Mahathir mengaku zalimi Anwar
Tun Mahathir confession on Anwar Ibrahim
Tun Mahathir confession that he has victimise Anwar Ibrahim and putting him in Prison, even though he knows Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim has not done anything wrong.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Pengakuan Tun Dr Mahathir Zalimi Anwar (Dr. M Confession)
Monday, 3 March 2008
Siapa Dia Khairy Ni? - Tun Dr. Mahathir
Tun Dr. Mahathir comments on Khairy and Abdullah Administration.
Tun Dr.M claim that Abdullah has created a Family Government and even upto the extend of proclaiming Abdullah Badawi a liar
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Malaysian is a Forgetful Society - Part 2
Malaysian is a very forgetful society - Part 2
Where is the Independent Public Complaint and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) which is key to the Royal Police Commission’s recommendation on the No. 1 police priority to fight crime????????
Human Rights & Policing Action:Implement the Recommendations of the Royal Police Commission
Background
There is also a major concern on lack of transparency in the process of implementing these recommendations. The lack of progress in implementing the Royal Commission’s recommendations especially the matters dealing with human rights is due to the lack of political will on the part of the Malaysian government.
Where is the Independent Public Complaint and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) which is key to the Royal Police Commission’s recommendation on the No. 1 police priority to fight crime????????
Human Rights & Policing Action:Implement the Recommendations of the Royal Police Commission
Background
Royal Commission Established on 4 February 2004 .
The Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police was established by the King on 4 February 2004 under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1950.
The Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police was established by the King on 4 February 2004 under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1950.
Report submitted to PM on 29 April 2005, Publicly Released on 12 June 2005
In its 576-page report, submitted to the Prime Minister on 29 April, and which was publicly released on 12 June 2005, the Commission made 125 recommendations focusing on three main areas of reform - crime reduction, eradicating corruption and observing human rights in policing the country.
Among the key recommendations were:
· Establish an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) aimed at dealing with complaints regarding the police and seeking to improve the professionalism of the force and to ensure that doctrines, laws, rules and procedures are observed and implemented by the police.
· Establish an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) aimed at dealing with complaints regarding the police and seeking to improve the professionalism of the force and to ensure that doctrines, laws, rules and procedures are observed and implemented by the police.
The implementation process
Renewed Hope of the Public
The report renewed the hope of an independent, accountable and professional police in Malaysia. The public and concerned groups celebrated these recommendations and looked forward to their immediate implementation.
The report renewed the hope of an independent, accountable and professional police in Malaysia. The public and concerned groups celebrated these recommendations and looked forward to their immediate implementation.
Task Forse Established
In June 2005, a Task Force headed by the Prime Minister was set up to study the Commission's report and to determine the order of priority in the implementation of the recommendations.
In June 2005, a Task Force headed by the Prime Minister was set up to study the Commission's report and to determine the order of priority in the implementation of the recommendations.
Unfortunately, until today, civil society and the public at large have been kept in a dark on the specific status of the various recommendations despite the clear and specific timelines set by the Commission.
There is also a major concern on lack of transparency in the process of implementing these recommendations. The lack of progress in implementing the Royal Commission’s recommendations especially the matters dealing with human rights is due to the lack of political will on the part of the Malaysian government.
In spite of these recommendations instances of police violence, abuse of power and human rights abuses continued as usual since the report of the Royal Commission were made public. Cases of death in custody, violent dispersal of peaceful demonstrators and other form of human rights violation continued to be reported.
Current Status : The Government Proposed a Special Complaints Commission Bill in Parliment instead of IPCMC
Disappointment
Amnesty International Malaysia Public Statement 14 December 2007
Table the IPCMC Bill, not the Special Complaints Commission Bill Amnesty International
Malaysia expresses grave disappointment over the tabled Special Complaints Commission Bill in Parliament instead of the IPCMC Bill proposed by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police.
Why SCC will not work.
The new Bill in obvious terms defeats the true intention of the Royal Commission to improve the professionalism of the force and to ensure that doctrines, laws, rules and procedures are observed and implemented by the police.
The tabled Bill failed to address the fundamental need for a complaint mechanism to make the police be accountable to the public for their action or omission to act on public complaints. The Special Complaints Commission also lacks independence and powers to check and balance.
We are alarmed that the Special Complaints Commissions Bill intends to place the Inspector General of Police in the oversight governance structure. We are also concerned that the Special Complaints Commission has in fact no powers to conduct independent investigations into the police force – in effect, submissions will be redirected to the police to investigate complaints made against themselves.
The Royal Commission in its 2005 report emphasized that internal mechanisms currently governed by the police themselves are inadequate, unreliable and frequently ineffective. The IPCMC was therefore introduced to address this ineffectiveness and unreliability, and to introduce a more reliable mechanism to address complaints made against the police in a just, transparent and fair manner.
The Royal Commission saw this as a crucial way to improve much-needed public confidence in the policing system and to make the police force accountable to the public at large. The proposed Special Complaints Commission is redundant as the public will not have the confidence and trust to lodge a complaint against the police. Firstly, this is because the Commission is governed by the IGP, and this creates a conflict of interests. Secondly, the investigation procedure leads back to the police, which creates another conflict of interests. Therefore, we are of the opinion that any complaint made by the public on the police force will probably not attain proper justice in an impartial manner free from any element of collusion.
We are also disappointed with the Attorney-General’s Chambers for expressly and unilaterally defeating the intention and recommendation made by the Royal Commission.
We fear that the Special Complaints Commission is merely an internal oversight mechanism and we strongly urge the government to table and implement the IPCMC Bill to comprehensively supersede the current Special Complaints Commission Bill immediately.
Have Malaysian forgotten about the IPCMC?
: ( Malaysian is indeed a forgetful society......
Why is the recommendation of IPCMC changed to SCC?
When will it be implemented?
What does it takes to implement this?
How long does this need to wait?
Malaysia Blogger
Refer also
Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/36195
We want a truly independent police watchdog
Lone May 17, 05 1:54pm
We want a truly independent police watchdog
Lone May 17, 05 1:54pm
Malaysian is a forgetful society - Part 1
Malaysian is a very forgetful society. (2007 in Review - Part 1)
Where is the OUTCOME of the investigation on the 2006 Auditor-General’s Report that had been completed on 28th June 2007?
So many Question Asked?
“Why are Cabinet Ministers only beginning to wake up now to the gross mismanagement, waste and abuse of public funds more than two months of the completion of the Auditor-General’s Report?
“Would the Ministers reacted to these gross mismanagement of public funds if no publicity had been given to the Auditor-General’s Report?
“Were all the Ministers aware of and had approved the explanations which the various government departments had given, some most ridiculous and most unacceptable, to the strictures of the Auditor-General’s Report and which had been tabled in the House?
“Is every Minister prepared to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to personally assume responsibility for the mismanagement of public funds highlighted in the Auditor-General’s Report?”
Investigation Started.......But
When the Auditor-General’s Report is dated June 28, 2007, it would mean that it had been submitted to the Yang di Pertuan Agong under Article 107 of the Constitution, with copies available to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and relevant heads of Ministries and departments in a matter of days.
This had been confirmed by the ACA director-general in the New Straits Times report “ACA probe into audit cases ’started earlier’” where Ahmad Said admitted that the ACA had begun investigations into the Auditor-General’s 2006 Report “long before it was tabled in Parliament” on September 7.
So Many ISSUES raised.........But
Where is the OUTCOME of the investigation on the 2006 Auditor-General’s Report that had been completed on 28th June 2007?
So many Question Asked?
“Why are Cabinet Ministers only beginning to wake up now to the gross mismanagement, waste and abuse of public funds more than two months of the completion of the Auditor-General’s Report?
“Would the Ministers reacted to these gross mismanagement of public funds if no publicity had been given to the Auditor-General’s Report?
“Were all the Ministers aware of and had approved the explanations which the various government departments had given, some most ridiculous and most unacceptable, to the strictures of the Auditor-General’s Report and which had been tabled in the House?
“Is every Minister prepared to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to personally assume responsibility for the mismanagement of public funds highlighted in the Auditor-General’s Report?”
Investigation Started.......But
When the Auditor-General’s Report is dated June 28, 2007, it would mean that it had been submitted to the Yang di Pertuan Agong under Article 107 of the Constitution, with copies available to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and relevant heads of Ministries and departments in a matter of days.
This had been confirmed by the ACA director-general in the New Straits Times report “ACA probe into audit cases ’started earlier’” where Ahmad Said admitted that the ACA had begun investigations into the Auditor-General’s 2006 Report “long before it was tabled in Parliament” on September 7.
So Many ISSUES raised.........But
- How the Youth and Sports Ministry paid RM8.39 million more than the market price for 13 items for its youth institute’s programmes.
Among these were RM224 for a set of four screwdrivers costing RM32 in the market; RM5.72 million for two crane towers against the market price of RM2.98 million; technical books consisting of 10 titles priced at RM10,700; and a 3.1 megapixel digital camera that was bought for RM8,254;- The way the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry has been dishing out funds to non-governmental organisations which do not qualify for them; and,
- How two Social Welfare Department district offices in Raub and Bentong under the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry were found to have distributed RM113,035 aid to 36 people who had died.
- National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) paying RM5.59 million in advance to 4,183 students who did not apply for a loan; and
- Escalation of costs because of mismanagement and delays in the construction of six high-tech offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) by a whopping RM1.4 billion.
Who is responsible for all these misconduct?
When is the Investigation Report going to release yet?
Why is all the Silence?
Where is the Action taken?
How to prevent similar event to happen again?
Has Malaysian forget about this events? When the next AG report is out this year, will Malaysia just forget about it in 6 months time?
Accountablity?
Resposibility?
Transparency?
Enforcement?
Malaysia Blogger
Saturday, 29 December 2007
Thursday, 6 December 2007
Interesting Comment on Appointment of CJ (Abdul Hamid) and Court of Appeal Chief (Zaki Azmi)
Interesting Comment on Appointment of CJ (Abdul Hamid) and Court of Appeal Chief (Zaki Azmi)
Abdul Hamid is new CJ, Zaki is judiciary's No 2
PUTRAJAYA: Acting Chief Justice Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad has been confirmed in the top judicial post.
Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi will take over from Abdul Hamid as Court of Appeal president
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who made the announcement in a statement yesterday, said both appointments had been consented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin upon his advice after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.
Based on the announced Appointment of Abdul Hamid and Zaki
The following was an Interesting Article for us to Ponder upon that i reproduced from another blogger post :-
Will someone try to make sense of this?
The VK Lingam video and his brother’s police reports have shown how deep into that dark black hole the judiciary has fallen.
The government went on a dance about the authenticity of the tape and appointed a 3-man panel to verify the authenticity, instead of heeding the call of civil society to appoint a royal commission of inquiry to look into the depressing state of the judiciary.
The 3-man panel vindicated the civil society call : all 3 panel members also recommended the establishment of a rci and found the video to be authentic.
The government has still not made public the 3 separate reports of the 3 panel members.
The government has announced that it will establish the rci.
The government has not made known the terms of reference of the proposed rci.
The government has not made known the appointees to the proposed rci.
Malaysiakini reports today that the PM has announced that Hamid Mohamed has been confirmed as the new Chief Justice.
After almost 40 years in the judicial service, Hamid is probably the most qualified in the Federal Court to head the judiciary.
Hamid’s stint, though, will probably be very short. He will reach retirement age in April next year and, if extended for 6 months, which has become the norm except, thankfully, in the case of Fairuz, should retire latest by end October or in November next year.
So who takes over when Hamid finally retires?
Who’s next?
The next most senior?
Zaki Azmi, Malaysiakini reports, is going to be the new President of the Court of Appeal, taking Hamid’s place.
If one of the criticisms of Fairuz’s appointment as CJ since the revelations in the VK Lingam is that he had only written in all, 7 judgments as a High Court judge prior to his elevation, Zaki has, to my knowledge, not written any.
Which is understandable given Zaki’s hop, step and jump into the Federal Court in September this year.
Check out the judiciary members directory from the judiciary website HERE.
Let me reproduce below the Federal Court directory which, unless I’m mistaken, ranks the judges according to seniority.
1. The Honourable Dato’ Arifin bin Zakaria DPCM , DPMK, SPSK
2. The Honourable Dato’ Bentara Istana Dato’ Nik Hashim bin Nik Ab. Rahman Dato’ Bentara Istana, SPSK, SIMP, DSMZ, DPMK, DPMT, ASM, KMN
3. The Honourable Dato’ Sri Augustine Paul a/l Sinnappen SSAP, SIMP, DSAP, DIMP, DMSM, KMN, PKT
4. The Honourable Dato’ Abdul Aziz bin Mohamad DPMT, ASM, KMN
5. The Honourable Dato’ Haji Hashim bin Dato’ Haji Yusoff SPSK, DPMK, KMN
6.The Honourable Dato’ Azmel bin Haji Maamor DSNS, PPT
7. The Honourable Dato’ Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin DPMP, SMJ, PIS
8. The Honourable Tan Sri Dato’ Zaki bin Tun Azmi PSM, PJN, DSMT, DSDK, JSM, KMN
The implication of Zaki’s appointment is that notwithstanding his not having a single written judgment to his credit and not even completed 6 months on the Bench ( usually the probationary term in many other industries ), he has been picked over 7 others far more senior than he to be the CJ-in-waiting.
Why?
What gives?
Were we not supposed to be straightening out the judiciary?
If true, the 7 Federal Court judges more senior than Zaki should do the honourable thing and resign.
Something odd about the Malaysiakini report, though.
It states : ‘The King, Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin, has consented to the appointment of the duo on the advice of the prime minister and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers, said Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in a statement. Abdullah said that Abdul Hamid’s appointment took effect on Nov 1 while Zaki’s would be decided later’.
My question. ?
If the Agong has consented to the appointment of both and Hamid’s has been decided to take effect on 1st November, why could not the effective date of Zaki’s appointment, too, be fixed?
Don’t forget that the Agong and the Conference of Rulers declined to appoint two nominees of Fairuz for the office of President of the Court of Appeal and the CJ of Malaya.
Don’t forget that the Agong and the Conference of Rulers declined to give Fairuz his extension.
Don’t forget that Sultan Azlan Shah recently advocated a return to the practise of old of promotions based on seniority.
Yet I’m now told that my Agong and the Conference of Rulers have agreed to bypass 7 other more senior Federal Court judges, have appointed a man barely 3 months on the Bench, but have not fixed the effective date of his appointment?
I don’t buy this.
Something stinks.
Source:
The above post was reproduced from Haris Ibrahim blog post.
Abdul Hamid is new CJ, Zaki is judiciary's No 2
PUTRAJAYA: Acting Chief Justice Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad has been confirmed in the top judicial post.
Federal Court judge Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi will take over from Abdul Hamid as Court of Appeal president
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who made the announcement in a statement yesterday, said both appointments had been consented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin upon his advice after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.
Based on the announced Appointment of Abdul Hamid and Zaki
The following was an Interesting Article for us to Ponder upon that i reproduced from another blogger post :-
Will someone try to make sense of this?
The VK Lingam video and his brother’s police reports have shown how deep into that dark black hole the judiciary has fallen.
The government went on a dance about the authenticity of the tape and appointed a 3-man panel to verify the authenticity, instead of heeding the call of civil society to appoint a royal commission of inquiry to look into the depressing state of the judiciary.
The 3-man panel vindicated the civil society call : all 3 panel members also recommended the establishment of a rci and found the video to be authentic.
The government has still not made public the 3 separate reports of the 3 panel members.
The government has announced that it will establish the rci.
The government has not made known the terms of reference of the proposed rci.
The government has not made known the appointees to the proposed rci.
Malaysiakini reports today that the PM has announced that Hamid Mohamed has been confirmed as the new Chief Justice.
After almost 40 years in the judicial service, Hamid is probably the most qualified in the Federal Court to head the judiciary.
Hamid’s stint, though, will probably be very short. He will reach retirement age in April next year and, if extended for 6 months, which has become the norm except, thankfully, in the case of Fairuz, should retire latest by end October or in November next year.
So who takes over when Hamid finally retires?
Who’s next?
The next most senior?
Zaki Azmi, Malaysiakini reports, is going to be the new President of the Court of Appeal, taking Hamid’s place.
If one of the criticisms of Fairuz’s appointment as CJ since the revelations in the VK Lingam is that he had only written in all, 7 judgments as a High Court judge prior to his elevation, Zaki has, to my knowledge, not written any.
Which is understandable given Zaki’s hop, step and jump into the Federal Court in September this year.
Check out the judiciary members directory from the judiciary website HERE.
Let me reproduce below the Federal Court directory which, unless I’m mistaken, ranks the judges according to seniority.
1. The Honourable Dato’ Arifin bin Zakaria DPCM , DPMK, SPSK
2. The Honourable Dato’ Bentara Istana Dato’ Nik Hashim bin Nik Ab. Rahman Dato’ Bentara Istana, SPSK, SIMP, DSMZ, DPMK, DPMT, ASM, KMN
3. The Honourable Dato’ Sri Augustine Paul a/l Sinnappen SSAP, SIMP, DSAP, DIMP, DMSM, KMN, PKT
4. The Honourable Dato’ Abdul Aziz bin Mohamad DPMT, ASM, KMN
5. The Honourable Dato’ Haji Hashim bin Dato’ Haji Yusoff SPSK, DPMK, KMN
6.The Honourable Dato’ Azmel bin Haji Maamor DSNS, PPT
7. The Honourable Dato’ Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin DPMP, SMJ, PIS
8. The Honourable Tan Sri Dato’ Zaki bin Tun Azmi PSM, PJN, DSMT, DSDK, JSM, KMN
The implication of Zaki’s appointment is that notwithstanding his not having a single written judgment to his credit and not even completed 6 months on the Bench ( usually the probationary term in many other industries ), he has been picked over 7 others far more senior than he to be the CJ-in-waiting.
Why?
What gives?
Were we not supposed to be straightening out the judiciary?
If true, the 7 Federal Court judges more senior than Zaki should do the honourable thing and resign.
Something odd about the Malaysiakini report, though.
It states : ‘The King, Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin, has consented to the appointment of the duo on the advice of the prime minister and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers, said Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in a statement. Abdullah said that Abdul Hamid’s appointment took effect on Nov 1 while Zaki’s would be decided later’.
My question. ?
If the Agong has consented to the appointment of both and Hamid’s has been decided to take effect on 1st November, why could not the effective date of Zaki’s appointment, too, be fixed?
Don’t forget that the Agong and the Conference of Rulers declined to appoint two nominees of Fairuz for the office of President of the Court of Appeal and the CJ of Malaya.
Don’t forget that the Agong and the Conference of Rulers declined to give Fairuz his extension.
Don’t forget that Sultan Azlan Shah recently advocated a return to the practise of old of promotions based on seniority.
Yet I’m now told that my Agong and the Conference of Rulers have agreed to bypass 7 other more senior Federal Court judges, have appointed a man barely 3 months on the Bench, but have not fixed the effective date of his appointment?
I don’t buy this.
Something stinks.
Source:
The above post was reproduced from Haris Ibrahim blog post.
Sunday, 25 November 2007
HINDRAF Rally Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 25 Nov 2007
HINDRAF rally in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 25 November 2007
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Thursday, 8 November 2007
VK Lingam Video - Extended clip with proof of Ahmed Fairuz
On November 8, 2007 Anwar Ibrahim released an a... (more)
Added: November 08, 2007
On November 8, 2007 Anwar Ibrahim released an additional segment of the Lingam tape to show that Tun Ahmed Fairuz, former Chief Justice, was indeed the man VK Lingam was talking with on the phone about fixing judicial appointments. Fast forward to the last portion of the video to hear the added segment.
Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Friday, 21 September 2007
Video links CJ to 'appointment fixing' scandal
You Tube Video Clip linking Chief Justice to "Appointment Fixing" Scandal
Below is the link to the You Tube Video Clip linking Chief Justice to "Appointment Fixing" Scandal
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/11222/2/
An explosive video clip released today shows senior lawyer VK Lingam in a phone conversation, purportedly with current Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, allegedly fixing the appointment of ‘friendly’ senior judges.
The eight-minute clip, said to be originally 14 minutes when recorded sometime in 2002, was made public this morning at the office of PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim in Petaling Jaya.Among the matters discussed during the telephone conversation were the potential appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM) and his promotion as the Chief Justice (CJ), which eventually took place in 2003.In 2002, Ahmad Fairuz was the CJM, in charge of all High Court judges in Peninsular Malaysia, as well as acting President of the Court of Appeal (PCA).
Reading from a prepared statement, Anwar said the revelations proved that his appeals against his sodomy and abuse of power convictions were tainted and that he was denied a proper and fair trial. “Such a scandalous expose... only serves to corroborate our allegations of a political conspiracy of the highest level and corruption of the highest judicial office, seriously bringing into question the impartiality of judicial proceedings involving the affected parties,” said Anwar.
PKR will seek to submit a special appeal to the Conference of Rulers to take appropriate steps. The party will also lodge a report with the Anti-Corruption Agency and a complaint with the Bar Council.Ahmad Fairuz was on the three-member bench which had dismissed Anwar’s appeal against the corruption charge in the Court of Appeal in 2000.
On judicial appointmentsAnwar did not disclose the identity of the person who recorded the video or who had given the clip to the party, but said it had been edited to conceal the identity of a ‘third party’.
The recording shows Lingam walking up and down in a room, talking into a handphone.The inference from the discussion was that “key players” should be nominated for judicial appointments in order to hear cases and deliver judgments accordingly.
A main point of the conversation - believed to be with Ahmad Fairuz in the context of the conversation - was that there appeared to be two camps in the judiciary belonging respectively to former CJ Eusoff Chin and his successor Mohamad Dzaiddin Abdullah.“You see, he (Dzaiddin) has now up for [sic] six court of appeal judges, so that he can put his men before he retires,” Lingam said.
Later in the conversation, he alluded to this matter again, saying: “No, don’t worry, Datuk. I know how much you suffered for Tun Eusoff Chin... and Tun said ‘Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, 110 percent loyalty!’“We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of the (then-) PM (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) and the sake of the country. Not for our own interest [repeated], we want to make sure the country comes first.”
Lingam himself had been embroiled in controversy after photographs emerged of him and Chin on holiday together in New Zealand in 1994. However, Eusoff denied any wrongdoing. At one point, the lawyer also indicated that earlier efforts to appoint judges aligned to Chin had been thwarted by former finance minister Daim Zainuddin.“You know that’s the same problem that Tun Eusoff Chin has. He tried to do all this and yet, he has run out of soldiers.
He couldn’t do it because many are from the other camp. Last time was unfortunate because Tun Daim was doing everything, sabotaging...”Lingam then revealed that “they are going to organise a campaign to run you down; but you just keep quiet. Don’t say anything. Even (when) the press asks you, say ‘I leave it to God’. That’s all."
Also implicated in the conversation were business tycoon Vincent Tan and then-Minister in the PM's Department and current Tourism Minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor.Based on what Lingam let drop, both Tan and Adnan had apparently played an instrumental role in the appointment of judges as well to secure the honorific title of ‘Tan Sri’ for Ahmad Fairuz.
“I will also get Tan Sri (Vincent) to remind PM to put a Tan Sri-ship this year, lah. This will elevate you, you know,” said Lingam.Towards the end of the conversation, Lingam acknowledged that “you have suffered...so much you have done, for the election, Wee Choo Keong, everything. How much nobody would have done all this”.
Following the 1995 general election, Ahmad Fairuz had upheld a petition contesting DAP candidate Wee’s victory as Bukit Bintang member of Parliament. The ruling saw the Barisan Nasional candidate Dr Lee Chong Meng being declared the winner.Lingam could not be contacted for comment. His office said that he was abroad and is only due back later this month.When contacted this afternoon, the personal assistant to the CJ relayed a message that he wanted to have a look at the video before saying anything. However, subsequent calls to the office were not answered up to 5pm.
Read also
Abdul Hamid is new CJ, Zaki is judiciary's No 2 in Malaysiakini 5 Dec 2007
Majlis Peguam batal perarakan Hari Hak Asasi Manusia in Malaysiakini
Below is the link to the You Tube Video Clip linking Chief Justice to "Appointment Fixing" Scandal
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/11222/2/
An explosive video clip released today shows senior lawyer VK Lingam in a phone conversation, purportedly with current Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, allegedly fixing the appointment of ‘friendly’ senior judges.
The eight-minute clip, said to be originally 14 minutes when recorded sometime in 2002, was made public this morning at the office of PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim in Petaling Jaya.Among the matters discussed during the telephone conversation were the potential appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM) and his promotion as the Chief Justice (CJ), which eventually took place in 2003.In 2002, Ahmad Fairuz was the CJM, in charge of all High Court judges in Peninsular Malaysia, as well as acting President of the Court of Appeal (PCA).
Reading from a prepared statement, Anwar said the revelations proved that his appeals against his sodomy and abuse of power convictions were tainted and that he was denied a proper and fair trial. “Such a scandalous expose... only serves to corroborate our allegations of a political conspiracy of the highest level and corruption of the highest judicial office, seriously bringing into question the impartiality of judicial proceedings involving the affected parties,” said Anwar.
PKR will seek to submit a special appeal to the Conference of Rulers to take appropriate steps. The party will also lodge a report with the Anti-Corruption Agency and a complaint with the Bar Council.Ahmad Fairuz was on the three-member bench which had dismissed Anwar’s appeal against the corruption charge in the Court of Appeal in 2000.
On judicial appointmentsAnwar did not disclose the identity of the person who recorded the video or who had given the clip to the party, but said it had been edited to conceal the identity of a ‘third party’.
The recording shows Lingam walking up and down in a room, talking into a handphone.The inference from the discussion was that “key players” should be nominated for judicial appointments in order to hear cases and deliver judgments accordingly.
A main point of the conversation - believed to be with Ahmad Fairuz in the context of the conversation - was that there appeared to be two camps in the judiciary belonging respectively to former CJ Eusoff Chin and his successor Mohamad Dzaiddin Abdullah.“You see, he (Dzaiddin) has now up for [sic] six court of appeal judges, so that he can put his men before he retires,” Lingam said.
Later in the conversation, he alluded to this matter again, saying: “No, don’t worry, Datuk. I know how much you suffered for Tun Eusoff Chin... and Tun said ‘Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, 110 percent loyalty!’“We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of the (then-) PM (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) and the sake of the country. Not for our own interest [repeated], we want to make sure the country comes first.”
Lingam himself had been embroiled in controversy after photographs emerged of him and Chin on holiday together in New Zealand in 1994. However, Eusoff denied any wrongdoing. At one point, the lawyer also indicated that earlier efforts to appoint judges aligned to Chin had been thwarted by former finance minister Daim Zainuddin.“You know that’s the same problem that Tun Eusoff Chin has. He tried to do all this and yet, he has run out of soldiers.
He couldn’t do it because many are from the other camp. Last time was unfortunate because Tun Daim was doing everything, sabotaging...”Lingam then revealed that “they are going to organise a campaign to run you down; but you just keep quiet. Don’t say anything. Even (when) the press asks you, say ‘I leave it to God’. That’s all."
Also implicated in the conversation were business tycoon Vincent Tan and then-Minister in the PM's Department and current Tourism Minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor.Based on what Lingam let drop, both Tan and Adnan had apparently played an instrumental role in the appointment of judges as well to secure the honorific title of ‘Tan Sri’ for Ahmad Fairuz.
“I will also get Tan Sri (Vincent) to remind PM to put a Tan Sri-ship this year, lah. This will elevate you, you know,” said Lingam.Towards the end of the conversation, Lingam acknowledged that “you have suffered...so much you have done, for the election, Wee Choo Keong, everything. How much nobody would have done all this”.
Following the 1995 general election, Ahmad Fairuz had upheld a petition contesting DAP candidate Wee’s victory as Bukit Bintang member of Parliament. The ruling saw the Barisan Nasional candidate Dr Lee Chong Meng being declared the winner.Lingam could not be contacted for comment. His office said that he was abroad and is only due back later this month.When contacted this afternoon, the personal assistant to the CJ relayed a message that he wanted to have a look at the video before saying anything. However, subsequent calls to the office were not answered up to 5pm.
Read also
Abdul Hamid is new CJ, Zaki is judiciary's No 2 in Malaysiakini 5 Dec 2007
Majlis Peguam batal perarakan Hari Hak Asasi Manusia in Malaysiakini
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
MCA's Fong negotiates a reprieve for pig farmers
Police personnel pulled out of Paya Mengkuang New Village, Melaka at 4.05pm, easing the worries of pig farmers who had expected to see all their animals forcibly culled today.
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
Dr.M : Malay will Regress without NEP
Ethnic Malays Have Frittered Away Opportunities, Mahathir Says
By Stephanie Phang and Angus Whitley (Bloomberg)
Mahathir speaks in an interview
July 19 (Bloomberg) -- Ethnic Malays have blown the opportunities given to them under the country's 36-year-old affirmative action policy and still need preferential treatment, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said.
NEP Privileges
The race-based program gives the group privileges over ethnic Chinese and Indians for government contracts, homes and company shares in a bid to redistribute wealth. Without the policy, ethnic Malays, or Bumiputeras, will slip further behind, risking a return to racial violence in the Southeast Asian nation, Mahathir, 81, said in a July 17 interview.
Malays have not responded to NEP
``The Malays have not responded to the efforts made by the government and because of that, the disparity remains,'' said Mahathir, who stepped down in 2003 after 22 years in power. ``When you're coming up from behind to catch up, you have to run faster, you have to make more effort.''
NEP Hindered Malaysia Trade Talks with US
Mahathir and his successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, scrapped some elements of the 1971 New Economic Policy program to lure investment. The program hindered Malaysia's trade talks with the U.S. this year, while opposition parties and some analysts say the rules crimp competition and should be dropped completely.
NEP? Charity?
``There's more than enough headway given to the Bumiputeras now,'' said Maznah Mohamad, a senior research fellow at the University of Singapore. ``The NEP has been reduced to a kind of charity scheme. That is not good for any economy.''
Bumiputeras, which literally mean ``sons of the soil,'' are given more places in public universities and discounts on home purchases. Hypermarkets and department stores must allocate 30 percent of shelf space for goods made by Bumiputera suppliers, and foreign retailers have to set up local companies that are 30 percent-owned by Bumiputera shareholders.
The program was devised after bloody clashes between ethnic Malays and Chinese on the streets of Kuala Lumpur in 1969.
Selling Contracts
Some ethnic Malays failed to develop their own business expertise, choosing to sell to other races the government contracts set aside for them, or auction specially allocated permits to import cars, Mahathir said.
Proverty Rate
The poverty rate in 2004 among Bumiputeras was 8.3 percent, compared with 2.9 percent for ethnic Indians and 0.6 percent for Chinese, according to the government. Ethic Malays owned 19 percent of the nation's corporate equity that year, while the Chinese had 39 percent and Indians 1.2 percent.
The greatest failure of Malaysia, which this year marks 50 years of independence from British rule, is not correcting the economic disparity, Mahathir said.
Still, pursuing the policy risks angering local Chinese and Indians, he said. Without it, Malays, who account for about 60 percent of the 27 million population, may struggle, he said.
`Bad Results'
``That is the dilemma,'' Mahathir said from his office on the 86th floor of the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur. ``We can say let's take it away, then I'm quite sure they will regress. One way or the other, we are going to get bad results.''
Policies favoring ethnic Malays led to ``significant protectionism'' in industries including automobiles, agriculture, services and in government contracts, Thierry Rommel, the European Commission's envoy to Malaysia, said last month.
Malaysia must reconsider the program to facilitate a Southeast Asian free-trade accord with the European Union, Rommel said.
The Malaysian government's reluctance to change policies that benefit the Malay majority and yield to demands to increase access to government contracts are among the issues that delayed the signing of a free-trade agreement with the U.S., its largest trade partner, this year.
Missed Deadline
The two nations missed a March 31 deadline to complete the talks and now plan to reach an agreement in the first half of 2008. Malaysia has ruled out discussing policies that favor its Malay majority in the talks.
``The domestic policies will be outside the ambit'' of the free-trade agreement, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak told reporters in Kuala Lumpur on July 17. ``We hope that eventually we will find an agreement with the United States.''
But is it True that NEP has yet to be achieved?
Concern about the race-based policy's validity grew last year after a report by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute said Malays may own as much as 45 percent of Malaysia's corporate equity, higher than the government's estimate of 19 percent in 2004 and surpassing the New Economic Policy's goal of 30 percent.
Source : Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=am0uXeUgf8tE
Read also news by Mahathir in Malaysiakini
By Stephanie Phang and Angus Whitley (Bloomberg)
Mahathir speaks in an interview
July 19 (Bloomberg) -- Ethnic Malays have blown the opportunities given to them under the country's 36-year-old affirmative action policy and still need preferential treatment, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said.
NEP Privileges
The race-based program gives the group privileges over ethnic Chinese and Indians for government contracts, homes and company shares in a bid to redistribute wealth. Without the policy, ethnic Malays, or Bumiputeras, will slip further behind, risking a return to racial violence in the Southeast Asian nation, Mahathir, 81, said in a July 17 interview.
Malays have not responded to NEP
``The Malays have not responded to the efforts made by the government and because of that, the disparity remains,'' said Mahathir, who stepped down in 2003 after 22 years in power. ``When you're coming up from behind to catch up, you have to run faster, you have to make more effort.''
NEP Hindered Malaysia Trade Talks with US
Mahathir and his successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, scrapped some elements of the 1971 New Economic Policy program to lure investment. The program hindered Malaysia's trade talks with the U.S. this year, while opposition parties and some analysts say the rules crimp competition and should be dropped completely.
NEP? Charity?
``There's more than enough headway given to the Bumiputeras now,'' said Maznah Mohamad, a senior research fellow at the University of Singapore. ``The NEP has been reduced to a kind of charity scheme. That is not good for any economy.''
Bumiputeras, which literally mean ``sons of the soil,'' are given more places in public universities and discounts on home purchases. Hypermarkets and department stores must allocate 30 percent of shelf space for goods made by Bumiputera suppliers, and foreign retailers have to set up local companies that are 30 percent-owned by Bumiputera shareholders.
The program was devised after bloody clashes between ethnic Malays and Chinese on the streets of Kuala Lumpur in 1969.
Selling Contracts
Some ethnic Malays failed to develop their own business expertise, choosing to sell to other races the government contracts set aside for them, or auction specially allocated permits to import cars, Mahathir said.
Proverty Rate
The poverty rate in 2004 among Bumiputeras was 8.3 percent, compared with 2.9 percent for ethnic Indians and 0.6 percent for Chinese, according to the government. Ethic Malays owned 19 percent of the nation's corporate equity that year, while the Chinese had 39 percent and Indians 1.2 percent.
The greatest failure of Malaysia, which this year marks 50 years of independence from British rule, is not correcting the economic disparity, Mahathir said.
Still, pursuing the policy risks angering local Chinese and Indians, he said. Without it, Malays, who account for about 60 percent of the 27 million population, may struggle, he said.
`Bad Results'
``That is the dilemma,'' Mahathir said from his office on the 86th floor of the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur. ``We can say let's take it away, then I'm quite sure they will regress. One way or the other, we are going to get bad results.''
Policies favoring ethnic Malays led to ``significant protectionism'' in industries including automobiles, agriculture, services and in government contracts, Thierry Rommel, the European Commission's envoy to Malaysia, said last month.
Malaysia must reconsider the program to facilitate a Southeast Asian free-trade accord with the European Union, Rommel said.
The Malaysian government's reluctance to change policies that benefit the Malay majority and yield to demands to increase access to government contracts are among the issues that delayed the signing of a free-trade agreement with the U.S., its largest trade partner, this year.
Missed Deadline
The two nations missed a March 31 deadline to complete the talks and now plan to reach an agreement in the first half of 2008. Malaysia has ruled out discussing policies that favor its Malay majority in the talks.
``The domestic policies will be outside the ambit'' of the free-trade agreement, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak told reporters in Kuala Lumpur on July 17. ``We hope that eventually we will find an agreement with the United States.''
But is it True that NEP has yet to be achieved?
Concern about the race-based policy's validity grew last year after a report by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute said Malays may own as much as 45 percent of Malaysia's corporate equity, higher than the government's estimate of 19 percent in 2004 and surpassing the New Economic Policy's goal of 30 percent.
Source : Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=am0uXeUgf8tE
Read also news by Mahathir in Malaysiakini
Monday, 23 July 2007
Hisham: MCA Stop making statements on secular state
MCA to stop making statements on Malaysia being a secular state: Umno Youth Chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein
Ranau: Umno Youth Chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Friday asked MCA to stop making statements on Malaysia being a secular state. He said though it was nothing new, such claims would not benefit anyone.
"I'm not naive enough to allow this issue to go on," he told reporters when asked to comment on the issue after opening the Ranau Umno delegates conference.
So is Malaysia a secular State?
MCA Secretary-General Datuk Ong Ka Chuan had said the party had ample evidence to show that Malaysia was a secular state, including several important events leading to the country's independence and formation of Malaysia.
He had cited notes prepared by the Colonial Office dated May 23, 1957 at the London Conference Talks.
But Najib claim Malaysia was never a Secular State
Various groups have also disagreed with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's remarks that Malaysia was never a secular state, saying that the Deputy Prime Minister had ignored the country's constitutional history and social contract.
Bar Council President : Malaysia was not an Islamic State
Bar Council Malaysia president Ambiga Sreenevasan had said one only need to look at the Articles in the Federal Constitution, the system of government and administration of justice to show that Malaysia was not an Islamic state.
Najib had said Malaysia is an Islamic state that adheres to the fundamentals of Islam and having a Constitution which states Islam as the official religion. He said that being an Islamic state did not mean that the rights of non-Muslims were not respected.
.- Bernama
What MCA Replied in their Website
:A secular state is the basis of our Federal Constitution
Having reviewed the archives involved in the process of drafting the Federal Constitution, MCA Secretary General Dato’ Ong Ka Chuan stressed that Malaysia is a secular state, as this was the consensus and social contract agreed upon by our forefathers.
According to the Alliance’s memorandum to Reid Commission dated 27 September 1956 on page 19, “The religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply the State is not a secular State.” This was an unequivocal original intention of UMNO, MCA and MIC.
Reid Reports 1957 did not provide an article declaring Islam as the religion of the Federation. Justice Abdul Hamid from Pakistan opined that the Alliance’s proposal should be adopted because it was ‘innocuous’.
Ong mentioned that, the deliberations by the Working Party (comprising the Alliance, Rulers’ representatives & High Commissioners), held meetings after reviewing the Reid Report.
The first meeting held on 22 February 1957 attended by Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Omar Ong Yoke Lin, Tun V.T. Sambanthan and others stated that the Alliance desired a statement to be inserted that ‘… the States should be secular, ...’
During the 19th meeting held on 17 April 1957, the Chief Minister (Tunku) said, however that ‘the whole Constitution was framed on the basis that the Federation would be a secular State.’
Notes prepared by the Colonial Office dated 23 May 1957 at the London Conference Talks mentioned, ‘The members of the Alliance delegation stressed that they had no intention of creating a Muslim theocracy and that Malaya would be a secular State.’
Furthermore, when Tun Tan Siew Sin spoke in Parliament on 10 July 1957 in support of the Constitutional bill that although Islam would be the official religion, he said that ‘this does not in any way derogate from the principles, which has always been accepted, that Malaya will be a secular state and that there will be a complete freedom to practise any other religion’.
Dato’ Ong Ka Chuan concludes that the documents and facts shown above have given a true picture for Malaysia, whereby a secular state is the foundation of the formation of Malaya, and this consensus made by our forefathers, who shed much sweat and toil in the progress of peacefully negotiating for independence, should always be remembered and obeyed.
-MCA online-
What the Opposition Say
Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Is Wrong To Say That Article 121(1A) Makes Malaysia An Islamic State And Should Learn From His Own Father And Malaysia’s 3rd Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Own, Who Declared That Malaysia Is Not An Islamic State.
Press Statement
by Lim Guan Eng, DAP
(Petaling Jaya, Tuesday): Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein is wrong to say in the Utusan Malaysia today that Malaysians have no right to question, oppose or challenge BN’s position that Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution makes Malaysia an Islamic state. Hishamuddin appears to have forgotten that it was his own father, former Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn who declared that Malaysia is not an Islamic state.
As a lawyer, Hishamuddin should know that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the federation as stated in Article 4 (1). No one is questioning Islam as the religion of the Federation under Article 3. However at no point was Malaysia an Islamic state nor Article 121(1A) made Malaysia an Islamic state as it only removed the previous control and jurisdiction of civil courts over syariah courts. It is ridiculous how Hishamuddin can stretch, distort and even pervert Article 121(1A) as converting Malaysia into an Islamic state.
Hishamuddin should learn from his father that our Federal Constitution is secular with Islam as the religion of the country. Tun Hussein Onn’s position is similar to the stance taken by our first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and 2nd Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak. This was reaffirmed by the highest court of our land, the Supreme Court in the Che Omar Che Soh case in 1988. In that judgment, Tun Salleh Abas ruled that the syariah law was not the basic law of the land and that the constitution was the supreme law. Unless there is a constitutional amendment Malaysia is and never was an Islamic state.
For Hishamuddin to even bar Malaysians from discussing Article 121(1A) is not only undemocratic, it also violates the basic human rights of freedom of speech. Even the Sedition Act or Article 10(4) of the Federal Constitution made no mention of not being able to discuss Article 121(1A). There are four sensitive matters that even Parliamentarians do not enjoy immunity and can not question relating to citizenship rights under Part III of the Federal Constitution, the position of national language and mother tongue-language under Article 152, special position of Malays under Article 153 and the status of Rulers under Article 181.
No mention is made of Article 121(1A) precisely because any questioning is not related to challenging the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation. Any questioning of Article 121(1A) relates to the rights of non-Muslims when matters relating to Islam are decided by the syariah courts. In matters affecting non-Muslims DAP adopts the position that if the religion of the subject-matter is not in dispute then the syariah courts have the right of jurisdiction. However if the religion of the subject-matter is in dispute and affects non-Muslims, then the civil courts should decide.
DAP does not oppose Islam as the religion of the Federation. However DAP strongly opposes Malaysia as an Islamic state where Islam is the main guiding philosophy for BN which is not stated in our constitution but seen as discriminatory towards non-Muslims.
DAP urges MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP to oppose Hishamuddin’s extremist attempt to rewrite history and pervert our Constitution without making the necessary constitutional amendments that make Malaysia an Islamic state. DAP support the rights of NGOs in Article 11 to hold forum to promote the right to religion and basic rights of non-Muslim in consonant with our basic human and constitutional right of freedom of religion.
DAP strongly condemns the attempts by extremist Muslim organizations and regrets that PAS and UMNO has united to restrict the democratic right of expression, erode the rights of non-Muslims and turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. If non-Muslims can not even question Article 121(1A) when they are adversely affected and their right to freedom of religion, then BN must bear full responsibility for turning Malaysia into an Islamic state where non-Muslims do not enjoy equal political and economic rights.
So is Malaysia a Secular State? Your Say?
Source : Malaysia Today, Malaysiakini and
MCA website,
http://www.mca.org.my/ENGLISH/COMMENTARIES/Pages/AsecularstateisthebasisofourFederalConstitution.aspx
DAP Malaysia Website
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/2006/july06/lge/lge404.htm
Ranau: Umno Youth Chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Friday asked MCA to stop making statements on Malaysia being a secular state. He said though it was nothing new, such claims would not benefit anyone.
"I'm not naive enough to allow this issue to go on," he told reporters when asked to comment on the issue after opening the Ranau Umno delegates conference.
So is Malaysia a secular State?
MCA Secretary-General Datuk Ong Ka Chuan had said the party had ample evidence to show that Malaysia was a secular state, including several important events leading to the country's independence and formation of Malaysia.
He had cited notes prepared by the Colonial Office dated May 23, 1957 at the London Conference Talks.
But Najib claim Malaysia was never a Secular State
Various groups have also disagreed with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's remarks that Malaysia was never a secular state, saying that the Deputy Prime Minister had ignored the country's constitutional history and social contract.
Bar Council President : Malaysia was not an Islamic State
Bar Council Malaysia president Ambiga Sreenevasan had said one only need to look at the Articles in the Federal Constitution, the system of government and administration of justice to show that Malaysia was not an Islamic state.
Najib had said Malaysia is an Islamic state that adheres to the fundamentals of Islam and having a Constitution which states Islam as the official religion. He said that being an Islamic state did not mean that the rights of non-Muslims were not respected.
.- Bernama
What MCA Replied in their Website
:A secular state is the basis of our Federal Constitution
Having reviewed the archives involved in the process of drafting the Federal Constitution, MCA Secretary General Dato’ Ong Ka Chuan stressed that Malaysia is a secular state, as this was the consensus and social contract agreed upon by our forefathers.
According to the Alliance’s memorandum to Reid Commission dated 27 September 1956 on page 19, “The religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply the State is not a secular State.” This was an unequivocal original intention of UMNO, MCA and MIC.
Reid Reports 1957 did not provide an article declaring Islam as the religion of the Federation. Justice Abdul Hamid from Pakistan opined that the Alliance’s proposal should be adopted because it was ‘innocuous’.
Ong mentioned that, the deliberations by the Working Party (comprising the Alliance, Rulers’ representatives & High Commissioners), held meetings after reviewing the Reid Report.
The first meeting held on 22 February 1957 attended by Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Omar Ong Yoke Lin, Tun V.T. Sambanthan and others stated that the Alliance desired a statement to be inserted that ‘… the States should be secular, ...’
During the 19th meeting held on 17 April 1957, the Chief Minister (Tunku) said, however that ‘the whole Constitution was framed on the basis that the Federation would be a secular State.’
Notes prepared by the Colonial Office dated 23 May 1957 at the London Conference Talks mentioned, ‘The members of the Alliance delegation stressed that they had no intention of creating a Muslim theocracy and that Malaya would be a secular State.’
Furthermore, when Tun Tan Siew Sin spoke in Parliament on 10 July 1957 in support of the Constitutional bill that although Islam would be the official religion, he said that ‘this does not in any way derogate from the principles, which has always been accepted, that Malaya will be a secular state and that there will be a complete freedom to practise any other religion’.
Dato’ Ong Ka Chuan concludes that the documents and facts shown above have given a true picture for Malaysia, whereby a secular state is the foundation of the formation of Malaya, and this consensus made by our forefathers, who shed much sweat and toil in the progress of peacefully negotiating for independence, should always be remembered and obeyed.
-MCA online-
What the Opposition Say
Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Is Wrong To Say That Article 121(1A) Makes Malaysia An Islamic State And Should Learn From His Own Father And Malaysia’s 3rd Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Own, Who Declared That Malaysia Is Not An Islamic State.
Press Statement
by Lim Guan Eng, DAP
(Petaling Jaya, Tuesday): Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein is wrong to say in the Utusan Malaysia today that Malaysians have no right to question, oppose or challenge BN’s position that Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution makes Malaysia an Islamic state. Hishamuddin appears to have forgotten that it was his own father, former Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn who declared that Malaysia is not an Islamic state.
As a lawyer, Hishamuddin should know that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the federation as stated in Article 4 (1). No one is questioning Islam as the religion of the Federation under Article 3. However at no point was Malaysia an Islamic state nor Article 121(1A) made Malaysia an Islamic state as it only removed the previous control and jurisdiction of civil courts over syariah courts. It is ridiculous how Hishamuddin can stretch, distort and even pervert Article 121(1A) as converting Malaysia into an Islamic state.
Hishamuddin should learn from his father that our Federal Constitution is secular with Islam as the religion of the country. Tun Hussein Onn’s position is similar to the stance taken by our first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and 2nd Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak. This was reaffirmed by the highest court of our land, the Supreme Court in the Che Omar Che Soh case in 1988. In that judgment, Tun Salleh Abas ruled that the syariah law was not the basic law of the land and that the constitution was the supreme law. Unless there is a constitutional amendment Malaysia is and never was an Islamic state.
For Hishamuddin to even bar Malaysians from discussing Article 121(1A) is not only undemocratic, it also violates the basic human rights of freedom of speech. Even the Sedition Act or Article 10(4) of the Federal Constitution made no mention of not being able to discuss Article 121(1A). There are four sensitive matters that even Parliamentarians do not enjoy immunity and can not question relating to citizenship rights under Part III of the Federal Constitution, the position of national language and mother tongue-language under Article 152, special position of Malays under Article 153 and the status of Rulers under Article 181.
No mention is made of Article 121(1A) precisely because any questioning is not related to challenging the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation. Any questioning of Article 121(1A) relates to the rights of non-Muslims when matters relating to Islam are decided by the syariah courts. In matters affecting non-Muslims DAP adopts the position that if the religion of the subject-matter is not in dispute then the syariah courts have the right of jurisdiction. However if the religion of the subject-matter is in dispute and affects non-Muslims, then the civil courts should decide.
DAP does not oppose Islam as the religion of the Federation. However DAP strongly opposes Malaysia as an Islamic state where Islam is the main guiding philosophy for BN which is not stated in our constitution but seen as discriminatory towards non-Muslims.
DAP urges MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP to oppose Hishamuddin’s extremist attempt to rewrite history and pervert our Constitution without making the necessary constitutional amendments that make Malaysia an Islamic state. DAP support the rights of NGOs in Article 11 to hold forum to promote the right to religion and basic rights of non-Muslim in consonant with our basic human and constitutional right of freedom of religion.
DAP strongly condemns the attempts by extremist Muslim organizations and regrets that PAS and UMNO has united to restrict the democratic right of expression, erode the rights of non-Muslims and turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. If non-Muslims can not even question Article 121(1A) when they are adversely affected and their right to freedom of religion, then BN must bear full responsibility for turning Malaysia into an Islamic state where non-Muslims do not enjoy equal political and economic rights.
So is Malaysia a Secular State? Your Say?
Source : Malaysia Today, Malaysiakini and
MCA website,
http://www.mca.org.my/ENGLISH/COMMENTARIES/Pages/AsecularstateisthebasisofourFederalConstitution.aspx
DAP Malaysia Website
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/2006/july06/lge/lge404.htm
Tuesday, 12 June 2007
KL Flood 11 June 2007: Where is SMART Tunnel when we need it most?
KL was flooded on 11 June 2007
Where was the SMART Tunnel when we need it most
Had it been ready, the RM1.9bil Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel Project (SMART) would have prevented Sunday’s floods that inundated the city centre.
Drainage and Irrigation Department deputy director Ahmad Fuad said the floods around Dataran Merdeka and Masid Jamek were caused by Sungai Kelang bursting its banks at the confluence of Sungai Gombak.
“A storm which causes the river to overflow – that is exactly what the SMART flood tunnel is being built to overcome,” he said at a press conference organised by Kuala Lumpur City Hall here yesterday.
Ahmad said had the tunnel been operational, it would have been used to divert 95% of the water in Sungai Kelang to a lake in Sungai Besi and prevented the flood.
The road portion of SMART was opened to traffic but the floodwater diversion component will only be operational next month.
Excess water would be held at a retention pond in Kampung Berembang in Ampang and channelled into the tunnel, which will release the water into a deep pond near Tanan Danau Desa.
RM 2 Toll for SMART Tunnel.
(Point to Ponder : Why are we paying Toll when to floodwater diversion work is not yet completed)
Users of the Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART) will be charged a RM2 toll from 11.59pm on June 14, Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said.
He said the toll would be increased again in three years, adding that the price was right as the tunnel concessionaire had forked out RM640mil to build it.
Noting that there was no Government subsidy involved, he said: “In any part of the world where tunnels are built, the toll is higher.
“It is also an alternative route. Road users can continue to use the existing highway but if you need to speed up your journey, then use the tunnel,” he told reporters after opening a meeting of senior Works Ministry officers.
Read also news by Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68486
Where was the SMART Tunnel when we need it most
Had it been ready, the RM1.9bil Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel Project (SMART) would have prevented Sunday’s floods that inundated the city centre.
Drainage and Irrigation Department deputy director Ahmad Fuad said the floods around Dataran Merdeka and Masid Jamek were caused by Sungai Kelang bursting its banks at the confluence of Sungai Gombak.
“A storm which causes the river to overflow – that is exactly what the SMART flood tunnel is being built to overcome,” he said at a press conference organised by Kuala Lumpur City Hall here yesterday.
Ahmad said had the tunnel been operational, it would have been used to divert 95% of the water in Sungai Kelang to a lake in Sungai Besi and prevented the flood.
The road portion of SMART was opened to traffic but the floodwater diversion component will only be operational next month.
Excess water would be held at a retention pond in Kampung Berembang in Ampang and channelled into the tunnel, which will release the water into a deep pond near Tanan Danau Desa.
RM 2 Toll for SMART Tunnel.
(Point to Ponder : Why are we paying Toll when to floodwater diversion work is not yet completed)
Users of the Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART) will be charged a RM2 toll from 11.59pm on June 14, Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said.
He said the toll would be increased again in three years, adding that the price was right as the tunnel concessionaire had forked out RM640mil to build it.
Noting that there was no Government subsidy involved, he said: “In any part of the world where tunnels are built, the toll is higher.
“It is also an alternative route. Road users can continue to use the existing highway but if you need to speed up your journey, then use the tunnel,” he told reporters after opening a meeting of senior Works Ministry officers.
Read also news by Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68486
Monday, 11 June 2007
Dr Mahathir : It is a mistake to remove Tunku Mahaleel
Govt must continue defending Proton: Mahathir
Proton must not lost it national carmaker identity
PUTRAJAYA:
The government must continue to protect Proton to ensure that it does not lose its identity as a national carmaker, Proton adviser and former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday.
When asked by reporters whether the government should continue protecting Proton, he said: “Ini tugas kerajaan yang lebih berkuasa, kalau kerajaan tak nak sokong Proton, matilah Proton
(This is the responsibility of the government, which has more power, if it doesn’t support Proton, then Proton will collapse).”
Dr Mahathir made the remarks when reporters met him after he had welcomed the Merdeka de’ Everest 2007 expedition team at the Perdana Leadership Foundation here.
Of Course....Proton need a Techinical Partner
When asked whether Proton really needed a technical partner, the former prime minister said: “Well, of course, Proton needs a technical partner but I don’t know why the negotiations (between Proton and Volkswagen) broke down.”
Khazanah Nasional Bhd, the government’s investment arm, owns around 43 percent of Proton and it said recently that talks are ongoing with VW and General Motors Corp.
Proton incurred a full-year pre-tax loss of RM619.9 million for the financial year ended March 31, reflecting the grim operating environment for the national carmaker.
It was a MISTAKE to remove Tengku Mahaleel
Referring to the losses incurred by Proton, Dr Mahathir again maintained that it was a mistake for the carmaker to have removed its former CEO, Tengku Tan Sri Mahaleel Tengku Ariff, as he had succeeded in bringing profits in the past.
Source :-
Extracted Partially from
http://www.theborneopost.com/?p=19306
– BERNAMA
Read also news by Malaysiakini
Malaysiakini
Govt must protect Proton
Jun 9, 07 3:31pm
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68406
Proton must not lost it national carmaker identity
PUTRAJAYA:
The government must continue to protect Proton to ensure that it does not lose its identity as a national carmaker, Proton adviser and former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said yesterday.
When asked by reporters whether the government should continue protecting Proton, he said: “Ini tugas kerajaan yang lebih berkuasa, kalau kerajaan tak nak sokong Proton, matilah Proton
(This is the responsibility of the government, which has more power, if it doesn’t support Proton, then Proton will collapse).”
Dr Mahathir made the remarks when reporters met him after he had welcomed the Merdeka de’ Everest 2007 expedition team at the Perdana Leadership Foundation here.
Of Course....Proton need a Techinical Partner
When asked whether Proton really needed a technical partner, the former prime minister said: “Well, of course, Proton needs a technical partner but I don’t know why the negotiations (between Proton and Volkswagen) broke down.”
Khazanah Nasional Bhd, the government’s investment arm, owns around 43 percent of Proton and it said recently that talks are ongoing with VW and General Motors Corp.
Proton incurred a full-year pre-tax loss of RM619.9 million for the financial year ended March 31, reflecting the grim operating environment for the national carmaker.
It was a MISTAKE to remove Tengku Mahaleel
Referring to the losses incurred by Proton, Dr Mahathir again maintained that it was a mistake for the carmaker to have removed its former CEO, Tengku Tan Sri Mahaleel Tengku Ariff, as he had succeeded in bringing profits in the past.
Source :-
Extracted Partially from
http://www.theborneopost.com/?p=19306
– BERNAMA
Read also news by Malaysiakini
Malaysiakini
Govt must protect Proton
Jun 9, 07 3:31pm
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68406
IDR: Economic Diplomacy and Bilateral Relationship
Malaysia-Singapore Relations: Economic Diplomacy and the IDR
by
Johan Saravanamuttu 01 Jun 2007
Published by http://www.opinionasia.org/ (Used with permission)
Meeting between Malaysian and Singapore premiers and Formation of Joint Ministerial Committee
Whichever way one looks at it, the recent meeting in Pulau Langkawi in mid-May between the Malaysian and Singapore premiers, Abdullah Badawi and Lee Hsien Loong, and their cabinet-level entourages was a diplomatic coup of no minor proportion. The centerpiece of the diplomatic success was no doubt the agreement to set up a Joint Ministerial Committee with oversight over economic cooperation in the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in the state of Johor in Malaysia, separated from Singapore by a 1km long causeway.
Smart Cards
It was unexpected that both sides so quickly agreed to the introduction of ‘smart cards’ to facilitate the two-way traffic of Malaysians and Singaporeans to the IDR.
Batu Putih Dispute : To accept ICJ Ruling.
There was even icing on cake, which came in the shape of a categorical statement that both governments would accept the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Putih) dispute, a rocky island outpost contested by both countries by November of this year. Without doubt, the event marks the high watermark of Singapore-Malaysia over some two decades of bumpy and oftentimes acrimonious relations. It is particularly interesting that in this era of globalisation, economic diplomacy has seemingly led the way to perhaps the most significant turn in Malaysian-Singapore relations, in recent years.
According to the Malaysian prime minister, more could be in the offing after this new warming up of relations. Even prior to the diplomatic retreat, there was already talk of a new fast train link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore undertaken by the YTL Corporation of Malaysia, and the building of “several bridges” linking Singapore and Malaysia (much like in New York and Manhattan) to supplement the overcrowded 1 km causeway and the underutilised Second Link.
Beyond the media report.
Going beyond the hype of media reports, I would like to explore a little more thoroughly the idea of whether the IDR could be a realistic economic project for Singapore’s long-term economic involvement in Johor and, by extrapolation, Malaysia in general. Along with that, could it provide a fillip to other foreign investments into the IDR?
Using the Malaysian premier’s own analogy, could the whole project develop into a relationship much like a Hong Kong’s with Shenzhen? If so, then the IDR could indeed become a prime and actual example of how economic diplomacy would pave the way for sustainable economic relations between Malaysia and Singapore in years to come.
However, by the same token, the IDR could also become the Achilles heel of a relationship often wrecked on the shores of irreconcilable ‘national’ economic interests, as witness the unresolved water supply issue and the much earlier parting of the ways of Malaysia and Singapore airlines. Much could go wrong if the political players fail to resolve or manage differences that have come with a baggage of historical irritations in Malaysia-Singapore relations.
Facts and Figure on IDR
Let us start with some facts about the IDR, which, to say the least, are quite spectacular. The region spans an area of 2,217 sq. km., which is about thrice Singapore’s size. Reportedly US$105 billion is to be expended in the IDR, although we are not told over what period of time. We are told that the committee overseeing the IDR will be chaired by the Malaysian premier himself and one its members will be the doyen of the Johor UMNO (the anchor party in the national coalition), Tan Sri Musa Hitam.
Key Players : Khazanah Holdings and UEM Land
Furthermore, the main stakeholder of the IDR will be Malaysia's national investment company, Khazanah Holdings, while the primary developer would be UEM Land, a major Malaysia government-linked-company.
In a seminar in Singapore on 23 May, the Managing Director of UEM Land, Wan Abdullah Wan Ibrahim, was upbeat about the prospect of private sector investment from across the border. He said that by the year’s end, some S$38.5 million would be purchased by Singaporeans in industrial lots in the IDR.
(1) Nusajaya
The Nusajaya area, the first to be developed, will see the establishment of an industrial park, a waterfront precinct, theme parks, an educational city, a medical park and residential areas.
(2) Medical faculty to be run by Newcastle University
Plans are in place for a medical faculty to be run by Newcastle University and a private institution run by iCarnegie of Carnegie Mellon University.
All of this sounds like a jolly good start. However, a reality check reveals several possible hitches. If one were to take Shenzhen as the model, clearly many criteria do not obtain in the IDR.
First, a joint ministerial committee is far from being the equivalent of a governmental authority with full decision-making powers. Admittedly, the Malaysian government has said it will relax various governmental norms including keeping in abeyance the dreaded stipulations of affirmative action and quotas. Still, Johor and UMNO politics could get in the way.
Some rumblings by detractors of the Abdullah Badawi government, not least of all the former premier Mahathir, have already dubbed the project as a ‘sell-out’ to Singaporean interests.
More serious would be the questions regarding Malaysian human resource capacities. Malaysia has a poor track record with respect to ‘mega’ projects and clearly, the IDR constitutes as one.
From most accounts, the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) and Cyberjaya, constructs of the Mahathirian era, have remained in limbo. What could push the IDR (also known as the “Southern’ Corridor”) beyond the kind of problems that have stalled the MSC? Would it be the economic diplomacy factor? The hallmark of such diplomacy is to let economics lead the way rather than politics. But could Malay or Malaysian politics stall such a process?
In the current era of globalisation and open borders, it is has become axiomatic that private sector collaboration is the driver for economic cooperation and integration. If the IDR could prove to be the lynchpin for the beginnings of the economic integration of this region of Johor, to the industrial and financial hub of Singapore, the venture may well work. A bilateral economic zone is evidently a much better formula than the ASEAN ‘growth triangles’ initiative, which have not made much progress.
The ultimate vision for the IDR-Singapore economic zone would be a customs union, where tariff and non-tariff barriers are harmonised, or even a common market that presages the free flow of capital and labour. For now, however, it remains for the architects and purveyors of the new economic diplomacy on both sides to put their money where their mouth is.
Johan Saravanamuttu is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore and was the former Dean (Research) at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).
Johan Saravanamuttu is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore and was the former Dean (Research) at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).
Read also Opinion by Khoo Kay Peng in Malaysiakini
Malaysiakini
IDR and real reform
Khoo Kay PengMay 23, 07 11:32am
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/67594
by
Johan Saravanamuttu 01 Jun 2007
Published by http://www.opinionasia.org/ (Used with permission)
Meeting between Malaysian and Singapore premiers and Formation of Joint Ministerial Committee
Whichever way one looks at it, the recent meeting in Pulau Langkawi in mid-May between the Malaysian and Singapore premiers, Abdullah Badawi and Lee Hsien Loong, and their cabinet-level entourages was a diplomatic coup of no minor proportion. The centerpiece of the diplomatic success was no doubt the agreement to set up a Joint Ministerial Committee with oversight over economic cooperation in the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in the state of Johor in Malaysia, separated from Singapore by a 1km long causeway.
Smart Cards
It was unexpected that both sides so quickly agreed to the introduction of ‘smart cards’ to facilitate the two-way traffic of Malaysians and Singaporeans to the IDR.
Batu Putih Dispute : To accept ICJ Ruling.
There was even icing on cake, which came in the shape of a categorical statement that both governments would accept the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Putih) dispute, a rocky island outpost contested by both countries by November of this year. Without doubt, the event marks the high watermark of Singapore-Malaysia over some two decades of bumpy and oftentimes acrimonious relations. It is particularly interesting that in this era of globalisation, economic diplomacy has seemingly led the way to perhaps the most significant turn in Malaysian-Singapore relations, in recent years.
According to the Malaysian prime minister, more could be in the offing after this new warming up of relations. Even prior to the diplomatic retreat, there was already talk of a new fast train link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore undertaken by the YTL Corporation of Malaysia, and the building of “several bridges” linking Singapore and Malaysia (much like in New York and Manhattan) to supplement the overcrowded 1 km causeway and the underutilised Second Link.
Beyond the media report.
Going beyond the hype of media reports, I would like to explore a little more thoroughly the idea of whether the IDR could be a realistic economic project for Singapore’s long-term economic involvement in Johor and, by extrapolation, Malaysia in general. Along with that, could it provide a fillip to other foreign investments into the IDR?
Using the Malaysian premier’s own analogy, could the whole project develop into a relationship much like a Hong Kong’s with Shenzhen? If so, then the IDR could indeed become a prime and actual example of how economic diplomacy would pave the way for sustainable economic relations between Malaysia and Singapore in years to come.
However, by the same token, the IDR could also become the Achilles heel of a relationship often wrecked on the shores of irreconcilable ‘national’ economic interests, as witness the unresolved water supply issue and the much earlier parting of the ways of Malaysia and Singapore airlines. Much could go wrong if the political players fail to resolve or manage differences that have come with a baggage of historical irritations in Malaysia-Singapore relations.
Facts and Figure on IDR
Let us start with some facts about the IDR, which, to say the least, are quite spectacular. The region spans an area of 2,217 sq. km., which is about thrice Singapore’s size. Reportedly US$105 billion is to be expended in the IDR, although we are not told over what period of time. We are told that the committee overseeing the IDR will be chaired by the Malaysian premier himself and one its members will be the doyen of the Johor UMNO (the anchor party in the national coalition), Tan Sri Musa Hitam.
Key Players : Khazanah Holdings and UEM Land
Furthermore, the main stakeholder of the IDR will be Malaysia's national investment company, Khazanah Holdings, while the primary developer would be UEM Land, a major Malaysia government-linked-company.
In a seminar in Singapore on 23 May, the Managing Director of UEM Land, Wan Abdullah Wan Ibrahim, was upbeat about the prospect of private sector investment from across the border. He said that by the year’s end, some S$38.5 million would be purchased by Singaporeans in industrial lots in the IDR.
(1) Nusajaya
The Nusajaya area, the first to be developed, will see the establishment of an industrial park, a waterfront precinct, theme parks, an educational city, a medical park and residential areas.
(2) Medical faculty to be run by Newcastle University
Plans are in place for a medical faculty to be run by Newcastle University and a private institution run by iCarnegie of Carnegie Mellon University.
All of this sounds like a jolly good start. However, a reality check reveals several possible hitches. If one were to take Shenzhen as the model, clearly many criteria do not obtain in the IDR.
First, a joint ministerial committee is far from being the equivalent of a governmental authority with full decision-making powers. Admittedly, the Malaysian government has said it will relax various governmental norms including keeping in abeyance the dreaded stipulations of affirmative action and quotas. Still, Johor and UMNO politics could get in the way.
Some rumblings by detractors of the Abdullah Badawi government, not least of all the former premier Mahathir, have already dubbed the project as a ‘sell-out’ to Singaporean interests.
More serious would be the questions regarding Malaysian human resource capacities. Malaysia has a poor track record with respect to ‘mega’ projects and clearly, the IDR constitutes as one.
From most accounts, the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) and Cyberjaya, constructs of the Mahathirian era, have remained in limbo. What could push the IDR (also known as the “Southern’ Corridor”) beyond the kind of problems that have stalled the MSC? Would it be the economic diplomacy factor? The hallmark of such diplomacy is to let economics lead the way rather than politics. But could Malay or Malaysian politics stall such a process?
In the current era of globalisation and open borders, it is has become axiomatic that private sector collaboration is the driver for economic cooperation and integration. If the IDR could prove to be the lynchpin for the beginnings of the economic integration of this region of Johor, to the industrial and financial hub of Singapore, the venture may well work. A bilateral economic zone is evidently a much better formula than the ASEAN ‘growth triangles’ initiative, which have not made much progress.
The ultimate vision for the IDR-Singapore economic zone would be a customs union, where tariff and non-tariff barriers are harmonised, or even a common market that presages the free flow of capital and labour. For now, however, it remains for the architects and purveyors of the new economic diplomacy on both sides to put their money where their mouth is.
Johan Saravanamuttu is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore and was the former Dean (Research) at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).
Johan Saravanamuttu is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore and was the former Dean (Research) at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).
Read also Opinion by Khoo Kay Peng in Malaysiakini
Malaysiakini
IDR and real reform
Khoo Kay PengMay 23, 07 11:32am
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/67594
Friday, 8 June 2007
Altantuya Trial : Explanation by Attorney General Raises more Questions than Answers
Altantuya Trial: A whole lot of shuttlecock
Thursday, 07 June 2007, 06:15pm
Contributed by Amer Hamzah Arshad and Fahri Azzat
Source : http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/9264/2/
Altantuya Trial : Explanation by Attorney General Raises more Questions than Answers
The latest explanation by the Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail on the sudden change of the prosecution team - from Salehuddin Saidin and Noorin Badaruddin to Tun Majid Tun Hamzah and Manoj Kurup - raises more questions than it gives answers, especially in relation to his appreciation of the law and possession of common sense.
The Attorney General very well knows that there has to be a deeper involvement other than a game of badminton before Salehuddin Saidin and Noorin Badaruddin are to be declared unfit. If they were seen going on holidays or picnics with their respective families and taking snapshots for keepsakes, at least that would have been understandable.
Change in the prosecution personnel is nothing more than a pure ‘public relations exercise’
Therefore, when the Attorney General claims that he made a change in the prosecution personnel for this case, supposedly in order ‘to ensure a fair trial’, it is nothing more than a pure ‘public relations exercise’.
The Attorney General also forgets that an expeditious trial is part and parcel of a ‘fair trial’ and his public relations stunt which got the trial adjourned for two weeks has in itself caused an injustice to the court, to the accused, to the witnesses, to the family of deceased and the public who had every expectation of the trial commencing on the date fixed.
Let us recollect how the High Court was taken by surprise on Monday morning when a new ‘team’ of prosecutors walked into the High Court and informed the parties concerned that ‘they’ will be taking over conduct of the criminal prosecution in the Altantuya’s case from thereon.
(1) No prior Notice is Given
No prior notice was given to anybody despite the fact that all of those concerned were aware of the existence of modern modes of communication. So clearly, the Attorney General felt there was no need to extend the courtesy of calling the respective counsel for the accused persons to inform them that they would be seeking an adjournment on the first day of trial.
(2) no reasons whatsoever were afforded
As if that were not bad enough, no reasons whatsoever were afforded to the High Court or to any of the parties concerned. This clearly also shows that the Attorney General could not be bothered about what the trial judge thought of the change because if he did, he would have turned up himself or given an explanation for the change on the day itself instead of subsequently coming up with two press statements to explain this glaring faux pas. Because of the clear lack of courtesy by the Attorney General, the new ‘team’ had to seek an adjournment.
(3) Attorney General did not even brief his new ‘team’ properly
To compound matters, the Attorney General did not even brief his new ‘team’ properly. When Tun Majid Tun Hamzah was asked by the High Court judge whether the new ‘team’ could work with the previous ‘team’ in order to ensure there will be no disruption to the proceedings (as the new ‘team’ had yet to familiarise themselves with the facts), the new lead prosecutor was unable to reply. One wonders what instructions were being given in the Attorney General’s Chambers.
Then fast forward to Wednesday evening.
AG Clarification : Only the lead prosecutor, Salehuddin Saidin, was being replaced
The Attorney General then ‘clarified’ that only the lead prosecutor of the previous team, namely Salehuddin Saidin, was being replaced.
The Reason : Playing Badminton ?????
The reason given this time was because Salehuddin Saidin had been seen playing badminton with the trial judge, Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin. As a result, the Attorney General claims that Salehuddin Saidin had to be replaced supposedly in order to avoid any untoward allegation or adverse public perception against his officers and department as well as the court.
When did that incident happen? No one knows. What were the details of this event? It was not released. Was there more to just a game of badminton? We don’t know.
What we do know is that this so-called attempt by the Attorney General to ensure a ‘fair trial’ (we don’t know what that means to him), has now unfairly cast aspersions on the credibility of both Salehuddin Saidin and Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md. Yasin.
To say that both these men cannot attain a high sense of professionalism and ethics in the course of their business simply because they had a game of badminton is clearly to insult their ability and credibility and our intelligence and sensibilities.
If playing badminton with a judge is enough for a senior Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) to be deemed unfit to prosecute the murder case of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu because it purportedly creates a negative perception, then what about the Abdul Gani himself (when he was a DPP) and another DPP who were alleged via a statutory declaration to having requested Dato’ Nallakaruppan to fabricate evidence against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which then formed the basis of an application for them to be disqualified? (nb: See Zainur Zakaria v PP [2001] 3 CLJ 673).
Shouldn’t Abdul Gani as a DPP then, as well as the other DPP, be replaced as well? After all, they are accused of worse things – illegal things – as opposed to a mere game of badminton?
Why wasn’t there any consistency? Or do the Attorney General’s Chambers in Malaysia apply these principles of integrity selectively?
Can such principles be applied in that fashion?And if it is true that it was intended for only Salehuddin Saidin to be replaced in the first place, then why was the other DPP, Noorin Badaruddin, also taken off from the conduct of the case as announced by Tun Majid Tun Hamzah on Monday?
Why wasn’t she part of the ‘new’ team as suggested by the High Court judge in order to avoid any unnecessary disruption of the trial?
What ‘games’ did she play with the judge so as to warrant her exit from the case?
All of a sudden, from replacing the ‘team’ as was announced on Monday, the matter has now been reduced to merely replacing the lead prosecutor of the previous ‘team’.
It wouldn’t come as surprise if subsequently, Noorin Badaruddin will be brought back into the prosecution team.
In any event, one could not help to assume that perhaps Salehuddin Saidin was merely made a scapegoat in order to mask the actual reason for the change.
One also cannot help assume that the real reasons stated for these shenanigans are not what the Attorney General wants us to believe.And if the Attorney General is so concerned about the negative perception that would arise as a result of the badminton ‘flings’, what about the negative perceptions that could arise if, hypothetically speaking, one of the senior DPPs in the new ‘team’ used to work and serve together with the trial judge as DPPs in a particular state or if the said senior DPP also used to share the same abode during their stints as DPPs in that particular state?
What about the social and sports functions held between the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Judiciary?
Surely there must be some camaraderie between the said senior DPP and the trial judge. Wouldn’t these ‘hypothetical’ examples give rise to negative perceptions as well?
In the ordinary course of proceedings, if there is any real concern about the impartiality in the manner of which the trial will be conducted arising from the relationship between any of the parties with the trial judge, it is a common practice for an application to recuse the trial judge to be made.
But then again, this is no ordinary trial, this is a ‘sensitive’ case where so many parties have been either changed or replaced.
The only party which has yet to be replaced is the accused and the Attorney General.
As the latter’s explanation has found to be wanting on so many levels, it is perhaps now time for a change of the Attorney General instead.
Source:
Malaysia Bar Chamber Website
Thursday, 07 June 2007, 06:15pm Contributed by Amer Hamzah Arshad and Fahri Azzat
Source : http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/9264/2/
Read also News in Malaysiakini
AG should prosecute Altantuya case
Jun 7, 07 11:09am
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68289
and also from Malaysiakini Malaysiakini.tv
Lawyer charges interference in murder case
The lawyer for a senior policeman on trial for murdering a Mongolian woman withdrew on Monday and alleged interference in the case.
Zulkifli Noordin said he could no longer act in defence of Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri.
Read the full story at Malaysiakini.com.
http://www.malaysiakini.tv/?vid=1126
Thursday, 07 June 2007, 06:15pm
Contributed by Amer Hamzah Arshad and Fahri Azzat
Source : http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/9264/2/
Altantuya Trial : Explanation by Attorney General Raises more Questions than Answers
The latest explanation by the Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail on the sudden change of the prosecution team - from Salehuddin Saidin and Noorin Badaruddin to Tun Majid Tun Hamzah and Manoj Kurup - raises more questions than it gives answers, especially in relation to his appreciation of the law and possession of common sense.
The Attorney General very well knows that there has to be a deeper involvement other than a game of badminton before Salehuddin Saidin and Noorin Badaruddin are to be declared unfit. If they were seen going on holidays or picnics with their respective families and taking snapshots for keepsakes, at least that would have been understandable.
Change in the prosecution personnel is nothing more than a pure ‘public relations exercise’
Therefore, when the Attorney General claims that he made a change in the prosecution personnel for this case, supposedly in order ‘to ensure a fair trial’, it is nothing more than a pure ‘public relations exercise’.
The Attorney General also forgets that an expeditious trial is part and parcel of a ‘fair trial’ and his public relations stunt which got the trial adjourned for two weeks has in itself caused an injustice to the court, to the accused, to the witnesses, to the family of deceased and the public who had every expectation of the trial commencing on the date fixed.
Let us recollect how the High Court was taken by surprise on Monday morning when a new ‘team’ of prosecutors walked into the High Court and informed the parties concerned that ‘they’ will be taking over conduct of the criminal prosecution in the Altantuya’s case from thereon.
(1) No prior Notice is Given
No prior notice was given to anybody despite the fact that all of those concerned were aware of the existence of modern modes of communication. So clearly, the Attorney General felt there was no need to extend the courtesy of calling the respective counsel for the accused persons to inform them that they would be seeking an adjournment on the first day of trial.
(2) no reasons whatsoever were afforded
As if that were not bad enough, no reasons whatsoever were afforded to the High Court or to any of the parties concerned. This clearly also shows that the Attorney General could not be bothered about what the trial judge thought of the change because if he did, he would have turned up himself or given an explanation for the change on the day itself instead of subsequently coming up with two press statements to explain this glaring faux pas. Because of the clear lack of courtesy by the Attorney General, the new ‘team’ had to seek an adjournment.
(3) Attorney General did not even brief his new ‘team’ properly
To compound matters, the Attorney General did not even brief his new ‘team’ properly. When Tun Majid Tun Hamzah was asked by the High Court judge whether the new ‘team’ could work with the previous ‘team’ in order to ensure there will be no disruption to the proceedings (as the new ‘team’ had yet to familiarise themselves with the facts), the new lead prosecutor was unable to reply. One wonders what instructions were being given in the Attorney General’s Chambers.
Then fast forward to Wednesday evening.
AG Clarification : Only the lead prosecutor, Salehuddin Saidin, was being replaced
The Attorney General then ‘clarified’ that only the lead prosecutor of the previous team, namely Salehuddin Saidin, was being replaced.
The Reason : Playing Badminton ?????
The reason given this time was because Salehuddin Saidin had been seen playing badminton with the trial judge, Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin. As a result, the Attorney General claims that Salehuddin Saidin had to be replaced supposedly in order to avoid any untoward allegation or adverse public perception against his officers and department as well as the court.
When did that incident happen? No one knows. What were the details of this event? It was not released. Was there more to just a game of badminton? We don’t know.
What we do know is that this so-called attempt by the Attorney General to ensure a ‘fair trial’ (we don’t know what that means to him), has now unfairly cast aspersions on the credibility of both Salehuddin Saidin and Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md. Yasin.
To say that both these men cannot attain a high sense of professionalism and ethics in the course of their business simply because they had a game of badminton is clearly to insult their ability and credibility and our intelligence and sensibilities.
If playing badminton with a judge is enough for a senior Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) to be deemed unfit to prosecute the murder case of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu because it purportedly creates a negative perception, then what about the Abdul Gani himself (when he was a DPP) and another DPP who were alleged via a statutory declaration to having requested Dato’ Nallakaruppan to fabricate evidence against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which then formed the basis of an application for them to be disqualified? (nb: See Zainur Zakaria v PP [2001] 3 CLJ 673).
Shouldn’t Abdul Gani as a DPP then, as well as the other DPP, be replaced as well? After all, they are accused of worse things – illegal things – as opposed to a mere game of badminton?
Why wasn’t there any consistency? Or do the Attorney General’s Chambers in Malaysia apply these principles of integrity selectively?
Can such principles be applied in that fashion?And if it is true that it was intended for only Salehuddin Saidin to be replaced in the first place, then why was the other DPP, Noorin Badaruddin, also taken off from the conduct of the case as announced by Tun Majid Tun Hamzah on Monday?
Why wasn’t she part of the ‘new’ team as suggested by the High Court judge in order to avoid any unnecessary disruption of the trial?
What ‘games’ did she play with the judge so as to warrant her exit from the case?
All of a sudden, from replacing the ‘team’ as was announced on Monday, the matter has now been reduced to merely replacing the lead prosecutor of the previous ‘team’.
It wouldn’t come as surprise if subsequently, Noorin Badaruddin will be brought back into the prosecution team.
In any event, one could not help to assume that perhaps Salehuddin Saidin was merely made a scapegoat in order to mask the actual reason for the change.
One also cannot help assume that the real reasons stated for these shenanigans are not what the Attorney General wants us to believe.And if the Attorney General is so concerned about the negative perception that would arise as a result of the badminton ‘flings’, what about the negative perceptions that could arise if, hypothetically speaking, one of the senior DPPs in the new ‘team’ used to work and serve together with the trial judge as DPPs in a particular state or if the said senior DPP also used to share the same abode during their stints as DPPs in that particular state?
What about the social and sports functions held between the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Judiciary?
Surely there must be some camaraderie between the said senior DPP and the trial judge. Wouldn’t these ‘hypothetical’ examples give rise to negative perceptions as well?
In the ordinary course of proceedings, if there is any real concern about the impartiality in the manner of which the trial will be conducted arising from the relationship between any of the parties with the trial judge, it is a common practice for an application to recuse the trial judge to be made.
But then again, this is no ordinary trial, this is a ‘sensitive’ case where so many parties have been either changed or replaced.
The only party which has yet to be replaced is the accused and the Attorney General.
As the latter’s explanation has found to be wanting on so many levels, it is perhaps now time for a change of the Attorney General instead.
Source:
Malaysia Bar Chamber Website
Thursday, 07 June 2007, 06:15pm Contributed by Amer Hamzah Arshad and Fahri Azzat
Source : http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/9264/2/
Read also News in Malaysiakini
AG should prosecute Altantuya case
Jun 7, 07 11:09am
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68289
and also from Malaysiakini Malaysiakini.tv
Lawyer charges interference in murder case
The lawyer for a senior policeman on trial for murdering a Mongolian woman withdrew on Monday and alleged interference in the case.
Zulkifli Noordin said he could no longer act in defence of Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri.
Read the full story at Malaysiakini.com.
http://www.malaysiakini.tv/?vid=1126
Thursday, 7 June 2007
Badawi to Marry Jeanne (Eurasian; Former Sister-in-Law)
Malaysian PM Abdullah to remarry on Saturday
Abdullah Badawi to Marry Jeanne Abdullah (Jeanne Danker - Eurasian, former Sister-In-Law of Endon)
Rumours is True : PM Abdullah get married
IN KUALA LUMPUR - ONE of Malaysia's worst-kept secrets is officially out in the open, after Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi announced yesterday that he will be marrying Madam Jeanne Abdullah this Saturday.Rumours of the wedding have been circulating for months, and Datuk Seri Abdullah was clearly pleased to confirm them, joking with reporters: 'A happier prime minister can do a lot of good work.'A small private ceremony attended only by immediate family will be held for the 67-year-old Prime Minister and his 53-year-old bride at his official residence in Putrajaya.
Madam Jeanne relationship with late Endon Mahmood ?
Madam Jeanne used to be the supervisor of his official residence, as well as a former sister-in-law of his late wife Endon Mahmood.
Datin Seri Endon and Datuk Seri Abdullah had been married for 42 years, before she lost a three-year battle with breast cancer on October 20, 2005.
His first wife's family will be among the guests on Saturday.
Datuk Seri Abdullah informed the King and Cabinet of the impending nuptials yesterday, and The Straits Times understands that a small reception for Cabinet ministers and chief ministers will be held next Wednesday.
PM fall in love in less than a year (know Jeanne for more over 2 decades)
He said he had known Madam Jeanne for over two decades but 'only fell in love with her less than a year ago'.
'She can be my companion and will take care of me,' he said, when asked why he decided to marry her.
He said he still loved his late wife, but was also falling in love with his new bride.
Who is Madam Jeanne?
[- born as Jeanne Danker to a Eurasian Family
- former sister-in-law of late Endon (formerly married to Endon younger brother) ]
Madam Jeanne, who was born a Danker to a Eurasian family, was formerly married to Datin Seri Endon's younger brother.
They have been divorced for about 15 years.
She has two daughters, Nadiah and Nadene, from her earlier marriage.
Khairy on his father-in-law:
Meanwhile, Datuk Seri Abdullah's son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin said the wedding would 'bring a lot of joy to the family'.'I, my wife Nori, my brother-in-law and his wife are happy with the news. We fully support his decision.'Bernama also quoted Mr Khairy as saying: 'We have known auntie Jeanne for a long time and we are very close.'He consulted all of us and we have given our blessing.'
Source :
The Straits Times, Singapore
By Carolyn Hong, Malaysia Bureau Chief and Chow Kum Hor, Malaysia Correspondent
Quoted from
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/9261/2/
Read also
Confirmed! Pak Lah to re-marry from Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68240#l
Family gives blessing to wedding from Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68279
Abdullah Badawi to Marry Jeanne Abdullah (Jeanne Danker - Eurasian, former Sister-In-Law of Endon)
Rumours is True : PM Abdullah get married
IN KUALA LUMPUR - ONE of Malaysia's worst-kept secrets is officially out in the open, after Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi announced yesterday that he will be marrying Madam Jeanne Abdullah this Saturday.Rumours of the wedding have been circulating for months, and Datuk Seri Abdullah was clearly pleased to confirm them, joking with reporters: 'A happier prime minister can do a lot of good work.'A small private ceremony attended only by immediate family will be held for the 67-year-old Prime Minister and his 53-year-old bride at his official residence in Putrajaya.
Madam Jeanne relationship with late Endon Mahmood ?
Madam Jeanne used to be the supervisor of his official residence, as well as a former sister-in-law of his late wife Endon Mahmood.
Datin Seri Endon and Datuk Seri Abdullah had been married for 42 years, before she lost a three-year battle with breast cancer on October 20, 2005.
His first wife's family will be among the guests on Saturday.
Datuk Seri Abdullah informed the King and Cabinet of the impending nuptials yesterday, and The Straits Times understands that a small reception for Cabinet ministers and chief ministers will be held next Wednesday.
PM fall in love in less than a year (know Jeanne for more over 2 decades)
He said he had known Madam Jeanne for over two decades but 'only fell in love with her less than a year ago'.
'She can be my companion and will take care of me,' he said, when asked why he decided to marry her.
He said he still loved his late wife, but was also falling in love with his new bride.
Who is Madam Jeanne?
[- born as Jeanne Danker to a Eurasian Family
- former sister-in-law of late Endon (formerly married to Endon younger brother) ]
Madam Jeanne, who was born a Danker to a Eurasian family, was formerly married to Datin Seri Endon's younger brother.
They have been divorced for about 15 years.
She has two daughters, Nadiah and Nadene, from her earlier marriage.
Khairy on his father-in-law:
Meanwhile, Datuk Seri Abdullah's son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin said the wedding would 'bring a lot of joy to the family'.'I, my wife Nori, my brother-in-law and his wife are happy with the news. We fully support his decision.'Bernama also quoted Mr Khairy as saying: 'We have known auntie Jeanne for a long time and we are very close.'He consulted all of us and we have given our blessing.'
Source :
The Straits Times, Singapore
By Carolyn Hong, Malaysia Bureau Chief and Chow Kum Hor, Malaysia Correspondent
Quoted from
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/9261/2/
Read also
Confirmed! Pak Lah to re-marry from Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68240#l
Family gives blessing to wedding from Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/68279
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)