Police Corruption Allegation : IGP Musa Hassan and SPP Othman Taib

Conflict of interest alleged over police choppers

- Involving IGP Musa Hassan and SSP Othman Taib

- "Musa had addressed the Letter of Intent and Letter of Award directly to the prime minister when he was supposed to have addressed it to the chief secretary of the government,"

- No Answer given to the allegation (What Happened?)

Syed Jaymal Zahiid Jan 8, 08

5:43pm

Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan and a member of the powerful Police Force Commission (SPP), Othman Talib, have been implicated in allegations of power abuse involving a company linked to the latter.

Web Power Sdn Bhd, a company that lists Othman as one of their directors, is said to be currently engaged in negotiations with the police to rent 31 helicopters - a lucrative business deal that will generate RM400 million annually for the company if sealed.

In making the charge, DAP MP Teresa Kok said she had run a check with the Companies Commission of Malaysia and confirmed that Othman is indeed one of the four directors of Web Power.

She said that there was suspicion of foul play as Othman was appointed as a member of the SPP last year after he became the director of the company on June 2, 2006.

The SPP is the body responsible for the appointment, confirmation, promotion and transfer of all members of the police force. Disciplinary action against errant policemen also comes under its purview.

The commission has four permanent members including the IGP and the Internal Security Minister, his secretary-general and a member of the Public Services Commission. There are up to six non-permanent members appointed by the King on advice of the government.

"Those who appointed him as an SPP member knew from the beginning that Othman had a stake in Web Power and yet approved of his appointment," said Teresa at a press conference held at party headquarters in Petaling Jaya today.

IGP's 'enthusiasm'

Aside from that, Web Power is also alleged to have been picked by the police force as the service provider the latter's sophisticated e-Police Force Solution, a digital wireless networking system.

This system is said to be able to provide voice, data, graphic, biometric and DNA data and assist the police in solving and preventing crime.

Though having the system is a positive move, Kok said there was suspicion over the police chief's "... display of unrelenting enthusiasm to have a company owned by a member of SPP appointed the service provider for the e-Police system".

Kok said this 'enthusiasm' was evident as the IGP did not undertake the necessary procedures when awarding the e-Police system to Web Power.

"Musa had addressed the Letter of Intent and Letter of Award directly to the prime minister when he was supposed to have addressed it to the chief secretary of the government," noted Teresa.

According to her, the procedure for a business transaction involving the Internal Security Ministry - under which the police force is under - is for it to first write a Letter of Intent to the chief secretary.

The latter will send the Letter of Intent to the finance minister and only after approval by the finance minister can the Internal Security Ministry begin to announce the tender.

No answers Kok, member of parliament for Seputeh, said Musa (right) bypassed this procedure and had asked Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to directly issue a Letter of Award handing over the tender to Othman's company.

She also said she had requested answers from the Deputy Internal Security Minister Foo Ah Kiow during Parliament's sitting in December last year but has yet to receive any explanation regarding the discrepancies.

"I questioned whether a conflict of interest is implied when a member of the SPP whom is listed as a director of the company is currently in business talk with the police?"

During the last Parliament sitting, Kok had also demanded explanations for why was there a need for the police to rent 31 helicopters when they had only asked for eight under the Ninth Malaysian Plan.

Kok said the deals involving the police choppers and computer system were a blatant case of power abuse and said the prime minister himself should look into the matter.

"I urge Abdullah recommend to the King to terminate Othman's services as a member of the SPP," she said.

Source:

The above article was received by Malaysia Alternative Voices via e-mail.

Govt Subisdies 2008 Vs Petronas Profit

Govt to spend RM 40 Billion in Subsidies this year.
"It is true for every US$1 increase in the price there is a net inflow"

CYBERJAYA, April 17 — Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said today the government will spend RM40 billion in total subsidies this year.

"It will be more, the subsidy will be RM40 billion or higher," he said, with the fuel subsidy accounting for RM18 billion.

"The fuel subsidy that we take out from the budget and give to the (oil) companies and the people will be RM18 billion compared to RM7 billion or RM8 billion last year. That doesn't include Petronas (and) foregone tax," he told reporters after the symbolic handing over of keys to owners of Biz Avenue 1, NeoCyber in Cyberjaya.

On whether the current increase in oil prices benefit the country on balance, Nor Mohamed said: "It is true for every US$1 increase in the price there is a net inflow. It is certain that we will earn more in net terms, but that is only looking at the crude oil side.

"In the longer term, there is the effect of high oil prices on recession in other countries and this in turn has a negative effect on our exports. Although we are diversified, we still export to some developing countries. In the long run, it is not going to be very positive."

Therefore, he said, the government is looking at it on a longer term basis and "we wish that the prices will be more stable." — Bernama

Point to Ponder by Malaysia Blogger
(Malaysia Alternative Voices - The followings were only the personal opinion of the author of Malaysia Alternative Voices, reader are advised to use their own judgement and intelligent to analysis the following comment and notes highlighted)

To a lot of common people, the subsidies of RM 18 Billion is a lot of money but then

(1) Malaysia is an Oil Production Country
- meaning is the world Oil Price increases, Malaysia net income from the sales of oil will also increase. This is also acknowledged by Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop that "It is true for every US$1 increase in the price there is a net inflow"

(2) The subsidies from Govt to be enjoyed by the people (Rakyat) is only a small portion from Petronas profit or Taxes paid by Petronas to the Government of Malaysia

2007 March - Petronas Financial Report
Petronas Profit Before Tax = RM 76.3 Billion
Net Profit = RM 46.4 Billion
Therefore
Taxes alone from Petronas = RM 29.9 Billion

Refering to the following sources
http://www.petronas.com.my/internet/corp/centralrep2.nsf/f0d5fd0d9c25fbdd48256ae90025ee04/2b3caac313db597148256be60015256c/$FILE/Financial_highlights_FY2007.pdf
http://www.petronas.com.my/internet/corp/centralrep2.nsf/Src/WebDoc*Investor+Relations+Default/?Open

What do these means
The RM18 Billion of fuel subsidies is only 23.6% of Petronas Profit before Tax
or
The RM18 Billion of fuel subsidies is only 38.8% of Petronas Net Profit

Even if the Government claim that Petronas Profit does not belong to the Government, taxation paid by Petronas alone amount to RM 29.9 Billion which is much more that what Government is subsidising for the People (Rakyat)

So why the Government keep on saying that with Government Subsidy on fuel, the Country is going to go bankcrupt?

So why is the government saying there is not enough money for development if the government subsidies for fuel? It is only a small portion for the Tax received by the Government from only 1 companies in Malaysia.

If the WORLD FUEL PRICES INCREASE, petronas REVENUE will then INCREASE resulting HIGHER PROFIT for Petronas and HIGHER TAXES receiveable by the government. Thus isn't it reasonable that FUEL PRICES INCREASE, SUBSIDIES SHOULD INCREASE ?

The next BIG QUESTION?

WHY IS OUR PETROL PRICE KEEP ON INCREASING WHEN THE WORLD FUEL PRICE INCREASES???

Malaysia Blogger
Malaysia Alternative Voices

Mahathir vs the judges (1988 Crisis - What Really Happened)

Mahathir versus the judges

THE 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis began with a divisive Umno election the year before and ended with the suspension and the eventual removal of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Tun Salleh Abas, from his seat.

The Supreme Court in the years leading up to 1988 had issued several rulings that irritated the government of then premier Mahathir Mohamad (left), who had narrowly won re-election as Umno president in the bitterly fought poll.

Among other things, a judge had declared Umno 'an unlawful society' in a case brought by disgruntled losing party members.

The last straw for Tun Dr Mahathir came when the Supreme Court ordered the release of prominent opposition leader Karpal Singh from detention under the Internal Security Act.

The premier submitted several constitutional amendments to Parliament, divesting the courts of the 'judicial power of the Federation' and giving them only such powers as Parliament might grant them. He also lambasted the judiciary for their interference.

Tun Salleh convened a meeting of all 20 judges from the Supreme and High Courts in Kuala Lumpur where they agreed not to publicly reply to Tun Dr Mahathir's criticisms. Instead, they wrote a confidential letter to the King and the Malay rulers, expressing their grievances.

The Lord President was subsequently hauled before a tribunal convened by the premier on the grounds of misconduct. Five judges of the Supreme Court who granted him a temporary order against the tribunal were also suspended.

The crisis ended with the sacking of Tun Salleh along with two of the five judges.

Badawi : Judicial reforms today & Regret to sacked Judges

Abdullah to unveil judicial reforms today

Thursday, 17 April 2008 06:41am
Extracted from
The Straits Times, Singapore by Leslie Lopez, South-east Asia Correspondent

• Judicial Commission to appoint judges
• Greater independence for the judiciary
• Financial compensation to sacked judges
• Expression of regret by PM Abdullah

FIGHTING back stiff opposition from his own Cabinet and administration, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is set to unveil major reforms to the country's much-maligned judiciary.

The reforms will include the setting up of a Judicial Commission that will be responsible for the selection and the promotion of judges. It will also feature changes to the Federal Constitution that will restore greater independence to the judiciary, senior government officials and lawyers said.

The reform agenda, which will be announced at a special dinner hosted jointly by the government and the country's Bar Council tonight, will also see Datuk Seri Abdullah make an expression of regret over the 1988 judicial saga that led to the sacking of the country's top judge.

The government's effort to make amends to the jurists disgraced by the events in 1988 will also include some form of financial compensation, one senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan told The Straits Times on condition of anonymity.'

The amounts are being worked out,' he said without elaborating. Malaysia's once-robust judiciary was dealt a severe blow when it clashed with former premier Mahathir Mohamad in the late 1980s.

That face-off led to the suspension of six Supreme Court judges and the subsequent removal of three of them, including the head of the judiciary at the time, Tun Salleh Abas.

The sackings damaged the integrity of the judiciary, which came under fresh attack again 10 years later during the controversial corruption trials of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.

Shortly after taking office in November 2003, Datuk Seri Abdullah declared that he would push for reforms in the judiciary.

But those efforts were often stymied by his own Cabinet colleagues, who served under Tun Dr Mahathir and were not keen on reforms that could embarrass the former premier, senior government officials and lawyers say.

Even the Prime Minister's move to establish a Royal Commission late last year to investigate a damning video-recording that implicated a prominent lawyer allegedly attempting to broker the promotion of judges was privately criticised by senior members of his own ruling United Malays National Organisation Party.

But last month's stunning election results, which saw the ruling Barisan Nasional lose its two-thirds majority and control of five states, changed everything, close aides of Datuk Seri Abdullah say.

The Prime Minister signalled that judicial reform was his key priority when he appointed prominent lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim to his new Cabinet to push his agenda.

Lawyers and government officials credit Datuk Zaid for convincing the government to bring closure to the controversial events in 1988 and to establish a more transparent system of selecting and promoting judges.

Under the current practice, the country's Chief Judge recommends candidates to the Prime Minister and in the case of senior judicial appointments, the Chief Judge's recommendation must by approved by the Conference of Rulers.

But Datuk Zaid had to fight hard during Cabinet meetings, say senior government officials. There is also some unease among senior judges over Datuk Seri Abdullah's efforts.

Still, lawyers say that tonight's event could boost his battered public standing.

Sources say that the Prime Minister insisted that the six judges who were disgraced by the events in 1988 be present at the dinner where he will deliver a short address titled Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust.

Government officials say that former chief judge Tun Salleh Abas, his three other colleagues in the Supreme Court at the time - Datuk George Seah, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah - have confirmed their attendance.

The two other Supreme Court jurists - the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader - will be represented by their families, the government officials say.

Bar Council sources say that opposition leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ibrahim, who is Datuk Seri Anwar's wife, and Mr Lim Kit Siang of the Democratic Action Party, will also attend tonight's event.'

We hope this will bring closure to the 1988 judicial crisis,' said a senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan.

But to some Malaysians it may not be enough.'

An apology or expression of regret would be sweeping everything that happened 20 years ago under the carpet,' said Datuk V. C. George, a former Court of Appeal jurist. 'We need an investigation into the events of 1988 and to expose the conspiracy and its conspirators.'

TIME TO SHOW LEADERSHIP'

There are more important things than private peeves and settling scores. Neither the brewing crisis over soaring food prices nor other major issues are going to wait for Umno to put its own house in order. Now is the time for the grand old party to move on, do the things its leaders have promised and show that it still has what it takes to lead the nation.'MALAYSIA'S NEW STRAITS TIMES in a front-page editorial yesterday

Dr Mahathir : on Rulers and politicians

Dr Mahathir speaks up on Rulers and politicians
March 27, 2008 By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

PETALING JAYA (March 27, 2008): A Concerned Malaysian has expressed his worry over the role being played by Sultans in the appointment of the Mentri Besar.

His Royal Highnesses have clearly refused to take the advice of the Chief Minister i.e. the Prime Minister.

Instead, they have chosen on their own a member of the state legislature to head the Government.We hear a lot of opinions on the propriety of the action by the Sultan. Some say he has the right to do this while others point out that as a constitutional ruler, he could not do this.

The Constitution says that the Ruler or Head of State must choose the elected member who enjoys the support of the majority of members in the legislative body to be the Prime Minister or the Mentri Besar. Subject to this provision, the Ruler it is who chooses and appoints the Prime Minister or Mentri Besar.

The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has no role in the choice of the State Mentri Besar or Ketua Menteri. His naming of candidate who should be the Mentri Besar is purely a party matter. Obviously, if the State is captured by the Opposition Party, he cannot name the candidate.

However, if the Ruler chooses someone who does not enjoy majority support, he could be deposed at a sitting of the legislative body through a vote of "no confidence".

After that, another member can be appointed by the Ruler to take his place. But if for some reason, there is no other candidate or the candidate with majority support is considered unsuitable by the Ruler, a new Government cannot be formed. The Ruler may then dissolve the legislative body and a new election may be held.

This new election may lead to the same impasse. The Ruler may not like the member with majority support.However, it should be noted that this kind of thing had never happened during the premiership of the four previous Prime Ministers. Concerned Malaysians should wonder why.

Is it just that the particular Ruler is being difficult, unwilling to accept the principles of democracy, wanting to return to feudalism and the absolute authority of the monarch?I do not think so. There must be a reason why the Ruler refuses to accept the candidate named by the party. But the Ruler chooses not to reveal the reasons and indulge in public debates. He merely expresses his displeasure by refusing to do what normally the Rulers would do.

Concerned Malaysians must ask what has the particular candidate done which is so wrong that it incurs the displeasure of the Ruler.

There are lots of talks in the town. Terengganu is blessed with petroleum deposits. It should get 5% of the total earning from oil production. The Federal Government; fearing the previous PAS government might use this money wrongly had withheld payment.But when the Barisan Nasional (BN) regained Terengganu the money, now called "Wang Ehsan", was lavishly spent by the Federal Government on Terengganu. It is not a small sum. Over these years "Wang Ehsan" totalled several billion.

We know that since the BN regained Terengganu in 2004, all kinds of projects have been developed in Terengganu. This includes The Monsoon Cup, luxury housing for sale to foreigners, Crystal Mosque and theme park, university, etc. Some of these projects are very good but many are totally unnecessary and wasteful.

But what the Terengganu people are saying is that all these mega projects costing billions of Ringgit have been contracted out to people outside Terengganu. Terengganu contractors got practically nothing.

But additionally, they say the contracts all went to one person and they are suspicious that behind this person are members of the first family.The rumours also say that the previous Mentri Besar was responsible for these things happening and of course, they think that he might have benefited financially.

The rumours went on to say that the Prime Minister might have influenced the Mentri Besar into doing wrong things. These are all rumours. It will be quite impossible to prove anything as the perpetrators are skilled in hiding themselves.

This is not good for a Government keen to abolish corruption and be transparent. To clear its name, an investigation should be made.

But the public is leery of investigations by Government agencies and departments. Even Royal Commissions are not highly regarded. The people believe, not true of course, that the Government has been interfering with the work of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), the Police and the Attorney General (A-G)'s Chambers. The say this is borne out by the results of investigations by these agencies.

When a Deputy Minister was accused of accepting money for the release of a detainee, the A-G said there was no case because the detainee said he did not give any money to the Deputy Minister. It is so easy. If you have a case involving someone, all the enforcement agencies need to do is to ask him whether he was involved. If he says "no", then there is no case.

For some reason, judges are finding that people accused of murder are not guilty because of insufficient evidence by the police. Yet people who are totally not involved in a case, who were not accused of any misdeeds and who did not appear in court at all and been given a hearing are found guilty and publicly condemned.

The public cannot be blamed for not having faith in Government agencies doing investigations. The public cannot be blamed for suspecting cover-ups by the Government or worse still the Government may be using these enforcement agencies to threaten people.

To clear its good name, the Government should get credible foreign agencies to do the investigation. Of course, they must be given full access to the documents etc.

Now my detractors are going to say I did worse things when I was Prime Minister. Well, if that is so, let us have the foreign agencies investigate me also. I am aware that people are looking into possible misdeeds by me during my 22 years so as to threaten me and ask me to shut up. So far they have not found anything.

Not only have I not taken anything that was not due to me while I was Prime Minister but I have given back to the Government and the people everything that I had received as gifts during my tenure of office.

The Government had offered me land in Kedah and Langkawi and I had refused to accept. I have a 5-acre plot in Putrajaya which I paid for even though the Government was offering it to me free.Unless there is a frame-up, I think there should be nothing to pin on me. Even other accusations against me, including the dismissal of judges, were not my doing and I do not feel obliged to apologise. Ask the Tribunal to apologise.

The person asking that the Government should apologise for what happened to Tun Salleh Abbas may have forgotten that as President of the Muslim Lawyers Association, he fully supported the action that was taken. He castigated the Bar Council for condemning Tun Hamid Omar over the dismissal of judges. Now he wants to be more correct than correct. I wonder why.

Chua Soi Lek on verge of open challenge for MCA top job

Chua Soi Lek on verge of open challenge for MCA top job
Calls party chief Ong Ka Ting to say sorry for polls debacle and step down

Extracted from
The Malaysia Insider
http://69.64.71.184/mni/chua-soi-lek-on-verge-of-open-challenge-for-mca-top-job.html
By Leslie Lau

KUALA LUMPUR, April 16 — Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has called for Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting to resign as MCA president because of the party’s poor performance in last month’s general elections.
The former Health Minister’s latest remarks come amid heightened pressure on Datuk Seri Ong as the second biggest party in the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition prepares for crucial party polls later this year.
“The only honourable thing for him to do is apologise to the party and then resign,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
Dr Chua’s political career appeared to have come to an ignominious end after a secretly-filmed video recording of him having sex with a “personal friend” was leaked out to the public last December.
He was forced to resign as minister and as MCA vice-president.
Amid swirling speculation, Datuk Seri Ong denied last week that he was responsible for the secret recording against his political rival in the party.

Dr Chua was said to be planning to mount a challenge for the top party job until the sex scandal put paid to such ambitions.
But the MCA’s poor performance in the elections have now given a fillip to Dr Chua and other party leaders opposed to Datuk Seri Ong.

“Yes I am thinking about whether or not to challenge him,” said Dr Chua. “But an old man like me thinks very slowly.”

Besides Dr Chua, another former MCA leader from Johor is also planning a tilt at the presidency. Datuk Seri Chua Jui Meng announced this week that he was planning another assault on the top party post after a previous failed attempt.

Just like its senior partner Umno, the MCA is going through intense soul searching, and will see epic tussles for control of the party. Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, the firebrand maverick party vice-president, is said to be considering a run for the deputy presidency. Wee Ka Siong is also expected to face off with Ling Hee Leong, the son of former Party president Tun Ling Liong Sik, for the Youth chief’s job.

But the most intriguing challenge must be from the 61-year old Dr Chua, the man who was written off before the elections and consigned to the scrapheap by his party.

Dr Chua told The Malaysian Insider that he was now reassessing the situation and would probably stop giving any more interviews, which in the past week he had used skilfully to put the pressure on his party president.

“My president is not a simple man to deal with,” he said. “The more you talk the more you expose yourself.”

He then quipped that for now he would “sleep in the daytime and move only at night.”
The MCA is certainly set for turbulent times ahead.

Next steps for Pakatan Rakyat (Part 1)

Next steps for Pakatan Rakyat Part 1 of 3
- Reason for People Unhappiness
- What need to be done
- An opinion written to Malaysiakini by Derek Law

DEREK LAW is a chartered accountant and retired banker. His ultimate dream is for politics in Malaysia to rise above religion and race. Congratulation to the DAP, PKR and PAS (Pakatan Rakyat, PR) on their success in the 12th general election.
(Note : The article was extracted from

I hope that the leadership acknowledges that a number of seats were won by a slim majority. It is crucial that the BR works four times as hard as they did, as the Barisan Nasional (BN) will work twice as hard to win back the minds and hearts of the people.

Reasons for the People Unhappiness
The unhappiness of the people is rooted in the rising cost of living, rising corruption, rising crime rate, the New Economic Policy, and creeping Islamisation.


For PR to repeat its success in the next general election or to even perform better, it must tackle these as well as countless other issues. The first three would be easier to tackle as it affects all Malaysians whereas the last two may be deemed sensitive.

However, with consensus, changes can be made to benefit all segments of society.

Rising cost of living
Many Malaysians have been hit by the rising cost of living since 2004. The prices of petrol, water and electricity - three basis necessities - have risen significantly and with a domino effect, prices of various goods and services have followed suit.
The PR leadership must introduce various initiatives that will address the rising cost of living instead of publishing impressive GDP growth rates that have no meaning for the average citizen.
Reduce charges imposed by state/local council
PR state governments could address some of the issues by reducing some charges imposed by state governments (and local councils) such as quit rent, assessment and parking charges. The Kedah government must be applauded for announcing a 30 percent reduction in quit rent and assessment rates.
However, PR state governments should ensure that revenue collection is sufficient for sustainable development and emergency purposes, or they would have to run to the BN-led federal government for aid.

Reduce cost of doing business
The PR state governments could reduce the cost of doing business. Many traders and small businessmen have complained about the high cost of doing business, in the form of ‘under the table’ paid to the local council. As the new administrators, it is vital that the PR eradicates corrupt practices in local councils. It is said that ‘when there is too much discretion, corruption will follow’. For the PR to eradicate corrupt practice, clear rules must be laid out.

Take for example, alfresco dining and whether this should be allowed. In my opinion, this has become part of the Malaysian culture and would be very difficult to ban. What local councils need to do is regulate it to make it safer; at the same time, this would add revenue to the state coffers.
The same goes for illegal hawkers/petty traders. The solution is proper regulation and not constant harassment and collection of duit kopi. The government must give opportunities to the average citizen to earn an honest living. Illegal hawkers and petty traders should be licensed and regulated to ensure proper hygiene and safety; at the same time, they will contribute to state revenue. Suitable venues with adequate facilities and reasonable rental rates should be provided, so that hawkers and petty traders can operate in peace and customers can shop in comfort.

With reduction of cost in doing business, the savings can eventually be passed to consumers, thus reducing some of the rising costs.

Reduce charges imposed by utility companies
To reduce the cost of utilities such as electricity and water, PR should apply pressure on the federal government. The 2007 Annual Report of Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) reveals that in 2003, it made a profit before tax (PBT) of RM1,648.5 million. In 2007, this increased to a whopping RM4,765.9 million - by 289 percent, or an average of 57.8 percent year-on-year.
However, TNB still claims that it desperately needs to increase the tariff-rate in order to survive. Excessive profit-taking by GLCs is obscene when it is at the expense of the people. The tariff agreement with TNB should be renegotiated downwards.
TNB pays dividends to its shareholders, which includes the government but what about the people, who are its biggest stakeholder? It should give an annual rebate, equivalent to say 1 month’s electricity bill, to both consumers and corporations.
Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim has said that the state government intends to renegotiate the water agreement signed earlier with Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd and to declassify the document from the ambit of the Official Secrets Act 1972. This is a welcome move.
Puncak Niaga’s 2006 Annual Report reveals that it made PBT of RM180.11 million in 2002 and RM367.28 million in 2006; or an increase of 203.9 percent or 40.8 percent year-on-year.

Increase revenue through training programmes
The PR must provide training programmes to increase the knowledge and skills of the people. Khalid has announced a special programme for youths with a “guaranteed minimum salary” upon graduation. This should be extended to other groups badly hit by rising costs, such as single mothers and retirees. It would help reduce the country’s dependence on foreign labour.

Increase revenue through Foreign Direct Investment
Penang and Selangor enjoy the lion’s share of FDI in Malaysia. PR should ensure that FDI is retained and news sources are attracted into its states. Investors should be encouraged to employ locals - in this respect, Khalid’s proposal to impose a levy on foreign workers could be seen as investor-unfriendly or discriminatory. Incentives should be provided to investors to hire locals. These could be in the form of lower quit rent and assessment rates.

Revamp management
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834–1902) said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men".
The PR must revamp the way their states are managed and allow civil servants to serve. When the latter see the wisdom of the new policies, they will give their full cooperation.
These governments will be able to review all past contracts and report any wrongdoing to the relevant authorities. They must obtain sound legal advice before rescinding contracts or they may be exposed to payment of compensation, as the ‘crooked bridge’ fiasco in Johor amply illustrates.
Changes are also needed in the way local councils are managed, including making financial statements public for inspection. This will ensure greater accountability and end the days of ‘sports club donations’.
The process of awarding contracts or the practice of introducing ridiculous rules should be reviewed as well. For instance, a certain local council wants pest-control companies registered on its ‘panel’. There are already laws regulating such companies, so why create additional rules?
Local councils must give adequate notice and take into consideration the concerns of affected residents before approving projects that are likely to cause controversy - such as designating areas for a cemetery or incinerator or hillside projects.

The above article is extracted from
Malaysiakini
http://malaysiakini.com/opinions/81319
as Part 1 of 3

Part 2 : Dr M Letter on Shafee, Param and VK Lingam

Why Dr M did not defend himself
Dr Mahathir Mohamad

DATUK Param Cumaraswamy works on the basis of suspicions and his own perception of everything and everyone. Tangible evidence is not necessary.

As I said (Speak Up, April 8), former Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk Shafee Yahya’s statement was merely his version of what was said at a meeting between him and me. He may swear but that still does not prove he was telling the whole truth.
I could have sued him for libel but I too can only submit my sworn version of the verbal exchange between him and me. The judges would have to determine who was telling a lie and this the judges could not do with any certainty.

Consequently, I did not think it was worthwhile for me to sue or even to defend myself. If I had done anything wrong, the government agencies would have to investigate and decide.

Their decision was that I had done nothing wrong.
I had every right to call up an officer against whom allegations had been made by another officer. I suppose Param as a lawyer knows that a person is not guilty until proven otherwise.

The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) head had not been proven guilty. So why cannot he be appointed governor of the central bank?

Today, there are lots of cases of suspicions of corruption and abuse of power in the government. But Param has not made any critical comment, much less take up the cases or even write and make known his suspicions and demand for a commission of inquiry.

As to the videotaping of (Datuk) V.K. Lingam, one should ask why this was done. Isn’t it because of the intention to blackmail?

Incidentally, he is my lawyer in a case where (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim (the same person who provided the videos) had sued me for RM100 million because I said he had indulged in sodomy.

It should be pointed out that in releasing the video in two parts, Anwar was tampering with evidence. And he claims he has more video clips to release. The video clips are obviously being withheld and their value as evidence is questionable.

I had already explained to the (Royal) Commission that there is nothing in the law to bar me from listening to anybody’s view of a candidate for the bench.

But who I recommend is my own decision. Lingam may have influenced judges, etc; but that did not mean I made a decision based on his views. The real truth is that I had never been lobbied by Lingam.

Param seems ever ready to denigrate anyone who did not do what he expects them to do. Thus, because the late attorney-general Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah cleared then chief justice Eusoff Chin of any wrongdoing, therefore Mohtar’s decision that there was no case against me must also be in the same category.

In fact, he condemned Mohtar’s decision during my era, implying that I had been responsible for all of Mohtar’s decisions. What is his proof that all of Mohtar’s decisions were influenced by me? Again his apparent reason is because of his suspicion and his contempt for anyone who did not decide the way he expects.

I just wonder how he was appointed by the United Nations to be the rapporteur on the commission looking into the independence of the judiciary and lawyers. He already had a biased opinion of them as evidenced by his statement in his letter about “Malaysia’s internationally discredited judiciary and legal system”.

His report on them cannot be regarded as impartial.

As far as his immunity to Malaysian laws is concerned, the ratification by Malaysia of the Convention on Privileges cannot possibly cover personal attacks against private individuals.

Otherwise people on the UN commissions can do anything they like, including, as I mentioned, murder. When immunity is granted, it is expected that the person concerned would behave with propriety and would not abuse it. The report should be submitted to the UN authorities.

It must not be made use of by the author to score against helpless individuals. That would be abusing the immunity conferred. It is contemptible.

In any case, the UN imposes its rule on only weak countries that cannot defend themselves. Powerful countries can totally disregard the UN, hence Guantanamo Bay.

No Malaysian court, according to Param, found his statements libellous. But then all these courts, according to Param, are internationally discredited.

Their not finding Param’s statements libellous should be rejected especially by Param, because it would be made by discredited courts. Why is Param citing these courts’ decisions to back his claim?

Had I volunteered to appear in court to clear my reputation, I would be at the mercy of these internationally-discredited courts also. If they did not find me guilty, then Param would say the court is a discredited court.

This of course would be considered by him as irrefutable evidence that my sworn testimony was wrong. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t.

In any case, he insists that the statements of these three high officials of our enforcement agencies (The AG, the head of the ACA and the police) are very unsettling. This is a nice way of saying he believes they are lying.

These officials are not saying this in my or Eusoff Chin’s era. How does he conclude they are lying? Would he appear in court to say these officials are lying in the era of Datuk Seri Abdullah?

Param has gone through great lengths to assert that I had abused and consolidated power when I was prime minister. He has not shown a shred of admissible evidence to show that I had done this. Only surmises and personal opinion. Do you convict people based on these?

Still I would be happy to face a Royal Commission of Inquiry. The only problem is that Param has already concluded that they would not have integrity. Only if he himself makes up a one-man commission would the result be acceptable to him.

That is the kind of judicial approach he apparently believes in.

I hate to think that the world might take this bitter man and his personal hatred as typical of Malaysians. We have better people who are representative of the Malaysian character.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad

The letter is extracted from The Sun Daily
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21490

Mahathir Letter to "The Sun" on Tun Salleh Abas and Allegation by Datuk Shafee Yahya

Dr Mahathir : Call for appology Stupid
Letter to "The Sun" on Tun Salleh Abas and Allegation by Datuk Shafee Yahya

Dr Mahathir: Call for apology is stupid
AS I had anticipated, my comment on (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s suggestion that the government should apologise for the action taken against Tun Salleh Abas would draw accusations against me for my alleged misdeeds during my tenure of office.

I regard this as an attempt to shut my mouth should I find occasion to criticise the present government. It is always about "You were worse when you headed the government," even if it is obvious that I had not done badly.

(Datuk) Param Cumaraswamy’s letter (theSun, April 2) falls in that category. He wants to know why action had not been taken against me over the allegations made by Datuk Shafee Yahya (former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency) during the Anwar Ibrahim trial.

The statement may be a sworn testimony in court but the accuracy of it cannot be accepted unquestioned. There were omissions and inferences which mislead. Counsel was of course interested in proving that Anwar did not inveigle Shafee into doing something wrong. But during the trial it was revealed that he did get a senior police officer to threaten and intimidate his accusers.

I admit to calling up Shafee to ask him about the raid by the ACA on the office of the director of the Economic Planning Unit. I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid. He also said that he believed the deputy prime minister and finance minister had set up the whole thing.

I knew that government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority.

I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened.

I asked many questions, many more than what he said in court. I also asked him if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid.

He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work.
I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant however senior had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless.

These exchanges were carried out in my office. No other person was present. No notes were taken, nor was there any recording, at least by me. So only the two of us would know what really happened or was said.

What he said in court is his version. There is nothing to verify what he said nor is there anything to verify what I say now is wrong. It is a case of his words against mine, sworn testimony notwithstanding. He had obviously omitted his shouted accusations against me. Had what he said in court was all that happened, then it would not have taken more than three minutes. But what he said and what I said took longer than three minutes.

I wonder how counsel knew of what happened in the privacy of my office. Even the Chief Secretary, the only person who was informed by Datuk Shafee could not have told counsel. Obviously it was Shafee who volunteered information. Why did he do this?

I was not a party to the trial of Anwar. If I was to be accused I should at least be heard. But clearly Shafee saw Anwar’s trial as an opportunity to make statements detrimental to my reputation.

Shafee was an angry man and what he said in court was opportunistic and seem to reflect his desire to take revenge against me. I can only assume that this was what motivated him, because what he divulged did not help Anwar much. But it did put me in a very bad light.

As to why this case has not been followed I can only assume that the courts are busy and there are tens of thousands of cases which have yet to be heard. Maybe the fault is with the Attorney General or police. I would not know.

Still I welcome any investigation by impartial people as to the truth or otherwise of what I say in this letter.

As for Param Cumarawamy and Karpal Singh, their hatred of me is well known and apparently has not abated even after I am no longer prime minister.

Many lawyers were angry with me because I had quoted Shakespeare during a cabinet meeting which says, "the first thing we do, we hang the lawyers". I was only joking but they heard of it and believed I meant what I said. The judges also felt unhappy with me.

Besides, I had criticised the judiciary for disregarding the intention or objectives of the laws formulated by the legislative wing but instead interpret them based on the words used. Was I committing a crime for saying this? I was merely stating a fact. Can no one comment on the judiciary at all even when they disregard the interest of the country? In many developed countries it is common for the public to criticise the judiciary.

As for Param, he made libellous remarks about a fellow-Malaysian when he was a member of a United Nations Commission. He should have been hauled before a Malaysian court but he claimed immunity due to his appointment by the UN.

My stand was that his immunity was only with regard to the specific work for the UN. If he breached Malaysian laws on matters not related to this work, then he cannot plead immunity.
His libellous words against a Malaysian individual had nothing to do with his work for the UN. He should therefore be liable, and his immunity could not be invoked. But he got the UN to back him. It was even hinted that if Malaysia prosecuted him, then our case before the International Court of Justice on the issue of the ownership of Sipadan and Ligitan would be jeopardised.

Accordingly I agreed that he should not be prosecuted. Luckily it was only libel. Had Param Cumaraswamy murdered a person, and he claimed immunity, then there would indeed be a miscarriage of justice.

I do not think my recalcitrance over his immunity endeared me to him. Now that I am not a prime minister, he has expressed his delight at saying that I should not criticise anything the present government does because I was guilty of worse.

I maintain that in the case of Tun Salleh Abas I did what was required of me under the Constitution and Malaysia’s laws. I consider the suggestion that I should apologise as frivolous, unwarranted and stupid.

If Param or Karpal is not convinced perhaps they should use their considerable knowledge of the law to shut my mouth.

Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad


The letter is extracted from The Sun Daily
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21356