, even those born in Malaysia, are immigrants. And, being immigrants, they must vote Barisan Nasional. And if they do not vote for Barisan Nasional then they are ungrateful.

Yes, voting is your right. This is your right according to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Malays can vote for whomsoever they would like to vote for because the Constitution allows them to do so. Malays, therefore, can vote for the opposition. But, if you are non-Malay, then you must vote for Barisan Nasional because you are an immigrant. If you vote for the opposition then you are a traitor, you are ungrateful, and it was a great mistake giving you citizenship in 1957.

Tun Dr Mahathir’s father was born in India. But Tun Dr Mahathir can vote opposition. He can even oppose Umno like he is doing so now. In fact, he can even become the Prime Minister. He is not an ungrateful immigrant who should be sent back to India. Tian Chua, however, can’t oppose Umno. Tian Chua, whose family settled in Malaya long before the Portuguese came in 1511, is an immigrant. And if he is not happy and if he opposes Umno then he should go back to China. And Umno Johor regrets giving Tian Chua citizenship in 1957 but does not regret giving Tun Dr Mahathir citizenship.

Why? Because Tun Dr Mahathir is Muslim while Tian Chua is not. But if Tian Chua circumcises and takes on the Muslim name of Musa Bin Susah and marries a Malay woman, then he need not go back to China and Umno does not regret giving him citizenship in 1957.

The Malays have a very warped view of justice. Malays practice two standards of justice. There is one standard for the Malays and another for the non-Malays. And 90% of the tax is paid by the non-Malays and 10% by the Malays, says Tun Dr Mahathir. But 10% or the scholarships must go to the non-Malays and 90% to the Malays. And when they propose to change this to 40% for the non-Malays and 60% for the Malays, the Malays raise a hue and cry. And they call this justice. And they say Islam is about justice.

If this is an example of Islamic justice then I just shudder to think what would happen if Muslims start becoming unjust.

Open Letter to Prime Minister

Letter writtten to Malaysiakini;

I am a Malaysian citizen with a foreign wife of Indonesian nationality. We have been married for nine years and have three children. My wife has been holding a social visit pass for nine years. We returned to Malaysia from overseas in 1998.

Three years ago I applied for her Permanent Resident status after having fulfilled the conditions by the immigration department (that she must hold a social visit pass for five years). Until today we are still waiting for news on the status of her PR application. All we have ever got was a letter from the immigration stating that her application is ‘under consideration’. This took two and a half years - just for one letter!

We are among the thousands of Malaysians with foreign spouses who are still waiting for their PR. Why does the government take so long to process an application? Why is the Malaysian government so reluctant to grant PR status to foreign spouses?

A few years ago, the Human Resources Ministry announced that overseas Malaysian citizens who were experts in their field and wanted to return to Malaysia would be given incentives -including approval for the spouse's PR status in six months. When I inquired about this from the Human Resource Ministry, they told me that I am not eligible for this programme since

I came back to Malaysia before the program was started. To me, this is just utter nonsense.

If the government is worried about the ‘brain-drain’, shouldn't the powers-that-be be doing something about professionals like myself who are already in the country? Should I leave the country for two years and then come back? It would be utter irony as in this way I would then be eligible for having my wife's PR application fast-tracked.

At the same time, our government seems to prefer giving PR status to suspected terrorists from a neighbouring country. We have even given PR status to a badminton coach. This is blatantly unfair to people in my situation.

In this nine years of living in Malaysia, my wife has seen her opportunities for a career disappear like smoke. Prospective employers are generally turned off when they hear that she is a foreigner as they don't want the hassle with the paperwork.

She gave up looking for a job related to her qualifications years ago. My wife has an MBA in Finance. We are not alone in this as there are so many qualified foreign wives (degree holders) who have difficulties getting employment.

The list doesn't stop here - without a PR status, my wife cannot even open a bank account.

Even then, what if something were to happen to me? Because of the social visit pass requirements, she would not even be allowed to stay in this country. What will happen to our three children then?

Nowadays I don't even discuss the PR issue with my wife anymore as we would just end up in an argument. Why has the government allowed this dilemma to continue? I am willing to bet that most people in the same situation as myself voiced their dissatisfaction at the ballot box on March 8.

There are really no guidelines besides requiring your spouse to stay in the country for five years.

After that, it is just up to the whims and fancies of the government. Even the arrogant immigration officer at Shah Alam told me once that the ‘PR is an anugerah (award) and not a hak (right). Why doesn't the government put in place proper guidelines for approving PR applications? It seems to me that the little napoleons are the ones running the show.

I have even tried calling the immigration office at Putrajaya. Their response was that ‘the PR applications from year 2000 are still pending, so just wait. There is no time line given for PR approvals’.

In Singapore, qualified applicants get their PR status in three months. In Australia, it takes less than a year. Our government, on the other hand, is doing nothing to solve the PR issue for thousands of Malaysians.

I am wholeheartedly appealing to our prime minister, since he claimed to be a prime minister for all Malaysians to please intervene in this situation. If our prime minister is serious about winning back our confidence, then do something.

Are we serious in attracting skilled manpower to Malaysia and to compete and stay competitive with the rest of the countries in this region?

Cucuk siapa ni??

The role of MSM. Carry the --lls of the current leader.

End of Mahithirism?

Few days after announcement that he and 5 others will be probed for V.K Lingam tape, Tun Mahathir has announced that he will quit UMNO (conditionally). Is he angry with the Government for setting up Commission to investigate VK Lingam tape? Sit back and enjoy the drama.

Rebranding MIC - A new generation party with old generation leaders?

New logo
New party song
New uniform
New website
New call centre
New members 50% youths
Old leaders.

MIC President says;
1. "If we do not keep up with the times, we may become irrelevant".
2. "This is the party where people have the right to argue and discuss" but at the same CWC meeting, former Kapar division meeting was sacked from MIC for asking questions and speaking up.

AG's chambers to probe Dr M & Ors

The Cabinet agreed that the Royal Commission of Inquiry report into the Datuk V.K. Lingam clip be made public and the Attorney-General's Chambers investigate the allegations in the report against individuals such as Datuk V.K. Lingam, business tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, former Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor, retired Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin, former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Right royal politician

Excerpts of an interview with Datuk Seri Tengku Azlan Sultan Abu Bakar (brother of Sultan Pahang) by The Sun.

What changes would you like to see in Umno for the betterment of the country?

For a party that has done a lot of service to the country since independence … whether it’s Umno, MCA or MIC … its members sacrificed in order to contribute to the party funds. And those were big sacrifices. Now it’s the other way – people join Umno to get something out of it. Instead of political gain, they also want financial gain. They join for other reasons, not to contribute to society.

And as time goes by, I see more and more of this happening. Today because of the quota system, you won’t be getting the right people at the top, because those who got to the top may have used some way or other to get to the top. You may get the votes because you do certain things, but you know very well inside you that you are not the right person, but through your influence … like the former vice-president who used money politics, he got up there and got disgraced. And if Umno continues with this, where the wrong people sit at the top, it will destroy the party as the right people who really want to serve cannot get there. We want people with the credibility, the knowledge and the experience.

I can put this question: Even if you are the president of the party today, are you really the most popular person in the party? I would put a question mark! It’s true because of the system. But if three million people could vote, then we will know if he is the most popular person in Umno. But we don’t have this system of referendum in the country today.

What is holding Umno back from having good people? Why are professionals reluctant to join the party?

It is how the leader perceives it. When you are outspoken, it doesn’t pay. You become a nuisance, sort of a maverick. For me, I will say it if something is not right. Whether you like what I say is secondary, but I will point it out if it is wrong, at the risk of me being unpopular with the leadership.

Why has Umno deviated from this founding principle that it takes care of all races?

Somewhere, somehow, people got greedy. And this is something that started during Mahathir’s time. If you look at all the big projects that have been given over the last 15-20 years, I think it is between 12 to 20 companies that keep getting these projects.

If you talk about Indians, in my area there about 1,400, and I know some of them are suffering. In Kampung Muhibbah – the land that they stayed on for over 20 years – they were never given any titles. I solved the problem in a matter of months. That’s why the Indian community is still supportive of me there.

The orang asli also, they need to be looked after. The Indians and orang asli – 95% supported Barisan Nasional. They did not know any other party. Why can’t we help them? Also some Chinese, the Malays – many have supported the BN. We should take care of them. Repay them for keeping this government in place for 50 years.

But then, look at the election results. These are the people who said "enough is enough!". They said "you never helped us. For all the loyalty we have shown, you did not help us".

Actually, they wanted to give the BN a wake-up call. I don’t think they expected such results.

Look at Hindraf. If things were looked into seriously to help the Indians, they would probably have been happier with us.

That’s why I said, as a wakil rakyat (people’s representative) you cannot be arrogant. The rakyat is the boss. Even the prime minister, when he goes back to his kawasan (constituency), he is the wakil rakyat.

That is the dilemma of some leaders, where you have to wear two masks. At the kawasan they are MPs and they wakil everyone; at the Umno level, they say I don’t need the votes of the Indians or Chinese.

You cannot say those things. When you contested in the election, you contested under the BN banner, not Umno. I have 28% Chinese votes in Jerantut. I need every vote.

What would you perceive to be the ideal Malaysia?

I think we must go back to our roots, take a good look at where we came from and where we went wrong. The whole foundation of Malaysia as a people is cracking. We have been lost and we need to go back to the starting point.

Maybe we should start with dismantling communal politics. As the last election showed, race-based politics is out of style.

Barisan Nasional itself is already ready for it.

You think so? Why can’t we just have Barisan Nasional?

Someone should suggest it. There’s nothing wrong. You see, if you are an Indian and you talk about strengthening your community at a platform full of Indians, if I am sitting there, I will not take offence. Depends on where you say it and how you say it. If I am a Malay speaking about uplifting the Malays and killing all these jealousies, it is okay, but you cannot say "I want you to be better than the Chinese or Indians, so we should suppress them".

Why should I get offended if you are talking about uplifting the Indians? But if you say "go to hell with the Malays", sure-lah I get offended.

We have co-existed for so long. Mana ada problem dulu? (There weren’t problems then). Look at Tun Tan Siew Sin, how he took care of the country’s money. I have full respect for him. I don’t hold a grudge because he is Chinese. He is one of the best finance ministers we ever had. Tun V.T. Sambanthan and Tan Sri V. Manickavasagam ... they were great leaders.

How did we come about this communal thing? We had no issues before.

In my kawasan, I speak about strengthening Umno in front of Indians and Chinese. They have no problems.

When I go to the Indian area, I tell MIC "you must tell us what you want", and if I have programmes with Indians, I go through MIC.

At the height of the Hindraf issue, I had programmes with the Indians. I asked them how many went for Hindraf? Only one person, and he is not even a voter from Jerantut!

I said "why didn’t you go? You should have all gone just to listen to what they had to say. Nothing wrong with that".

If you are an open-minded person, there will not be any problems. These are narrow-minded politicians.

That’s the problem. These politicians feel they have to play the race card just to fish for votes, even if it means offending the other communities.

The bloody fools should not be talking like that.

If you read some statements these politicians have been making, they are all preparing for the party AGM. We are liberal people and can recognise political rhetoric, but what about those who are not so discerning? They will take rhetoric for reality and react.

That’s why I said these are wrong leaders. Umno has put wrong people in place. You remember those days – Tunku, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn, even Mahathir – where were there problems?

Didn’t the rot start with Mahathir?

Mahathir is a very liberal person, you know.

But he allowed people to say this. Mahathir has done great things for the country, but he messed up the judiciary and condoned corruption.

Yes. Correct. You are right.

Is Pak Lah still the right man to lead Umno?

For the moment. He cannot resign now. Give him some time to reorganise the party and then step down. He cannot be wholly faulted for the poor showing in the election, but as the leader he must take responsibility.

He has to go before the next general election but not now. And this time, he has to serve the full term. It was bad timing this time around with so much unfinished business … the Khairy factor et cetera. He still had one year for damage control and I think he should have taken advantage of this.

Somehow his image as a leader has taken a beating and he will never recover from it.

R.P.K. Released.

Malaysia Today Editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin released at 9.30am Friday (9/5/08).

Welcome back Sir.

RM 1.134 Million for 3 advisers.

Adviser 1
Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil - RM404,726.40 (Annually)
Adviser 2
Tan Sri Dr Abdul Hamid - RM549,675.00 (Annually)
Adviser 3
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad - RM15,000.00 a month
Total : RM1.134 Million annually for 3 advisers.
Full story The Star-Pg18 (9/5/08)

2nd Tsunami coming?

News from The Star 08/05/2008.

News 1 - Dr. M - Danger of defections is real.

“I, at first, wanted to dismiss this possibility, but on studying the situation I feel there is great danger,”

News 2 - MPs from Sabah and Sarawak warn government.

Debating on the motion of thanks on the royal address, Anifah said talk of MPs from Sabah switching allegiance to Pakatan Rakyat could be equated to “moving house.”

“What’s the point of moving to a terrace house if one is already living in a bungalow? However, for some of us, there seems to be no pleasure in living in this bungalow. What’s the point of living in a bungalow if one has to sleep beside the toilet?

“Only a few groups living in the bungalow seem to enjoy the benefits,” he said, adding that there were some prominent leaders from Peninsula Malaysia who thought they knew Sabah when they had only been to Kota Kinabalu.

FREE R.P.K.

R.P.K. will be released tomorrow morning at the PJ Sessions Court, round about 9.30am. Try to be there to welcome him. Meanwhile we can join others to light a candle tonight at 8.30pm, Dataran Merdeka on 08/05/2008.

Think before giving standing ovation.

Statement from Bar Council:
The Sedition Act is a draconian, archaic and repressive piece of legislation that has long outlived any perceived utility it might ever have had. This statute is incompatible with the progressive, open and democratic society that we had believed Malaysia was becoming. The Bar Council has in the past commended the opening up of democratic space in this country. However, the use of the Sedition Act and other repressive legislation like the OSA, ISA, the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Police Act is disconcerting, and lends credence to the view that in fact the democratic space in Malaysia is still severely curtailed.

The Sedition Act and other authoritarian laws represent a severe encroachment on the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. These fundamental civil liberties are indisputable hallmarks of any democracy and must be safeguarded if Malaysia is to lay any claim to being a democratic nation.

60 years old Sedition Act in action

RPK is charged under Sedition Act.
Sad day for Malaysia!!!!
(Pic by Knights Templar)