Friday 30 March 2012
Acid victim Fakhra Younus' suicide shames all Pakistan
Before and after ... acid victim Fakhra Younus / Pic: Fakhra Younus family
Source: The Daily Telegraph
FAMILY and friends of a former Pakistani dancer who committed suicide after being heavily disfigured by an acid attack in 2000 said her death brought shame on Pakistan.
Fakhra Younus, 33, leapt to her death from a sixth floor building in Rome on March 17, almost 12 years after the attack which she said left her looking "not human".
At the time of the attack, her ex-husband Bilal Khar was accused of entering her mother's house and pouring acid over her face as she slept.
The attack, in front of her then five-year-old son, left her unable to breathe and fighting for her life. She underwent 39 surgical procedures to repair her face in the past decade.
The acid almost completely corroded her nose, burned off her hair, fused her lips, blinded her in one eye, destroyed her left ear and burned her breasts.
After being rushed to hospital she said "My face is a prison to me", while her distraught son said at the time "This is not my mother".
Ms Younus moved to Italy to continue treatment in Rome. She left a suicide note complaining of legal indifference to such atrocities and insensitivity by Pakistan's rulers. Bilal Khar was arrested in 2002 and charged with attempted murder after the attack, only to be released on bail after five months.
The ex-parliamentarian and son of a wealthy Pakistani governor was eventually cleared of the attack, though many believe he could have used his family connections to escape conviction.
Since news of Ms Younus's suicide emerged, Khar has continued to deny any part in the attack. He has claimed in a television interview that a different man with the same name carried out the crime.
Khar claimed that his ex-wife killed herself because she did not have enough money, not because of her injuries.
More than 8,500 acid attacks, forced marriages and other forms of violence against women were reported in Pakistan in 2011, according to The Aurat Foundation, a women's rights organisation.
The Pakistani government introduced new laws last year criminalising acid attacks and stating that convicted attackers would serve at least 14 years in jail.
Tehmina Durrani, the ex-wife of Bilal Khar's father, had become an advocate for Younus after the attack, and said Younus had pledged to bring her attacker to justice when she had recovered.
Ms Durrani urged the Pakistani government to do much more to prevent violence against women.
"I think this whole country should be extremely embarrassed that a foreign country took responsibility for a Pakistani citizen for 13 years because we could give her nothing, not justice, not security," she said.
In Parliament, MPs trade barbs over apostasy claims
Zulkifli’s apparent jibe at Siti Mariah triggered a shouting match among the MPs. — File pic
KUALA LUMPUR, March 29 — The Dewan Rakyat descended into name-calling and insults today after lawmakers began arguing during a debate on the issue of Muslim apostasy.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, when winding up debates on the royal address, had earlier told the House that the government was closely monitoring claims of apostasy in the country.
He said existing laws were sufficient to deal with the issue, saying additional enactments would be added if required.
Rising to interject, Zulkifli Noordin (IND - Kulim-Bandar Baharu) claimed of videos allegedly in the possession of former Selangor executive councillor Datuk Hasan Ali that purportedly show Christian priests converting Muslims out of Islam.
“So what is Jakim’s (Islamic Religious Department) stand on this, with this proof that Hasan has?
“Will Jakim call Hasan to present this proof and take proactive steps to prevent this from recurring?” the former PKR lawmaker asked.
This prompted Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud (PAS-Kota Raja) to say that issues of proselytisation were not new, and that these were being used by certain leaders to create friction among the different religions.
“Why do we need to frighten others about this threat by other religions? We do not have to politicise this,” she said, adding that there are sufficient laws in the country to deal with apostasy.
Zulkifli then stood to say, “The problem is, perhaps when the incident happened, Kota Raja was still wearing Pampers (diapers).”
His remark sparked anger from the floor and MPs from the opposition bench demanded the lawmaker retract his statement.
“How can you tolerate this kind of nonsense?” one lawmaker shouted to Deputy Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee, who was presiding at the time.
Those in support of Zulkifli began yelling in response, accusing the opposition bench of being traitors to their religion.
“You sold your God, even Allah you sold! Traitor!” some shouted.
Zuraida Kamaruddin (PKR-Ampang) then raised a point of order to demand the Deputy Speaker order Zulkifli to retract his remarks, which she labelled as “disrespectful”.
Refusing to sit despite repeated orders from Kiandee, Zulkifli also attempted to raise a point of order, accusing Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (PAS-Kuala Selangor) of calling him a “devil” and “satan”.
“I would like to raise a point of order as well. I want Kuala Selangor to state in the open what he said... using the words devil and satan. Retract it. Not brave enough?” he charged.
Attempting to defuse the situation, Kiandee then ordered Zulkifli to retract his initial remarks and for Dzulkefly to explain his.
Zulkifli relented and Dzulkefly reasoned that he had merely asked the former not to behave like a “devil” or “satan”.
“There are no devils or satan here,” Kiandee said.
House can’t impeach Anwar, says Deputy Speaker
Wan Junaidi pours cold water on those who want to see Anwar Ibrahim removed from Parliament.
KUALA LUMPUR: Dewan Rakyat’s Deputy Speaker today dampened the hopes of those who want to see Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim go through an impeachment process.
Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar told a press conference at Parliament House that neither Parliament’s standing orders nor the Federal Constitution had any such provision.
“But if there is a motion brought in the House, it’s up to the Speaker’s discretion to allow it to be discussed or not,” he said.
Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia today quoted the ASEAN Human Rights Commissioner to Malaysia, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, as saying that parliamentarians could introduce a motion to impeach Anwar for alleged immoral behaviour.
Wan Junaidi, however, said the Dewan Rakyat could not remove a sitting MP unless a court of law had found him guilty of a criminal offence.
“We cannot use someone’s private affairs as grounds for removing him,” he said.
PKR vice president Tian Chua, the MP for Batu, said it was “stupid” for Shafee to come up with such a statement.
“Even a prime minister cannot be impeached,” he said. “What is Shafee talking about? It’s nonsensical.”
Yusmadi Yusoff (PKR-Balik Pulau) said Shafee should understand that not everything practised in the United States was applicable in Malaysia. “He probably thought about former US president Richard Nixon being impeached over the Watergate scandal in the 1970s and wanted the same to be done here.”
He described Shafee’s statement as “weird”, saying the Umno-aligned lawyer should have known better than to bring up such a question.
“Shafee’s statement and conduct show that he is not fit to be a human rights commissioner,” he said.
KUALA LUMPUR: Dewan Rakyat’s Deputy Speaker today dampened the hopes of those who want to see Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim go through an impeachment process.Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar told a press conference at Parliament House that neither Parliament’s standing orders nor the Federal Constitution had any such provision.
“But if there is a motion brought in the House, it’s up to the Speaker’s discretion to allow it to be discussed or not,” he said.
Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia today quoted the ASEAN Human Rights Commissioner to Malaysia, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, as saying that parliamentarians could introduce a motion to impeach Anwar for alleged immoral behaviour.
Wan Junaidi, however, said the Dewan Rakyat could not remove a sitting MP unless a court of law had found him guilty of a criminal offence.
“We cannot use someone’s private affairs as grounds for removing him,” he said.
PKR vice president Tian Chua, the MP for Batu, said it was “stupid” for Shafee to come up with such a statement.“Even a prime minister cannot be impeached,” he said. “What is Shafee talking about? It’s nonsensical.”
Yusmadi Yusoff (PKR-Balik Pulau) said Shafee should understand that not everything practised in the United States was applicable in Malaysia. “He probably thought about former US president Richard Nixon being impeached over the Watergate scandal in the 1970s and wanted the same to be done here.”
He described Shafee’s statement as “weird”, saying the Umno-aligned lawyer should have known better than to bring up such a question.
“Shafee’s statement and conduct show that he is not fit to be a human rights commissioner,” he said.
Open fire on military and lose votes
The more you attack the military, the less support you're going to get from the armed forces, Mindef warns the opposition.
KUALA LUMPUR: The armed forces will not support the opposition if the latter attacks the purchase of military equipment.
Deputy Defence Minister Abdul Latiff Ahmad said that those politicising military matters risked hurting the feelings of Malaysia’s soldiers.
Though he did not specifically label the opposition, he told the Dewan Rakyat: “When it is politicised, our soldiers feel hurt. It doesn’t matter if (they’re) from the navy, ground (forces) or from the air (force).”
“Each time the government makes a decision to procure new assets, they (the military) are very happy, because they are trained to be a professional army.
“So if that party… the more they condemn these assets, the more support the Barisan Nasional federal government gets,” he said.
Abdul Latiff said this in response to a supplementary question by Sri Gading MP (Umno) Mohamed Aziz, who asked about certain parties playing up issues related to defence.
He had originally asked the deputy minister if the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) intended to “empower” the Royal Malaysian Navy’s (RMN) fleet where maritime operations were concerned.
In recent years, Pakatan Rakyat had questioned the government’s procurement of defence equipment.
These included salvos against the Scorpene submarine, RM9 billion for six Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), an estimated RM2 billion for a Mindef IT project, RM7.55 billion for armoured carriers and other matters.
Abdul Latiff also said that politicising defence matters ran the risk of revealing the country’s secrets and military readiness to “uncertain enemies”.
Criticising the government’s critics as “less intelligent”, he argued that Malaysia was a maritime country, and estimated that there was more than 600,000sq kilometres of sea area to cover (twice as much as Malaysia’s land mass).
This area, he said, was filled with gas and petroleum deposits, that Malaysia had to guard.
“When we bought the LCS, we didn’t do it for fun. We bought them because they have sonar (capabilities),” he said, adding that the price tag was more “competitive” than other countries.
In another query, Bachok MP (PAS) Nasharudin Mat Isa said that neither side of the political divide was willing to compromise on national security.
He then asked what Mindef’s procurement process was in upgrading military equipment, and pointed to Singapore’s AWACS (airborne warning and control system) upgrade.
Abdul Latiff then reassured the House that when it came to military procurement, Mindef did not operate out of the Finance Ministry’s bounds.
KUALA LUMPUR: The armed forces will not support the opposition if the latter attacks the purchase of military equipment.
Deputy Defence Minister Abdul Latiff Ahmad said that those politicising military matters risked hurting the feelings of Malaysia’s soldiers.Though he did not specifically label the opposition, he told the Dewan Rakyat: “When it is politicised, our soldiers feel hurt. It doesn’t matter if (they’re) from the navy, ground (forces) or from the air (force).”
“Each time the government makes a decision to procure new assets, they (the military) are very happy, because they are trained to be a professional army.
“So if that party… the more they condemn these assets, the more support the Barisan Nasional federal government gets,” he said.
Abdul Latiff said this in response to a supplementary question by Sri Gading MP (Umno) Mohamed Aziz, who asked about certain parties playing up issues related to defence.
He had originally asked the deputy minister if the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) intended to “empower” the Royal Malaysian Navy’s (RMN) fleet where maritime operations were concerned.
In recent years, Pakatan Rakyat had questioned the government’s procurement of defence equipment.
These included salvos against the Scorpene submarine, RM9 billion for six Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), an estimated RM2 billion for a Mindef IT project, RM7.55 billion for armoured carriers and other matters.
Abdul Latiff also said that politicising defence matters ran the risk of revealing the country’s secrets and military readiness to “uncertain enemies”.
Criticising the government’s critics as “less intelligent”, he argued that Malaysia was a maritime country, and estimated that there was more than 600,000sq kilometres of sea area to cover (twice as much as Malaysia’s land mass).
This area, he said, was filled with gas and petroleum deposits, that Malaysia had to guard.
“When we bought the LCS, we didn’t do it for fun. We bought them because they have sonar (capabilities),” he said, adding that the price tag was more “competitive” than other countries.
In another query, Bachok MP (PAS) Nasharudin Mat Isa said that neither side of the political divide was willing to compromise on national security.
He then asked what Mindef’s procurement process was in upgrading military equipment, and pointed to Singapore’s AWACS (airborne warning and control system) upgrade.
Abdul Latiff then reassured the House that when it came to military procurement, Mindef did not operate out of the Finance Ministry’s bounds.
Double standard for medical courses overseas?
A former medical student has charged that students pursuing their medical degree in Egypt and Jordan are exempted from several conditions set by MMC.
KUALA LUMPUR: Students pursuing their medical degree in Egypt and Jordan are allowed to circumvent certain regulations set by the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC), prompting questions if double standard was practised in sending students overseas to complete their medical course.
A group of Malaysian medical students overseas are saying that this double standard practised by the MMC and the Higher Education Ministry is discriminatory against non-Malays.
A former medical student from Ukraine, who declined to be named for fear of reprisal, revealed that medical students in Egypt and Jordan were exempted from several conditions, usually imposed on students wanting to pursue their medical degree abroad.
He said the MMC, which sets regulations and guidelines for medical students wanting to study abroad, is to be blamed for the double standard.
“Why does MMC have two sets of rules for Malaysians aspiring to do medical studies abroad?” he asked.
He pointed out that while students wanting to pursue their medical degree overseas were required to undergo a foundation course, those going to Egypt and Jordan were exempted from such study.
“If a student plans to do a medical programme, then he has to score at least five Bs in SPM each in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics or Additional Mathematics and another optional subject.”
“The student would then be required to sit either the foundation course or other pre-university examinations like STPM, Matriculation and A Levels. This requirement is set by MMC,” he added.
However, he said, MMC seems to give “special privilege” to students going to universities in Egypt and Jordan as they are not required to undergo the foundation course.
“Those going to these two countries just need their credits in SPM and they are off to do a medical degree… this contradicts MMC’s requirements,” he said.
He added that the Higher Education Ministry acts as an recruitment agent in sending students to universities in Egypt and Jordan, where seats are allocated only to Malays.
There are now more than 3,000 Malaysian medical students in Egypt and Jordan.
“This is really unfair as non-Malays have to sit a foundation programme to gain entry into a medical programme, while Malays can start the course after completing their SPM. MMC is giving a free ride for Malays to do medical programmes overseas,” he added.
MMC giving free rides
He said while he had no qualms about Malay students doing their medical degree after SPM, the MMC should be consistent with its regulations.
“We want MMC’s answer on this matter… why the double standard?” he said.
He said although students sent to Egypt and Jordan were required to undergo a six-year medical course, they do not complete their foundation course at the universities there.
“When asked, MMC told us that students going to Egypt and Jordan do their foundation course in the first year and complete their medical degree in the next five years. But this is not true. We checked with universities there and found that they are absorbed into the degree course from day one.
“Furthermore, the first year in Egypt and Jordan does not have any foundation programme subjects as required by the MMC.
“Students going to the Baltic countries, like Russia, Poland and Republic Czech are forced to spend seven years to complete their medical course, including their foundation course. But students going to Egypt and Jordan can complete their medical degree in six years minus the foundation programme,” he added.
“It is crystal-clear that MMC has applied double standard in its system based on race,” he claimed.
The source also reveals that a group of overseas medical students met MMC president Dr Hasan Abdul Rahman recently on the matter, but there was no positive outcome from the meeting.
Despite, numerous attempts, FMT could not reach Hassan for comment.
KUALA LUMPUR: Students pursuing their medical degree in Egypt and Jordan are allowed to circumvent certain regulations set by the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC), prompting questions if double standard was practised in sending students overseas to complete their medical course.A group of Malaysian medical students overseas are saying that this double standard practised by the MMC and the Higher Education Ministry is discriminatory against non-Malays.
A former medical student from Ukraine, who declined to be named for fear of reprisal, revealed that medical students in Egypt and Jordan were exempted from several conditions, usually imposed on students wanting to pursue their medical degree abroad.
He said the MMC, which sets regulations and guidelines for medical students wanting to study abroad, is to be blamed for the double standard.
“Why does MMC have two sets of rules for Malaysians aspiring to do medical studies abroad?” he asked.
He pointed out that while students wanting to pursue their medical degree overseas were required to undergo a foundation course, those going to Egypt and Jordan were exempted from such study.
“If a student plans to do a medical programme, then he has to score at least five Bs in SPM each in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics or Additional Mathematics and another optional subject.”
“The student would then be required to sit either the foundation course or other pre-university examinations like STPM, Matriculation and A Levels. This requirement is set by MMC,” he added.
However, he said, MMC seems to give “special privilege” to students going to universities in Egypt and Jordan as they are not required to undergo the foundation course.
“Those going to these two countries just need their credits in SPM and they are off to do a medical degree… this contradicts MMC’s requirements,” he said.
He added that the Higher Education Ministry acts as an recruitment agent in sending students to universities in Egypt and Jordan, where seats are allocated only to Malays.
There are now more than 3,000 Malaysian medical students in Egypt and Jordan.
“This is really unfair as non-Malays have to sit a foundation programme to gain entry into a medical programme, while Malays can start the course after completing their SPM. MMC is giving a free ride for Malays to do medical programmes overseas,” he added.
MMC giving free rides
He said while he had no qualms about Malay students doing their medical degree after SPM, the MMC should be consistent with its regulations.
“We want MMC’s answer on this matter… why the double standard?” he said.
He said although students sent to Egypt and Jordan were required to undergo a six-year medical course, they do not complete their foundation course at the universities there.
“When asked, MMC told us that students going to Egypt and Jordan do their foundation course in the first year and complete their medical degree in the next five years. But this is not true. We checked with universities there and found that they are absorbed into the degree course from day one.
“Furthermore, the first year in Egypt and Jordan does not have any foundation programme subjects as required by the MMC.
“Students going to the Baltic countries, like Russia, Poland and Republic Czech are forced to spend seven years to complete their medical course, including their foundation course. But students going to Egypt and Jordan can complete their medical degree in six years minus the foundation programme,” he added.
“It is crystal-clear that MMC has applied double standard in its system based on race,” he claimed.
The source also reveals that a group of overseas medical students met MMC president Dr Hasan Abdul Rahman recently on the matter, but there was no positive outcome from the meeting.
Despite, numerous attempts, FMT could not reach Hassan for comment.
Anwar’s ‘cronies’ named in court
Businessman Low Thiam Hoe told the court that he was a ‘victim’ of a ‘larger scheme’ involving Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and Hong Leong chairman Quek Leng Chan.
KUALA LUMPUR: Businessman Low Thiam Hoe, who is being sued by Hong Leong Finance Bhd (HLFB) in a breach of repayment suit involving RM445 million syndicated loans given in 1997, today named several individuals whom he identified as “cronies” of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.
Taking the stand at the Commercial High Court here today, Low said that he was “the victim” in a deal in which he was assisting Anwar as well as HLFB executive chairman Quek Leng Chan.
However, when cross-examined by the bank’s lawyer, Andrew Chiew, Low admitted that he had nothing in black and white to prove that he was simply used as a “nominee” of Anwar – the then finance minister and deputy prime minister – and Quek.
“Sometime in March 1997, two individuals by the name of Hamzah Harun and Mohd Faiz Abdullah (Anwar’s speech writer), both from a company known as Arus Murni Sdn Bhd (AMSB), told me that they were acting on behalf of Anwar and Quek,” Low said during examination-in-chief by lead counsel, D Paramalingam.
Low said that HLFB, through Quek, was then pushing to acquire Kewangan Bersatu Bhd (KBB), which was at the time acquired by Arus Murni Corporation Bhd (AMCB) from one Ishak Ismail for RM390 million.
He said he agreed to be a nominee, or “conduit”, for the syndicated loan transaction.
The other individuals and companies used as nominees were Hood Osman, Nik Hussain Nik Mohamed, AMSB and Mekuritek Sdn Bhd, whom he described as “cronies” of Anwar.
Paramalingam: How are these companies and individuals related?
Low: From what I know, they are all cronies of Anwar Ibrahim.
Low said he did not apply for the loan as “the whole thing was arranged by Hong Leong’s representative, namely Seow Lun Hoo”.
Quek’s right-hand man
He also said that he was informed that Seow, who was president and CEO of Hong Leong Credit & Leasing Bhd at the time, was “essentially Quek’s right-hand man”.
Low said the loan given to him was RM30.161 million but a credit assessment was never done on him at all.
“It was all pre-approved. I just had to turn up to sign the necessary documents, that’s all. I was unemployed at that point in time.”
Low also said that he signed the relevant loan documents at a hotel in Singapore in March 1997 as HLFB “wanted to avoid paying stamp duty”.
“Syndicated loans were also given out to the other nomiees as well to reach the plantiff’s target of RM445 million for the acquisition of AMCB. A sum of RM80.1 million was given to Hood, RM80.1 million to Nik Hussain, RM30.161 million given to Mekuritek and RM224.478 million to AMSB,” he said.
However, he said that the plan to purchase KBB did not take place by the end of 1997.
“It was only at that point in time that we discovered that Seow, on behalf of Quek, was the mastermind of the whole transaction. The plantiff through Seow deliberately sabotaged the scheme…”
Low said that the plaintiff, HLFB, had “acted in bad faith” when it breached its fiduciary duty, and he and other nominees were “clearly cheated by them”.
“We were left high and dry,” he added.
Bigger picture
During cross-examination by Chiew later, Low was aggressively grilled on his credibilty.
Chiew: The two individuals told you they were acting for Anwar and Quek. Did you take any steps to check?
Low: Yes.
Chiew: Did you talk to Anwar?
Low: No.
Chiew: Did you talk to Quek?
Low: I was in no position to contact Quek.
Chiew: If they were to hoodwink you, they could have, couldn’t they?
Low: No. I had no reason not to believe (them)… Faiz was Anwar’s speech writer…
Chiew: But what about Quek? The point is this. You were told about this deal. Any documents to work out how this deal is to be srtructured? Was it presented to you by Faiz?
Low: I had no reason to believe…
Chiew: My question is… Was there any paper in writing?
Low: No, but it was all arranged at top level
Chiew: You are a director of a public-listed company, with experience in financing. Is that your position: you believed these two persons about this deal, which seems ‘phantom in nature’ by your own answers? When you entered the deal, you knew what you were going into…
Low: I knew what I was getting into. I was just a nominee. But can I add… it was on a bigger picture. It was linked to Anwar and Quek.
Chiew also repeatedly asked why Low did not raise this “bigger picture” 14 years ago when the case was first filed.
“Fourteen years later you suddenly have an inspriration. I’m putting to you this was done in bad faith,” Chiew said, to which Low denied.
Chiew also asked Low to explain and clarify several statements he made – including allegation about Anwar’s cronies, the meetings that took place and the credit assessment done on him as well as the allegation that HLFB wanted to purchase KBB at RM350million.
Low admitted that it was Hamzah who supplied him with those information.
Chiew: This contention that you have this representation/collateral contract… it doesn’t exist. It never existed. It is really an afterthought.
Low: Of course based on all the documents here… there is nothing to support my contention.
Chiew: I am putting it to you that you are putting up this fantastic story about Anwar and Quek. Correct? You got this from strange publications found on the Internet? Hence you are stringing this defence together? There is no basis to your contention about this so-called larger scheme?
Low: No.
Full confidence
During re-examination by Devanandan S Subramaniam, Low said his reason for raising this issue 14 years later was that initially, he had full confidence that Hamzah would “take care” of the case.
On March 19, High Court judge Hadhariah Syed Ismail dismissed Low’s application to amend his defence statement to include Anwar as “the person behind the deal”.
In rejecting his application, Hadhariah said it was made at the “eleventh hour” and had come too late in the course of the trial.
However, the court had last week allowed the defence to subpoena four individuals namely Anwar, Quek, Hamzah and Faiz.
Six witnesses of the plaintiff had already taken the stand.
In 1998, Hong Leong Finance filed a suit against Low, Merkuritek and Arus Murni over non-payment of the syndicated loans amounting to RM445 million.
The loans were given to the parties in a bid to acquire financial institution AMCB which owns KBB.
Each defendant was sued for over RM28 million plus interest for the non-repayment of the loans.
In 1999, Low filed a counter-claim against HLFB, HLG Capital Markets Sdn Bhd and Hong Leong Credit Bhd’s former CEO Seow Lun Hoo asking for damages for alleged wrongful or negligent advice.
Hong Leong also filed another suit against Mekuritek and three guarantors – Hussin Abdul Karim, Agus Salim Mohd Dom and Abdullah Abd Karim Bajerai – as defendants for a similar claim of RM28 million.
KUALA LUMPUR: Businessman Low Thiam Hoe, who is being sued by Hong Leong Finance Bhd (HLFB) in a breach of repayment suit involving RM445 million syndicated loans given in 1997, today named several individuals whom he identified as “cronies” of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.Taking the stand at the Commercial High Court here today, Low said that he was “the victim” in a deal in which he was assisting Anwar as well as HLFB executive chairman Quek Leng Chan.
However, when cross-examined by the bank’s lawyer, Andrew Chiew, Low admitted that he had nothing in black and white to prove that he was simply used as a “nominee” of Anwar – the then finance minister and deputy prime minister – and Quek.
“Sometime in March 1997, two individuals by the name of Hamzah Harun and Mohd Faiz Abdullah (Anwar’s speech writer), both from a company known as Arus Murni Sdn Bhd (AMSB), told me that they were acting on behalf of Anwar and Quek,” Low said during examination-in-chief by lead counsel, D Paramalingam.
Low said that HLFB, through Quek, was then pushing to acquire Kewangan Bersatu Bhd (KBB), which was at the time acquired by Arus Murni Corporation Bhd (AMCB) from one Ishak Ismail for RM390 million.
He said he agreed to be a nominee, or “conduit”, for the syndicated loan transaction.
The other individuals and companies used as nominees were Hood Osman, Nik Hussain Nik Mohamed, AMSB and Mekuritek Sdn Bhd, whom he described as “cronies” of Anwar.
Paramalingam: How are these companies and individuals related?
Low: From what I know, they are all cronies of Anwar Ibrahim.
Low said he did not apply for the loan as “the whole thing was arranged by Hong Leong’s representative, namely Seow Lun Hoo”.
Quek’s right-hand man
He also said that he was informed that Seow, who was president and CEO of Hong Leong Credit & Leasing Bhd at the time, was “essentially Quek’s right-hand man”.
Low said the loan given to him was RM30.161 million but a credit assessment was never done on him at all.
“It was all pre-approved. I just had to turn up to sign the necessary documents, that’s all. I was unemployed at that point in time.”
Low also said that he signed the relevant loan documents at a hotel in Singapore in March 1997 as HLFB “wanted to avoid paying stamp duty”.
“Syndicated loans were also given out to the other nomiees as well to reach the plantiff’s target of RM445 million for the acquisition of AMCB. A sum of RM80.1 million was given to Hood, RM80.1 million to Nik Hussain, RM30.161 million given to Mekuritek and RM224.478 million to AMSB,” he said.
However, he said that the plan to purchase KBB did not take place by the end of 1997.
“It was only at that point in time that we discovered that Seow, on behalf of Quek, was the mastermind of the whole transaction. The plantiff through Seow deliberately sabotaged the scheme…”
Low said that the plaintiff, HLFB, had “acted in bad faith” when it breached its fiduciary duty, and he and other nominees were “clearly cheated by them”.
“We were left high and dry,” he added.
Bigger picture
During cross-examination by Chiew later, Low was aggressively grilled on his credibilty.
Chiew: The two individuals told you they were acting for Anwar and Quek. Did you take any steps to check?
Low: Yes.
Chiew: Did you talk to Anwar?
Low: No.
Chiew: Did you talk to Quek?
Low: I was in no position to contact Quek.
Chiew: If they were to hoodwink you, they could have, couldn’t they?
Low: No. I had no reason not to believe (them)… Faiz was Anwar’s speech writer…
Chiew: But what about Quek? The point is this. You were told about this deal. Any documents to work out how this deal is to be srtructured? Was it presented to you by Faiz?
Low: I had no reason to believe…
Chiew: My question is… Was there any paper in writing?
Low: No, but it was all arranged at top level
Chiew: You are a director of a public-listed company, with experience in financing. Is that your position: you believed these two persons about this deal, which seems ‘phantom in nature’ by your own answers? When you entered the deal, you knew what you were going into…
Low: I knew what I was getting into. I was just a nominee. But can I add… it was on a bigger picture. It was linked to Anwar and Quek.
Chiew also repeatedly asked why Low did not raise this “bigger picture” 14 years ago when the case was first filed.
“Fourteen years later you suddenly have an inspriration. I’m putting to you this was done in bad faith,” Chiew said, to which Low denied.
Chiew also asked Low to explain and clarify several statements he made – including allegation about Anwar’s cronies, the meetings that took place and the credit assessment done on him as well as the allegation that HLFB wanted to purchase KBB at RM350million.
Low admitted that it was Hamzah who supplied him with those information.
Chiew: This contention that you have this representation/collateral contract… it doesn’t exist. It never existed. It is really an afterthought.
Low: Of course based on all the documents here… there is nothing to support my contention.
Chiew: I am putting it to you that you are putting up this fantastic story about Anwar and Quek. Correct? You got this from strange publications found on the Internet? Hence you are stringing this defence together? There is no basis to your contention about this so-called larger scheme?
Low: No.
Full confidence
During re-examination by Devanandan S Subramaniam, Low said his reason for raising this issue 14 years later was that initially, he had full confidence that Hamzah would “take care” of the case.
On March 19, High Court judge Hadhariah Syed Ismail dismissed Low’s application to amend his defence statement to include Anwar as “the person behind the deal”.
In rejecting his application, Hadhariah said it was made at the “eleventh hour” and had come too late in the course of the trial.
However, the court had last week allowed the defence to subpoena four individuals namely Anwar, Quek, Hamzah and Faiz.
Six witnesses of the plaintiff had already taken the stand.
In 1998, Hong Leong Finance filed a suit against Low, Merkuritek and Arus Murni over non-payment of the syndicated loans amounting to RM445 million.
The loans were given to the parties in a bid to acquire financial institution AMCB which owns KBB.
Each defendant was sued for over RM28 million plus interest for the non-repayment of the loans.
In 1999, Low filed a counter-claim against HLFB, HLG Capital Markets Sdn Bhd and Hong Leong Credit Bhd’s former CEO Seow Lun Hoo asking for damages for alleged wrongful or negligent advice.
Hong Leong also filed another suit against Mekuritek and three guarantors – Hussin Abdul Karim, Agus Salim Mohd Dom and Abdullah Abd Karim Bajerai – as defendants for a similar claim of RM28 million.
Tribunal AG: Bola berada di kaki Najib
Rakyat terkejut dengan jawapan Perdana Menteri bahawa tidak ada bukti yang kukuh untuk menyiasat salah laku Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan.
Apa kata masyarakat dunia tentang undang-undang di negara ini apabila Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak enggan mengambil sebarang tindakan terhadap banyak dakwaan salah guna kuasa melibatkan tiga badan penguatkuasa?
Tiga badan yang dimaksudkan ialah Peguam Negara (AG), Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail; bekas Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan dan Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) atau sebelum ini BPR (Badan Pencegah Rasuah).
Sejak bekas Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersial (CCID) Ramli Yusuff mendedahkan salah laku mereka dalam ucapannya ketika jamuan malam bagi meraikan ulangtahun kelahirannya pada 29 Februari lalu, tekanan semakin memuncak agar Gani dihadapkan ke tribunal penyiasatan. (Di bawah perlembaan Malaysia Peguam Negara hanya boleh dipecat melalui tribunal, sama seperti hakim).
Apabila Perdana Menteri akhirnya berdepan dengan isu tribunal bagi menyiasat Gani pada 24 Mac lalu, beliau hanya berkata “tidak” dan menambah, ini hanya merupakan satu dakwaan yang tidak berasas, satu tuduhan yang belum dapat dibuktikan. Sebuah tribunal hanya boleh dibentuk sekiranya terdapat bukti yang cukup, katanya.
Rakyat terkejut dengan jawapan Najib ini sedang banyak fakta dan bukti yang menunjukkan salah laku Gani, termasuk beliau bersubahat dengan Musa dan SPRM untuk memerangkap Ramli dan pegawai-pegawainya.
Terlibat dengan kumpulan haram
Mengenai Ramli pula, beliau terpaksa berdepan dengan tindakan undang-undang bermula sejak 2007 apabila beliau menimbulkan kemarahan Musa.
Atas arahan Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Johari Baharum, Ramli ketika itu CCID dan para pegawainya sedang menyiasat kegiatan sindiket haram di Johor yang berakhir penangkapan dan pembuangan negeri ketua penjenayah Goh Cheng Poh yang juga dikenali sebagai Tengku Goh.
Penangkapan tersebut menimbulkan kemarahan Musa kerana Tengku Goh adalah kawan baiknya. Musa pernah membantu Tengku Goh membina empayar judinya ketika Musa berkhidmat di Johor sebagai ketua polis negeri, sepertimana yang terdapat dalam bukti hasil siasatan para pegawai Ramli.
Kemudian, satu operasi menyelamat dijalankan di mana Goh dikeluarkan dari tempat pembuangan, dengan Gani dan BPR memainkan peranan utama.
Gani dan Musa adalah kawan rapat, kesetiakawanan di antara mereka terjalin sejak lewat tahun 90an apabila kedua-duanya memainkan peranan penting dalam kes sodomi I Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Gani sebagai pendakwa utama dan Musa sebagai pegawai penyiasat.
Bukti daripada Ramli dan kenyataan bersumpah yang diakses dari portal berita Malaysiakini menunjukkan Gani dan BPR bersubahat untuk mendapatkan fail-fail rahsia hasil siasatan daripada Ramli, ekoran dari maklumat-maklumat yang diterima, hasil buruan BPR hingga membawa kepada penangkapan Tengku Goh.
Pemberi-pemberi maklumat ini kemudian diindoktrinasi oleh pegawai-pegawai BPR supaya menukar kenyataan-kenyataan mereka sebelum ini.
Kenyataan-kenyataan baru ini kemudian digunakan untuk membebaskan Tengku Goh dari kawasan pembuangan yang terhad.
Kenyataan-kenyataan ini digunakan untuk mendakwa enam pegawai Ramli di mahkamah atas dakwaan “memalsukan bukti” bagi membabitkan Tengku Goh.
(Pegawai-pegawai yang diindoktrinasi ini kemudiannya membuat kenyataan bersumpah bagi menjelaskan bagaimana mereka telah dipaksa untuk berubah fikiran oleh BPR. Dokumen-dokumen ini diperolehi Malaysiakini, yang kemudiannya menyiarkannya dalam beberapa siri laporan dalam laman webnya tiga minggu yang lalu.)
Ramli sendiri didakwa atas beberapa kesalahan oleh BPR dan Gani. Malah peguam Ramli, Rosli Dahlan juga mendapat layanan yang serupa.
Tuduhan yang direkayasa
Ternyata tuduhan terhadap Ramli adalah palsu belaka apabila mahkamah menolak kesemua bukti tanpa mahkamah perlu memanggil mana-mana pegawai yang dituduh untuk membela diri.
Ramli akhirnya dibebaskan dari segala tuduhan oleh sembilan hakim yang berlainan setelah menjalani perbicaraan di mahkamah sesyen, mahkamah tinggi dan mahkamah rayuan.
Agak signifikan dalam kes perbicaraan Ramli, Musa diisytihar oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di Sabah sebagai saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai untuk mendengar kes dakwaan Ramli menyalah guna kuasa.
Manakala BPR juga diberi amaran oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur yang membebaskan Ramli, kerana bergantong kepada keterangan daripada salah seorang ahli kumpulan haram untuk mendakwa Ramli kerana kegagalan mengiystiharkan hartanya.
Mengenai enam pegawai Ramli yang didakwa dan kemudiannya dibebaskan, kesemua mereka diserah kembali tugas masing-masing dan dinaikkan pangkat.
Ramli secara terbuka mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Ketua Polis Negara Tan Sri Ismail Omar kerana akur bahawa mereka sebenarnya telah menjadi mangsa.
Perbicaraan atas tuduhan-tuduhan yang dangkal ini, termasuk percubaan mengaitkan bukti dengan afidavit-afidavit adalah bukti yang direkayasa.
Ini menunjukkan bahawa dakwaan Ramli terhadap Gani, Musa dan BPR ada asasnya di mana mereka bersubahat untuk membawa saksi, memalsukan bukti, menjalankan siasatan polis dan menghalang keadilan dari terlaksana.
Peristiwa “mata lebam” Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang berlaku pada tahun tahun 1998 merupakan satu lagi kes yang memerlukan kepada penubuhan Tribunal bagi menyiasat Gani dan Musa.
Bekas Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Kuala Lumpur, Mat Zain Ibrahim mendakwa kedua-dua Gani dan Musa terlibat memalsukan bahan bukti.
Beliau turut memberi amaran kepada Najib bahawa adalah menjadi satu kesalahan jenayah jika Najib tidak mengendahkan perbuatan keji pemalsuan bukti-bukti berhubung insiden “mata lebam” Anwar.
Kini bola berada di kaki Najib.
Apa kata masyarakat dunia tentang undang-undang di negara ini apabila Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak enggan mengambil sebarang tindakan terhadap banyak dakwaan salah guna kuasa melibatkan tiga badan penguatkuasa?Tiga badan yang dimaksudkan ialah Peguam Negara (AG), Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail; bekas Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan dan Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) atau sebelum ini BPR (Badan Pencegah Rasuah).
Sejak bekas Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersial (CCID) Ramli Yusuff mendedahkan salah laku mereka dalam ucapannya ketika jamuan malam bagi meraikan ulangtahun kelahirannya pada 29 Februari lalu, tekanan semakin memuncak agar Gani dihadapkan ke tribunal penyiasatan. (Di bawah perlembaan Malaysia Peguam Negara hanya boleh dipecat melalui tribunal, sama seperti hakim).
Apabila Perdana Menteri akhirnya berdepan dengan isu tribunal bagi menyiasat Gani pada 24 Mac lalu, beliau hanya berkata “tidak” dan menambah, ini hanya merupakan satu dakwaan yang tidak berasas, satu tuduhan yang belum dapat dibuktikan. Sebuah tribunal hanya boleh dibentuk sekiranya terdapat bukti yang cukup, katanya.
Rakyat terkejut dengan jawapan Najib ini sedang banyak fakta dan bukti yang menunjukkan salah laku Gani, termasuk beliau bersubahat dengan Musa dan SPRM untuk memerangkap Ramli dan pegawai-pegawainya.
Terlibat dengan kumpulan haram
Mengenai Ramli pula, beliau terpaksa berdepan dengan tindakan undang-undang bermula sejak 2007 apabila beliau menimbulkan kemarahan Musa.
Atas arahan Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Johari Baharum, Ramli ketika itu CCID dan para pegawainya sedang menyiasat kegiatan sindiket haram di Johor yang berakhir penangkapan dan pembuangan negeri ketua penjenayah Goh Cheng Poh yang juga dikenali sebagai Tengku Goh.
Penangkapan tersebut menimbulkan kemarahan Musa kerana Tengku Goh adalah kawan baiknya. Musa pernah membantu Tengku Goh membina empayar judinya ketika Musa berkhidmat di Johor sebagai ketua polis negeri, sepertimana yang terdapat dalam bukti hasil siasatan para pegawai Ramli.
Kemudian, satu operasi menyelamat dijalankan di mana Goh dikeluarkan dari tempat pembuangan, dengan Gani dan BPR memainkan peranan utama.
Gani dan Musa adalah kawan rapat, kesetiakawanan di antara mereka terjalin sejak lewat tahun 90an apabila kedua-duanya memainkan peranan penting dalam kes sodomi I Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Gani sebagai pendakwa utama dan Musa sebagai pegawai penyiasat.
Bukti daripada Ramli dan kenyataan bersumpah yang diakses dari portal berita Malaysiakini menunjukkan Gani dan BPR bersubahat untuk mendapatkan fail-fail rahsia hasil siasatan daripada Ramli, ekoran dari maklumat-maklumat yang diterima, hasil buruan BPR hingga membawa kepada penangkapan Tengku Goh.
Pemberi-pemberi maklumat ini kemudian diindoktrinasi oleh pegawai-pegawai BPR supaya menukar kenyataan-kenyataan mereka sebelum ini.
Kenyataan-kenyataan baru ini kemudian digunakan untuk membebaskan Tengku Goh dari kawasan pembuangan yang terhad.
Kenyataan-kenyataan ini digunakan untuk mendakwa enam pegawai Ramli di mahkamah atas dakwaan “memalsukan bukti” bagi membabitkan Tengku Goh.
(Pegawai-pegawai yang diindoktrinasi ini kemudiannya membuat kenyataan bersumpah bagi menjelaskan bagaimana mereka telah dipaksa untuk berubah fikiran oleh BPR. Dokumen-dokumen ini diperolehi Malaysiakini, yang kemudiannya menyiarkannya dalam beberapa siri laporan dalam laman webnya tiga minggu yang lalu.)
Ramli sendiri didakwa atas beberapa kesalahan oleh BPR dan Gani. Malah peguam Ramli, Rosli Dahlan juga mendapat layanan yang serupa.
Tuduhan yang direkayasa
Ternyata tuduhan terhadap Ramli adalah palsu belaka apabila mahkamah menolak kesemua bukti tanpa mahkamah perlu memanggil mana-mana pegawai yang dituduh untuk membela diri.
Ramli akhirnya dibebaskan dari segala tuduhan oleh sembilan hakim yang berlainan setelah menjalani perbicaraan di mahkamah sesyen, mahkamah tinggi dan mahkamah rayuan.
Agak signifikan dalam kes perbicaraan Ramli, Musa diisytihar oleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di Sabah sebagai saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai untuk mendengar kes dakwaan Ramli menyalah guna kuasa.
Manakala BPR juga diberi amaran oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur yang membebaskan Ramli, kerana bergantong kepada keterangan daripada salah seorang ahli kumpulan haram untuk mendakwa Ramli kerana kegagalan mengiystiharkan hartanya.
Mengenai enam pegawai Ramli yang didakwa dan kemudiannya dibebaskan, kesemua mereka diserah kembali tugas masing-masing dan dinaikkan pangkat.
Ramli secara terbuka mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Ketua Polis Negara Tan Sri Ismail Omar kerana akur bahawa mereka sebenarnya telah menjadi mangsa.
Perbicaraan atas tuduhan-tuduhan yang dangkal ini, termasuk percubaan mengaitkan bukti dengan afidavit-afidavit adalah bukti yang direkayasa.
Ini menunjukkan bahawa dakwaan Ramli terhadap Gani, Musa dan BPR ada asasnya di mana mereka bersubahat untuk membawa saksi, memalsukan bukti, menjalankan siasatan polis dan menghalang keadilan dari terlaksana.
Peristiwa “mata lebam” Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang berlaku pada tahun tahun 1998 merupakan satu lagi kes yang memerlukan kepada penubuhan Tribunal bagi menyiasat Gani dan Musa.
Bekas Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Kuala Lumpur, Mat Zain Ibrahim mendakwa kedua-dua Gani dan Musa terlibat memalsukan bahan bukti.
Beliau turut memberi amaran kepada Najib bahawa adalah menjadi satu kesalahan jenayah jika Najib tidak mengendahkan perbuatan keji pemalsuan bukti-bukti berhubung insiden “mata lebam” Anwar.
Kini bola berada di kaki Najib.
Aiyah! Why so bodoh one ah?
Let’s
be clear about one thing. No politician fights for the rakyat, not when
they receive big fat salaries, allowances, fees, pensions, etc. and
have huge expense accounts and budgets to spend. Show me one politician
who has worked free of charge the last 40, 30, 20, etc., years and I
will show you a politician who fights for the rakyat. Currently, in
Malaysia, there are none. There are no Malaysian Gandhis.NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
‘Opposition out to smear Government’
(The Star) - The Opposition has created endless issues to confuse the people, said MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.
Citing the Lynas rare earth processing plant as an example, he said the Opposition had succeeded in poisoning the minds of the people.
“The people should realise that the Opposition creates problems to tarnish the image of the Government.
“As such, it is our duty to solve these problems and prove that such allegations are not true,” he said after attending a gathering with state party leaders here yesterday.
Dr Chua said MCA's stand was very clear on the issue of Lynas, stressing that if the plant affected the environment and health of the Kuantan citizens, the party was against it.
He said it was the responsibility of the company to ship the waste out of the country.
“If they cannot fulfil the two stipulated conditions, MCA is against its operations here.
“We will continue to monitor the situation closely,” he said, adding that the issue had been discussed at length by professional experts.
In a separate function, Dr Chua said the Barisan Nasional election machinery had to focus on using cyberspace as a publicity tool.
He said the coalition had to accept that it could not rely solely on traditional media as the cyber arena had been dominated by the Opposition.
“We may be too late, but we can still optimise social media to increase our publicity for Barisan Nasional,” he said at the launch of the Paya Besar Barisan election machinery in Gambang here yesterday.
*******************************
Aiyah!
Why is the MCA President, Chua Soi Lek, so bodoh one ah? The Opposition
has created endless issues to confuse the people, said Chua Soi Lek.
But of course! That is the job of the Opposition. Why would the
Opposition want to raise issues in support of the government? Their job
is to raise issues against the government. What a stupid statement. No
wonder he got caught with his pants down, literally. And to make him even more bodoh, he held a press conference to confess that it was he in that sex video. No one asked him whether it was or was not he. Before anyone could ask, he quickly called a press conference to confess. Bodoh or not? At least VK Lingam was cleverer. He said that the man in the video looks like him, sounds like him, but is not he. And Anwar Ibrahim replied that the man in the sex video is too fat while he is thinner so it must be a double. But Chua Soi Lek goes and confesses it is he before anyone even asks him. No wonder he is making bodoh statements like the one reported by The Star.
And the Umno leaders are saying that the Opposition is trying to grab power, the Opposition is trying to kick out Barisan Nasional, the Opposition is trying to take over Putrajaya, and whatnot. Is this not what the Opposition is supposed to do, to take over the government? Why are these Umno people so bodoh one? Why state the obvious? Of course that is what the Opposition is trying to do. That is the job of Opposition parties all over the world.
Aiyah! Why so bodoh one ah? Can we hear more intelligent statements from these Barisan Nasional people? If they want to impress us then they had better stop making stupid statements.
And the Opposition is no better. They are now saying that the next general election is going to be a class war.
Aiyah! Why so bodoh one ah? That is what I have been saying for some time. When I say that they whack me and call me all sorts of names. I already said for some time that the next battle is going to be a class war. I said it is going to be a battle between the haves and the haves-not. When I said that you say all sorts of things about me. Now the Opposition is saying the same thing.
The Opposition is saying that they are fighting for the downtrodden, the poor people, the oppressed, the masses, the rakyat, the fishermen and farmers, and whatnot. Betul ke? Is this true?
How come over the last four years since 2008 none of the Opposition wakil rakyat refused to take their salary? How come they all took their salary? Would any of the Opposition wakil rakyat, Chief Ministers/Menteris Besar, EXCO members, Council Members, Committee Members, Board Members, Chairmen, etc., be prepared to work for no salary? Would they be prepared to surrender all their future salary and hand back all the salary they have taken over the last four years since March 2008? What about those salaries, allowances, etc., that they had earned over the last 30 or 40 years since the 1960s or 1970s? Would they be prepared to hand back all those millions they have earned?
If the Opposition wakil rakyat are working for the rakyat, the downtrodden, the poor, the oppressed, the fisherman and farmers, etc., and not for the own benefit, then they should work free of charge. They should take nothing. They should pool all their salaries and allowances into a special poverty fund and distribute these millions to the needy.
Yes, no one is prepared to work for no money. Many even receive huge pensions on top of their huge salaries, allowances and expense accounts.
Let’s put it another way. How much have Nik Aziz Nik Mat, Anwar Ibrahim, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Hadi Awang, Mustapha Ali, and the hundreds of other Opposition leaders earned in total from the day they became wakil rakyat (from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc.) until today? How many millions are we talking about here? Are all these hundreds of wakil rakyat prepared to be transparent and declare their total earnings since the day they became politicians and wakil rakyat?
Let’s be honest. Let’s be open. Let’s be transparent. Declare your total earnings since Day One. For example, Nik Aziz Nik Mat became a wakil rakyat in 1967, Lim Kit Siang in 1969, Karpal Singh in 1974, Hadi Awang in 1978, Anwar Ibrahim in 1982, and so on. Anwar was also a Minister and Deputy Prime Minister so he gets a pension for those as well. As I said, in total, all these come to millions of Ringgit for the hundreds of wakil rakyat if we include their salaries, allowances, fees, expense accounts, budgets, pensions and much more.
Anyone who claims he or she is working only for the rakyat would refuse to take the rakyat’s money. They would either forgo their salaries, allowances, fees, expense accounts, budgets, pensions, etc., or surrender all this money to a special fund set up to help the poor, downtrodden and oppressed rakyat.
Yes, no one was prepared to work for no money. No one was prepared to forgo what he or she was ‘entitled’ to receive. No one wanted to surrender what he or she had earned. No one wanted to hand back every cent he or she had earned since the day he or she became a wakil rakyat 40, 30, 20 or whatever number of years ago. And we are talking about a huge amount of money here. Hell, just to renovate their offices alone over the last couple of years since 2008 came to millions of Ringgit.
Work for the rakyat means work for the rakyat. Work for money means work for money. How can work for money translate to work for the rakyat? Aiyah! Why so bodoh one ah? At least I worked as the Director of the Free Anwar Campaign from 2000 to 2004 and was only paid RM3,000. Ask Dr Wan Azizah and Rosli Ibrahim who paid me RM1,000 and RM2,000 respectively. I did not work for money. In fact, I had to support myself by selling cookies and curry puffs, which my wife baked.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi can be said to have worked for the rakyat. He did not receive any salary. And when they managed to kick out the British and got independence for India, he did not fight for power. He did not demand that he be made the Prime Minister or President of India. He was not power crazy. He was not in this for power like the politicians are. Gandhi really fought for the rakyat and not for money or power like the politicians. So please don’t pretend that you are also just like Gandhi. Gandhi was the true fighter for the rakyat. He did not benefit financially for his sacrifices.
Let’s be clear about one thing. No politician fights for the rakyat, not when they receive big fat salaries, allowances, fees, pensions, etc. and have huge expense accounts and budgets to spend. Show me one politician who has worked free of charge the last 40, 30, 20, etc., years and I will show you a politician who fights for the rakyat. Currently, in Malaysia, there are none. There are no Malaysian Gandhis.
I know what most of you are now going to comment. You are going to scream ABU and are going to say but we must still vote Pakatan Rakyat because even though Pakatan Rakyat is not the best they are still better than Barisan Nasional. Barisan Nasional is worse. So we are better off with Pakatan Rakyat. Yes, that is what most of you are going to comment. You assume that when I write articles such as the above, this means I am asking you to vote for Barisan Nasional.
That is how simple-minded Malaysians normally think. And they think like this because they do not have analytical powers and the skills of reasoning. That is why they come to these kinds of conclusions.
Yes, when I say we want a better Opposition, we want a clean Opposition, we want an honest and sincere Opposition, we are not prepared to accept an Opposition that is a clone of Umno or Barisan Nasional, then that means I am asking you to vote for Umno or Barisan Nasional.
Using that same logic, if you were to say that the Chinese do not want to receive an ang pau in a white envelope for Chinese New Year, then that means you want it to be in a black envelope. I mean; you do see the world is just black and white, right? So, if not white envelopes, then you must mean black envelopes. Is this not so?
Also, going by this same logic, if you were to fight for mother-tongue education -- say Chinese or Tamil languages -- then this must mean you are anti-Malay language. That, therefore, also means you are anti-Malay, correct? And that also means you are a racist, right?
If you fight for more places in public colleges and universities for Chinese, Indians, ‘others’, etc., then this means you resent the Malays getting an education. You are trying to deny the Malays a proper education, right? You want only Chinese, Indians, ‘others’, etc., to receive an education. You want the Malays to remain backward and uneducated, correct?
DAP, MCA, Gerakan, Suqui, Dong Zong, Dong Jiao Zong, the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, and all those other Chinese-based groups that are fighting for the Chinese are Chinese racists, Chinese chauvinists, Chinese supremacists, anti-Malay, etc., correct? I mean; this is the logic we are applying. If you fight for one thing then you are anti-the other. If you are not happy with the state of Chinese education then you are anti-Malay just like if you are not happy with the state of the Opposition then you are anti-Pakatan Rakyat, and hence pro-Barisan Nasional.
Aiyah! Why so bodoh one ah?
“Abdul Kadir Played Money Politics Too”
(Malaysian Digest) - Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin has accused Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir of being a hypocrite, claiming that the former Umno leader had also “played ‘money politics’ when he was in Umno”.
“The truth is, Kadir himself is guilty
of the same thing that he accuses Umno of. He too played ‘money
politics’ when he was in Umno ‘Lama’,” Raja Petra said in his latest
blogpost published on Malaysia Today yesterday.
“I even know who gave him (Abdul Kadir) the money. It was a Chinese business tycoon. I was there in the next room when he came to the office of that Chinese business tycoon back in the 1980s to collect the money. I even shook his hands and said hello,” said Raja Petra.
The blogger also dared Abdul Kadir to challenge him to reveal who the business tycoon who allegedly gave him (Abdul Kadir) the money.
“Does he (Abdul Kadir) want me to name the place and the Chinese business tycoon who gave him the money? I can if he wants me to. I can even name the Chinese lady who had to ‘look after him’ in his visit to the office of the Chinese business tycoon.”
Abdul Kadir resigned from Umno on March 19 after 56 years in the ruling party.
He created stir in January when he claimed that Umno had handed out RM200 to RM1,000 to voters in previous elections in exchange for votes.
The former minister had said that he has not ruled out joining Pakatan Rakyat.
It is reported that Abdul Kadir, who was Umno supreme council member, said many top leaders in PKR, PAS and the DAP, who were his “close friends”, had asked him to join the opposition pact but said he had yet to make a decision on the matter.
Raja Petra, however, said, “It is said he wanted to join the opposition, in particular PKR, but since no one invited him he had no choice but to announce that he did not want to join PKR but will continue his ‘struggle’ through an NGO.”
“Today, Kadir is telling us that Umno is corrupt. Umno is evil. Umno bribes the voters. Umno is involved in ‘money politics’. But Umno has always been doing this even when it was known as Umno ‘Lama’.
“It (Umno) also did this when it was called Umno ‘Baru’. And Kadir was a member and leader/Minister of both these Umnos. So why talk about it now? When Kadir left Semangat 46 to join (or rejoin) Unmo, he already knew very well that Umno plays ‘money politics’. He did not discover this just today,” said Raja Petra.
“I even know who gave him (Abdul Kadir) the money. It was a Chinese business tycoon. I was there in the next room when he came to the office of that Chinese business tycoon back in the 1980s to collect the money. I even shook his hands and said hello,” said Raja Petra.
The blogger also dared Abdul Kadir to challenge him to reveal who the business tycoon who allegedly gave him (Abdul Kadir) the money.
“Does he (Abdul Kadir) want me to name the place and the Chinese business tycoon who gave him the money? I can if he wants me to. I can even name the Chinese lady who had to ‘look after him’ in his visit to the office of the Chinese business tycoon.”
Abdul Kadir resigned from Umno on March 19 after 56 years in the ruling party.
He created stir in January when he claimed that Umno had handed out RM200 to RM1,000 to voters in previous elections in exchange for votes.
The former minister had said that he has not ruled out joining Pakatan Rakyat.
It is reported that Abdul Kadir, who was Umno supreme council member, said many top leaders in PKR, PAS and the DAP, who were his “close friends”, had asked him to join the opposition pact but said he had yet to make a decision on the matter.
Raja Petra, however, said, “It is said he wanted to join the opposition, in particular PKR, but since no one invited him he had no choice but to announce that he did not want to join PKR but will continue his ‘struggle’ through an NGO.”
“Today, Kadir is telling us that Umno is corrupt. Umno is evil. Umno bribes the voters. Umno is involved in ‘money politics’. But Umno has always been doing this even when it was known as Umno ‘Lama’.
“It (Umno) also did this when it was called Umno ‘Baru’. And Kadir was a member and leader/Minister of both these Umnos. So why talk about it now? When Kadir left Semangat 46 to join (or rejoin) Unmo, he already knew very well that Umno plays ‘money politics’. He did not discover this just today,” said Raja Petra.
CURRENCY WARS
2. He writes that he participated in War Games at the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) located near Washington, D.C.
3. Set up in 1942, after the Pearl Harbour attack, APL brought applied science to improving weaponry.
4. In 2009 the war game was about a global financial war using currencies and capital markets instead of ships and planes. This financial war games was the Pentagon’s first effort to see how an actual financial war might evolve and to see what lessons might be learnt.
5. James Rickards presented a paper on “the new science of market intelligence, which involves analysing capital markets to find actionable intelligence on the intentions of market participants”.
6. The stated purpose was “to examine the impact of global financial activities on national security issues”.
7. Rickards also gave a presentation on futures and derivatives to explain how these leveraged instruments could be used to manipulate underlying physical markets, including those in strategic commodities such as oil, uranium, copper and gold.
8. He writes, “There is a far more insidious scenario in which currencies are used as weapons, not in a metaphorical sense but in a real sense, to cause economic harm to rivals. The mere threat of harm can be enough to force concessions by rivals in the geopolitical battle space”. (Globalisation and State Capital – page 145)
9. When the Ringgit depreciated in value, the financial and economic experts including those in Malaysia, blames it on bad financial management and contagion. When I suggested that it was due to deliberate action on the part of currency traders to devalue the Ringgit to undermine the Malaysian economy, this was dismissed.
10. Had we failed to handle the crisis, had the economy collapsed, the Government would have to resign. The action taken by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance at that time to apply the IMF solution without the IMF would have hastened the collapse. But our unorthodox solution prevented the collapse from taking place and we recovered. Otherwise there could have been a regime change.
11. Whatever, the fact is that the U.S. is aware that a currency war can achieve political objectives just as well as a military war. The idea that the attack against our Ringgit was deliberate is not too farfetched. The Western Press and Government leaders in certain countries had made it clear that they desired to bring down the Government of that time for very many reasons.
12. Towards this end they have used NGOs and funds as they are doing in Egypt now.
“Impeach” Atau Pecat? Najib Cuma Takutkan Perdebatan Rasional Dengan Anwar
Saya merujuk kepada kenyataan oleh peguam Umno Shafee Abdullah dan Senator BN S Nallakaruppan pada 28 Mac bahawa ketua pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim perlu dicabar oleh Parlimen kerana ‘salah laku’.
Mereka bergantung dan merungut tentang tuduhan lama yang sama salah laku seksual yang direka oleh kerajaan BN terhadap Anwar Ibrahim, dengan kerjasama polis dan Peguam Negara.
Rakyat tidak pernah percaya pembohongan yang memalukan ini, dan telah memberikan sokongan, kepercayaan dan simpati mereka terhadap Anwar Ibrahim dan gabungan parti pembangkang Pakatan Rakyat yang diketuai beliau.
Kejahilan terlampau biasa bagi Umno dan BN
Kenyataan Shafee dan Nalla juga menunjukkan kejahilan terlampau mengenai prosedur pemecatan dan parlimen di Malaysia dan Komanwel. Tiada peruntukan atau pendahuluan bagi pemecatan di Dewan Rakyat.
Di England, prosedur pemecatan kali terakhir digunakan lebih 200 tahun lalu dalam kes Lord Melville
dan kini ia lapuk. Rasional penyelesaian pemecatan tersebut adalah untuk memegang Menteri dan Eksekutif yang bertanggungjawab dalam pentadbiran negara.
Untuk mencadangkan bahawa ia akan digunakan terhadap Ketua Pembangkang menunjukkan salah faham yang besar tentang proses pemecatan. Dengan evolusi usul tidak percaya, jawatankuasa pilihan dan diteliti dengan mendalam oleh parlimen dan disoal siasat,mekanisme pemecatan lama telah ketinggalan zaman.
Jatuh kembali ke dalam politik kotor
Contoh Shafee ialah pemecatan Bill Clinton yang menunjukkan dia tidak memahami mekanisme pemecatan di Amerika, di mana pemecatan digunakan sebagai satu kaedah untuk mengeluarkan ahli-ahli kerajaan Persekutuan seperti Presiden.
Ia adalah tidak munasabah dan pelik bagi Shafee dan Nalla untuk mengancam Ketua Pembangkang dengan proses pemecatan yang purba dan telah digantikan .
Sekali lagi, kita dapat melihat ketidakupayaan lengkap Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan BN untuk melibatkan diri dalam perbahasan dan perbincangan rasional bersama pembangkang.
Sebaliknya, Najib dan Umno terus bergantung kepada serangan peribadi yang cetek dan tidak berasas oleh orang-orang seperti Nallakaruppan dan sekutu beliau, yang jelas dilaporkan dalam media elektronik dan cetak yang dimiliki Umno.
N SURENDRAN
NAIB PRESIDEN
PARTI KEADILAN RAKYAT
Mereka bergantung dan merungut tentang tuduhan lama yang sama salah laku seksual yang direka oleh kerajaan BN terhadap Anwar Ibrahim, dengan kerjasama polis dan Peguam Negara.
Rakyat tidak pernah percaya pembohongan yang memalukan ini, dan telah memberikan sokongan, kepercayaan dan simpati mereka terhadap Anwar Ibrahim dan gabungan parti pembangkang Pakatan Rakyat yang diketuai beliau.
Kejahilan terlampau biasa bagi Umno dan BN
Kenyataan Shafee dan Nalla juga menunjukkan kejahilan terlampau mengenai prosedur pemecatan dan parlimen di Malaysia dan Komanwel. Tiada peruntukan atau pendahuluan bagi pemecatan di Dewan Rakyat.
Di England, prosedur pemecatan kali terakhir digunakan lebih 200 tahun lalu dalam kes Lord Melville
dan kini ia lapuk. Rasional penyelesaian pemecatan tersebut adalah untuk memegang Menteri dan Eksekutif yang bertanggungjawab dalam pentadbiran negara.
Untuk mencadangkan bahawa ia akan digunakan terhadap Ketua Pembangkang menunjukkan salah faham yang besar tentang proses pemecatan. Dengan evolusi usul tidak percaya, jawatankuasa pilihan dan diteliti dengan mendalam oleh parlimen dan disoal siasat,mekanisme pemecatan lama telah ketinggalan zaman.
Jatuh kembali ke dalam politik kotor
Contoh Shafee ialah pemecatan Bill Clinton yang menunjukkan dia tidak memahami mekanisme pemecatan di Amerika, di mana pemecatan digunakan sebagai satu kaedah untuk mengeluarkan ahli-ahli kerajaan Persekutuan seperti Presiden.
Ia adalah tidak munasabah dan pelik bagi Shafee dan Nalla untuk mengancam Ketua Pembangkang dengan proses pemecatan yang purba dan telah digantikan .
Sekali lagi, kita dapat melihat ketidakupayaan lengkap Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan BN untuk melibatkan diri dalam perbahasan dan perbincangan rasional bersama pembangkang.
Sebaliknya, Najib dan Umno terus bergantung kepada serangan peribadi yang cetek dan tidak berasas oleh orang-orang seperti Nallakaruppan dan sekutu beliau, yang jelas dilaporkan dalam media elektronik dan cetak yang dimiliki Umno.
N SURENDRAN
NAIB PRESIDEN
PARTI KEADILAN RAKYAT
1,000 human trafficking victims rescued since 2008
The Star
PUTRAJAYA: Enforcement agencies have rescued nearly 1,000 victims of human trafficking in raids since 2008.
The
Council against Human Trafficking and Smuggling of Migrants said 977
victims – 260 men, 595 women and 122 children – were granted protection
and given shelter at safe houses over the period.
They were rounded up in 439 cases, of which 412 led to charges in court and 78 convictions.
Authorities also managed to rope in 655 migrants being smuggled into the country in 31 cases since Nov 15, 2010.
The
council also announced its decision to place police and Immigration
Department officers temporarily at the Workforce Department for
guidance, training and to share knowledge to push for more effective
enforcement of the Anti-Human Trafficking and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants
Act.
Difficult To Predict Election Results, Says Mahathir
PUTRAJAYA, March 29 (Bernama) -- Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad said it is difficult to predict the results of the coming
general election due to the rather confusing prevailing situation.
He said various assumptions had been made about support for Barisan Nasional (BN), with some people saying it was increasing and others saying otherwise.
"What is certain, it won't be easy for BN to get two-thirds majority this time. The opposition now is not like that of the past, and the current situation is rather confusing."
He said this when asked to comment on former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin's statement that BN would easily win in only three states - Johor, Melaka and Pahang.
He said various assumptions had been made about support for Barisan Nasional (BN), with some people saying it was increasing and others saying otherwise.
"What is certain, it won't be easy for BN to get two-thirds majority this time. The opposition now is not like that of the past, and the current situation is rather confusing."
He said this when asked to comment on former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin's statement that BN would easily win in only three states - Johor, Melaka and Pahang.
31 March voter registration deadline
If the general election falls in June, you must register as a voter by 31 March to be eligible to vote.
Do check your voter registration status on the Election Commission’s website.
Remember, every single vote counts.
Do check your voter registration status on the Election Commission’s website.
Remember, every single vote counts.
Thursday 29 March 2012
Bizarre: Girl locked up in bedroom for 18 years
Girl is now 36-years old and is still confined to her room
By Staff/Agencies
SAUDI ARABIA: A Saudi man decided to lock up his teenage daughter in her bedroom for an apparent punishment. The girl is now around 36 years and is still locked up.
Police said they are not aware of the girl’s trauma but a newspaper quoted neighbours and human rights activist as confirming the woman is still confined to her room in the eastern province of Qatif.
“Neighbours and human rights sources said the girl was apparently subject to family punishment and violence and was locked up in her bedroom when she was a teen ager,” Kabar Arabic language daily said.
“They confirmed the girl is still confined to her room and is not allowed out…the sources urged authorities to immediately intervene and free the girl as she has been deprived from education and all other needs in life.”
Kabar quoted police spokesman Lt Colonel Ziad Al Rukaiti as saying authorities in the eastern region have not received any information about that case.
But it also quoted a human rights activist as saying the girl is still locked up and calling on all parties to join hands in releasing her.
“What this father has done is totally unjustified and cruel…perhaps he is suffering from mental problems given the fact that he has not yet realized the consequences of this act against his own daughter all these years,” said Alia Al Fareed, a member of the Saudi Human rights Commission in the eastern area.
By Staff/Agencies
SAUDI ARABIA: A Saudi man decided to lock up his teenage daughter in her bedroom for an apparent punishment. The girl is now around 36 years and is still locked up.
Police said they are not aware of the girl’s trauma but a newspaper quoted neighbours and human rights activist as confirming the woman is still confined to her room in the eastern province of Qatif.
“Neighbours and human rights sources said the girl was apparently subject to family punishment and violence and was locked up in her bedroom when she was a teen ager,” Kabar Arabic language daily said.
“They confirmed the girl is still confined to her room and is not allowed out…the sources urged authorities to immediately intervene and free the girl as she has been deprived from education and all other needs in life.”
Kabar quoted police spokesman Lt Colonel Ziad Al Rukaiti as saying authorities in the eastern region have not received any information about that case.
But it also quoted a human rights activist as saying the girl is still locked up and calling on all parties to join hands in releasing her.
“What this father has done is totally unjustified and cruel…perhaps he is suffering from mental problems given the fact that he has not yet realized the consequences of this act against his own daughter all these years,” said Alia Al Fareed, a member of the Saudi Human rights Commission in the eastern area.
Sritharan (7) hit with shoe by teacher. Now father threatened by police on “old case”: Classical UMNO cover up of gross racism. Exactly how UMNO racist system works.
Immediately after SMS, faxes and website postings started going out and the Press Conference from at the Hindraf HQ in Bangsar calls started coming from the school asking Sri Tharan’s father to withdraw the police report and to “close this case" of gross racism.
Then
at 12.30 a.m Sri Tharan’s father Murugan gets a phone on an “old case”
from one Sargeant Affendi (017-2247704) asking Murugan to come to the
police station for “muka cam” on a case that happend two years ago and
that was hardly investigated. This caused alarm to the family who
telephoned their lawyer at 12.40 a.m.And then this morning a ‘reporter from The Star” has been harassing Mr. Murugan to come to the school.
In the previous cases the classic racist UMNO BTN trained headmaster teachers etc is to coerce the family to give in writing that this matter is solved and the police report withdrawn. And end of the matter.
But had it been an Indian teacher who thrown his shoe at a Malay muslim pupil, he would by now have been remanded for seven (7) days been clobbered in the police lock up and prosecuted by the racist Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail for “attempted murder” if
not causing grievous injuries on a child.And the Indian teacher would have been sacked by now.
But as usual when the victim is an Indian child, zero happens, no police investigations, the teacher gets to stay put in her school.
So much for UMNO Prime Minister Najib’s 1 Malay-sia.
Anwar: Pakatan unhappy with EC, may delay state polls
Anwar (centre) said the EC has yet to address complaints regarding the manipulation of the voter registry. — File pic
KUALA LUMPUR, March 28 — Pakatan Rakyat (PR) may not hold state elections concurrently with the national polls if the Election Commission (EC) fails to implement meaningful electoral reforms even after being compelled to do so by Parliament.
PR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today that a decision on the matter was yet to be reached, but added that the pact’s choice would be “influenced” by the EC’s response to the parliamentary select committee’s (PSC) recommendations.
The PSC, which is meeting for the last time today, will be tabling its final report to Parliament next Monday.
But Anwar revealed today that throughout the committee’s six-month investigation, PR lawmakers — who are also members of the panel — had found the EC lacking in commitment to implement meaningful reforms as promised by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak last year.
“We still have to state our strong objection because until now, the EC has not cleaned up the electoral roll, especially when the election is so near,” he told a press conference here.
He said the leaders of PR states are still negotiating on whether to hold simultaneous polls with national elections, but added there was fear the alleged voter roll manipulation could greatly affect the pact’s chances if it remains unresolved.
“I think we have to sit with them again. No decision has been reached yet. We have the option of whether we should hold it all together but it is still open,” he said.
Anwar stressed that the “central issue” to PR now is to ensure the EC commits itself to electoral reforms.
“We have compelling evidence and facts to support our argument that the (election) process is fraudulent.
“So that’s the issue and that will influence our decision (on whether to hold simultaneous polls),” he said.
Anwar added that PR would continue pressing for reforms in the election process even if the EC failed to do so.
Barisan Nasional (BN) experienced its worst electoral result during the 2008 general election, when it lost five states to PR as well as its customary two-thirds supermajority in Parliament.
But Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has indicated that he will soon call for a general election, adding that confidence in his BN has surged of late.
Umno-controlled Berita Harian reported the prime minister as saying in Port Dickson on March 24 that “rasa-rasa bunyi (PRU) dah dekat (it feels and sounds like (elections) are near).”
The Umno president said last week he would dissolve Parliament when public confidence towards his administration is at its highest level.
Observers say Najib, who took over in April 2009 ostensibly to improve on the ruling coalition’s performance, will need to return BN’s two-thirds majority to guarantee he remains in power.
Serah kembali tanah ladang kami!
Seramai 150 peneroka berdemonstrasi secara aman di pejabat Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan hari ini.
SEREMBAN: Seramai 150 peneroka Kampung Serampang Indah dari Serting hari ini mengadakan demonstrasi secara aman di hadapan Pejabat Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan, Dato’ Mohamad Hasan di sini bagi mendesak campur tangan beliau agar memulangkan semula tanah perladangan mereka secepat mungkin.
Mereka yang turut mewakili 250 peneroka yang lain berjumpa Menteri Besar di Balai Pengawal pejabat beliau. Mereka menyerahkan memorandum meminta Mohd Hasan berunding dengan syarikat Thamarai Holding Sdn Bhd agar tanah perladangan mereka dapat dikembalikan semula kepada keseluruhan 400 peneroka di Kampung Serampang Indah tersebut.
Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Bertindak Peneroka Kampung Serampang Indah (Gatco), Abdul Rahman Ali Mohamad, 60, menjelaskan kronologi masalah yang membelenggu 400 peneroka terbabit timbul sejak 35 tahun lalu.
“Peneroka di sini membeli tapak kediaman seluas satu ekar dan tanah perladangan seluas 10 ekar daripada syarikat Gatco pada tahun
1977. Peneroka Bumiputera membayar RM4,000 manakala peneroka bukan Bumiputera membayar RM7,600.
“Pada tahun 1983, syarikat Gatco memperbaharui perjanjian dan melakukan pengubahsuaian dan keluasan tanah perladangan dikurangkan kepada lapan ekar.
“Gatco membuat pinjaman dengan dua buah institusi kewangan iaitu United Asian Bank dan Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappijvoor Ontwikkelingslanden.
Bertolak dari masalah pengurusan, syarikat Gatco diisytiharkan muflis pada tahun 1996. Sepanjang tempoh ini peneroka gagal mendapat geran hak milik.
Tanah perladangan dilelong
“Pada tahun 2004 tanah perladangan ini dilelong. Kami bersedia membeli tanah perladangan ini melalui koperasi dan kami telah membayar deposit sebanyak RM320,000.00 (earnest deposit) kepada Tetuan Singam and Young (Pelelong).
“Apabila kami ingin membuat bayaran peringkat kedua, pihak pelelong tidak mahu menerima bayaran dari kami atas alasan kami tidak mampu untuk menyelesaikan keseluruhan lelong tersebut.
“Seterusnya tanah perladangan ini ditawarkan kepada Thamarai Holdings Sdn Bhd dengan harga RM16 juta.
“Persoalannya kenapa pihak pelelong tidak meneruskan urusan lelongan dengan kami. Jika kami gagal membayar baki RM16 juta dalam masa yang ditetapkan, mereka boleh batalkan urusan ini,” jelas Abdul Rahman.
Abdul Rahman berkata mereka sanggup membeli tanah mereka pada harga RM18 juta dari Thamarai Holdings dan memohon jasa baik Menteri Besar dan Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Negeri Sembilan (PKNNS).
Kuasa MB
Tetapi selama ini Menteri Besar dan PKNNS tidak mahu membantu mereka walaupun kuasa tanah terletak di bawah Menteri Besar.
Seorang lagi wakil peneroka Kampung Serampang Indah, C John pula berkata keadaan semakin meruncing apabila Thamarai Holdings sudah membawa masuk jentera dan jentolak untuk membersihkan tanah ladang (pokok getah) mereka.
“Masalah kami sudah berlanjutan selama 35 tahun. Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) Sungai Lui, Datuk Zainal Abidin Ahmad pernah berjanji untuk membawa masalah kami kepada perhatian Menteri Besar namun sehingga ke hari ini janji tinggal janji.
“Oleh yang demikian pada hari ini kami datang ramai-ramai untuk meminta Menteri Besar campur tangan dalam masalah tanah ini dan berunding dengan Thamarai Holdings agar kami mendapat semula hak kami.
“Kami sanggup membeli balik dari Thamarai Holdings dengan harga RM18 juta.
“Sebelum ini Thamarai Holdings bercadang menjual tanah kami kepada kami pada harga pasaran iaitu dari RM25,000 hingga RM30,000 seekar sedangkan mereka membeli tanah kami dengan harga RM4,000 seekar.
“Kami memberikan masa tujuh hari kepada Menteri Besar dan jika beliau gagal selesaikan masalah ini, kami akan membawa masalah ini kepada Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“Kami tidak teragak-agak untuk membuat bantahan di hadapan Pejabat Perdana Menteri di Putrajaya”, kata John.
Orang tengah
Sementara itu drama demonstrasi aman dan penyerahan memorandum ini tidak berakhir apabila Mohamad
Hasan ketika menerima memorandum berkata bahawa beliau akan menjadi orang tengah dalam masalah ini dan akan cuba berunding dengan Thamarai Holdings
Bagaimanapun selepas Mohamad Hasan menerima memorandum tersebut dan ketika baru meninggalkan peneroka terbabit terdengar laungan agar Mohamad Hasan menyelesaikan masalah ini dengan segera dari luar pagar oleh Adun Senawang dari DAP, P Gunasekaran.
Mohamad Hasan kembali semula ke Balai Pengawal dan berkata bahawa beliau tidak akan membantu peneroka sekiranya pembangkang campur tangan dalam isu ini.
Ini memaksa Abdul Rahman dan John menjelaskan kepada Mohamad Hasan bahawa isu ini tidak ada kena mengena dengan pembangkang dan ini merupakan masalah peneroka semata-mata.
Tanah milik syarikat swasta
Dalam sidang akhbar selepas mesyuarat Exco, Mohamad Hasan berkata masalah yang dihadapi oleh penduduk di tanah ladang ini sebenarnya bukan masalah kerajaan negeri.
“Tanah tersebut bukan milik kerajaan negeri sebaliknya milik syarikat swasta yang membeli tanah ladang itu melalui lelongan awam yang dibuat di mahkamah.
“Syarikat Thamarai Holding membeli tanah tersebut melalui lelongan awam dan kerajaan negeri tidak pernah menjual tanah tersebut kepada syarikat itu kerana segala urusan jual beli serta lelongan dilakukan di mahkamah dan tiada kaitan dengan kerajaan negeri.
“Walaubagaimanapun kita akan berusaha berbincang dengan Thamarai Holdings bagi mencari jalan penyelesaian yang terbaik untuk kedua-dua pihak.
“Peneroka ini jangan terpengaruh dengan pihak lain yang cuba menghuru-harakan keadaan agar menjadi lebih sensasi.
“Saya pasti ada pihak lain yang cuma mempengaruhi peneroka dan membuat dakwaan bahawa kerajaan negeri yang jual tanah ladang itu kepada pihak luar sedangkan itu tidak betul.
“Janganlah terpengaruh dengan anasir luar. Siasat dulu dan faham betul-betul apa yang sebenarnya berlaku kerana masalah ini bukan satu perkara yang baru”, ulas Mohamad Hasan.
SEREMBAN: Seramai 150 peneroka Kampung Serampang Indah dari Serting hari ini mengadakan demonstrasi secara aman di hadapan Pejabat Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan, Dato’ Mohamad Hasan di sini bagi mendesak campur tangan beliau agar memulangkan semula tanah perladangan mereka secepat mungkin.Mereka yang turut mewakili 250 peneroka yang lain berjumpa Menteri Besar di Balai Pengawal pejabat beliau. Mereka menyerahkan memorandum meminta Mohd Hasan berunding dengan syarikat Thamarai Holding Sdn Bhd agar tanah perladangan mereka dapat dikembalikan semula kepada keseluruhan 400 peneroka di Kampung Serampang Indah tersebut.
Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Bertindak Peneroka Kampung Serampang Indah (Gatco), Abdul Rahman Ali Mohamad, 60, menjelaskan kronologi masalah yang membelenggu 400 peneroka terbabit timbul sejak 35 tahun lalu.
“Peneroka di sini membeli tapak kediaman seluas satu ekar dan tanah perladangan seluas 10 ekar daripada syarikat Gatco pada tahun
1977. Peneroka Bumiputera membayar RM4,000 manakala peneroka bukan Bumiputera membayar RM7,600.
“Pada tahun 1983, syarikat Gatco memperbaharui perjanjian dan melakukan pengubahsuaian dan keluasan tanah perladangan dikurangkan kepada lapan ekar.
“Gatco membuat pinjaman dengan dua buah institusi kewangan iaitu United Asian Bank dan Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappijvoor Ontwikkelingslanden.
Bertolak dari masalah pengurusan, syarikat Gatco diisytiharkan muflis pada tahun 1996. Sepanjang tempoh ini peneroka gagal mendapat geran hak milik.
Tanah perladangan dilelong
“Pada tahun 2004 tanah perladangan ini dilelong. Kami bersedia membeli tanah perladangan ini melalui koperasi dan kami telah membayar deposit sebanyak RM320,000.00 (earnest deposit) kepada Tetuan Singam and Young (Pelelong).
“Apabila kami ingin membuat bayaran peringkat kedua, pihak pelelong tidak mahu menerima bayaran dari kami atas alasan kami tidak mampu untuk menyelesaikan keseluruhan lelong tersebut.
“Seterusnya tanah perladangan ini ditawarkan kepada Thamarai Holdings Sdn Bhd dengan harga RM16 juta.
“Persoalannya kenapa pihak pelelong tidak meneruskan urusan lelongan dengan kami. Jika kami gagal membayar baki RM16 juta dalam masa yang ditetapkan, mereka boleh batalkan urusan ini,” jelas Abdul Rahman.
Abdul Rahman berkata mereka sanggup membeli tanah mereka pada harga RM18 juta dari Thamarai Holdings dan memohon jasa baik Menteri Besar dan Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Negeri Sembilan (PKNNS).
Kuasa MB
Tetapi selama ini Menteri Besar dan PKNNS tidak mahu membantu mereka walaupun kuasa tanah terletak di bawah Menteri Besar.
Seorang lagi wakil peneroka Kampung Serampang Indah, C John pula berkata keadaan semakin meruncing apabila Thamarai Holdings sudah membawa masuk jentera dan jentolak untuk membersihkan tanah ladang (pokok getah) mereka.
“Masalah kami sudah berlanjutan selama 35 tahun. Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) Sungai Lui, Datuk Zainal Abidin Ahmad pernah berjanji untuk membawa masalah kami kepada perhatian Menteri Besar namun sehingga ke hari ini janji tinggal janji.
“Oleh yang demikian pada hari ini kami datang ramai-ramai untuk meminta Menteri Besar campur tangan dalam masalah tanah ini dan berunding dengan Thamarai Holdings agar kami mendapat semula hak kami.
“Kami sanggup membeli balik dari Thamarai Holdings dengan harga RM18 juta.
“Sebelum ini Thamarai Holdings bercadang menjual tanah kami kepada kami pada harga pasaran iaitu dari RM25,000 hingga RM30,000 seekar sedangkan mereka membeli tanah kami dengan harga RM4,000 seekar.
“Kami memberikan masa tujuh hari kepada Menteri Besar dan jika beliau gagal selesaikan masalah ini, kami akan membawa masalah ini kepada Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“Kami tidak teragak-agak untuk membuat bantahan di hadapan Pejabat Perdana Menteri di Putrajaya”, kata John.
Orang tengah
Sementara itu drama demonstrasi aman dan penyerahan memorandum ini tidak berakhir apabila Mohamad
Hasan ketika menerima memorandum berkata bahawa beliau akan menjadi orang tengah dalam masalah ini dan akan cuba berunding dengan Thamarai Holdings
Bagaimanapun selepas Mohamad Hasan menerima memorandum tersebut dan ketika baru meninggalkan peneroka terbabit terdengar laungan agar Mohamad Hasan menyelesaikan masalah ini dengan segera dari luar pagar oleh Adun Senawang dari DAP, P Gunasekaran.
Mohamad Hasan kembali semula ke Balai Pengawal dan berkata bahawa beliau tidak akan membantu peneroka sekiranya pembangkang campur tangan dalam isu ini.
Ini memaksa Abdul Rahman dan John menjelaskan kepada Mohamad Hasan bahawa isu ini tidak ada kena mengena dengan pembangkang dan ini merupakan masalah peneroka semata-mata.
Tanah milik syarikat swasta
Dalam sidang akhbar selepas mesyuarat Exco, Mohamad Hasan berkata masalah yang dihadapi oleh penduduk di tanah ladang ini sebenarnya bukan masalah kerajaan negeri.
“Tanah tersebut bukan milik kerajaan negeri sebaliknya milik syarikat swasta yang membeli tanah ladang itu melalui lelongan awam yang dibuat di mahkamah.
“Syarikat Thamarai Holding membeli tanah tersebut melalui lelongan awam dan kerajaan negeri tidak pernah menjual tanah tersebut kepada syarikat itu kerana segala urusan jual beli serta lelongan dilakukan di mahkamah dan tiada kaitan dengan kerajaan negeri.
“Walaubagaimanapun kita akan berusaha berbincang dengan Thamarai Holdings bagi mencari jalan penyelesaian yang terbaik untuk kedua-dua pihak.
“Peneroka ini jangan terpengaruh dengan pihak lain yang cuba menghuru-harakan keadaan agar menjadi lebih sensasi.
“Saya pasti ada pihak lain yang cuma mempengaruhi peneroka dan membuat dakwaan bahawa kerajaan negeri yang jual tanah ladang itu kepada pihak luar sedangkan itu tidak betul.
“Janganlah terpengaruh dengan anasir luar. Siasat dulu dan faham betul-betul apa yang sebenarnya berlaku kerana masalah ini bukan satu perkara yang baru”, ulas Mohamad Hasan.
Sri Lanka issue: Govt explains abstention
Sri Lanka's problems cannot be solved overnight, and Malaysia is giving the war-torn country time to help itself, says deputy minister Richard Riot.
KUALA LUMPUR: Putrajaya has defended the decision to abstain from voting in a United Nations resolution urging Sri Lanka to “credibly investigate” allegations of war crimes during the final months of its civil war there.
Amongst the reasons, according to Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister Richard Riot, was that Sri Lanka’s problems were too complex to solve in a short time.
He said that the country, which had fought a civil war between 1972 to 2009, tabled a report investigating the war’s atrocities in its own parliament on Dec 16, 2011.
“Taking into account 30 years of conflict and complexities of domestic issues… unfair for (the UN) resolution to impose an obligation on the government of Sri Lanka to report in just three months,” he said, during the wind-up on the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong’s Speech today.
Riot also said that Malaysia had acknowledged Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process as a domestic issue.
He added that Sri Lanka had taken the “necessary steps” to share information with the international community over reconciliation and development efforts.
Riot was referring to the US-led resolution which was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on March 22. The resolution was passed with 24 votes in favour, 15 against and eight abstentions.
(The countries that abstained from voting were Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia and Senegal.)
In the last few months of the war, more than 40,000 people were alleged to have been killed by security forces and Sri Lankan rebel group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE).
To this, the Malaysian government acknowledged that genocide had indeed taken place in the conflict-ridden country, citing a paper known as the “Darusman Report”.
“…the report has said there were human rights violations and crimes against humanity…(by the) Sri Lankan government and the LTTE,” said Riot.
He said that Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) confirmed the same thing, adding that the country’s security forces had acted in self-defence.
He also claimed that Malaysia’s abstention was not a double standard and that the country did not interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs.
Regarding the Israel-Palestinian issue, Riot said that Malaysia was looking for a peaceful solution between the two states.
He also reassured MPs present that Malaysia would give Sri Lanka a chance to prove itself.
“(But) if during the period of reconciliation, that they don’t achieve peace, then the international community will meet and vote whether they will interfere or not,” he told the House.
Business deals allegation
Pakatan Rakyat MPs however were not satisfied with Riot’s response.
Criticising the LLRC as “weak”, Klang MP (DAP) Charles Santiago said that the LLRC report supported the Sri Lankan government.
Ipoh Barat MP (DAP) M Kulasegaran said that it was “shameful” for Malaysia to be one of the eight abstaining countries.
“I compare, these are irrelevant countries. They are substandard (in) human rights values and so forth. Can we compare to them?”
“No! Malaysia is entirely different. Our standard is very high, our per capita income is very high. The expectation of the world is very high and we are a member of the Human Rights Council!” he said.
He also asked on the allegation that Malaysia’s abstention was due to billion-ringgit business deals with Sri Lanka.
Kulasegaran claimed that there were “many big business people” in league with the Barisan Nasional government who were investing in Sri Lanka.
In response, Riot said that matters of foreign trade did not come under his ministry and that it came under the Ministry of International trade and Industry.
KUALA LUMPUR: Putrajaya has defended the decision to abstain from voting in a United Nations resolution urging Sri Lanka to “credibly investigate” allegations of war crimes during the final months of its civil war there.Amongst the reasons, according to Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister Richard Riot, was that Sri Lanka’s problems were too complex to solve in a short time.
He said that the country, which had fought a civil war between 1972 to 2009, tabled a report investigating the war’s atrocities in its own parliament on Dec 16, 2011.
“Taking into account 30 years of conflict and complexities of domestic issues… unfair for (the UN) resolution to impose an obligation on the government of Sri Lanka to report in just three months,” he said, during the wind-up on the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong’s Speech today.
Riot also said that Malaysia had acknowledged Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process as a domestic issue.
He added that Sri Lanka had taken the “necessary steps” to share information with the international community over reconciliation and development efforts.
Riot was referring to the US-led resolution which was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on March 22. The resolution was passed with 24 votes in favour, 15 against and eight abstentions.
(The countries that abstained from voting were Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia and Senegal.)
In the last few months of the war, more than 40,000 people were alleged to have been killed by security forces and Sri Lankan rebel group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE).
To this, the Malaysian government acknowledged that genocide had indeed taken place in the conflict-ridden country, citing a paper known as the “Darusman Report”.
“…the report has said there were human rights violations and crimes against humanity…(by the) Sri Lankan government and the LTTE,” said Riot.
He said that Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) confirmed the same thing, adding that the country’s security forces had acted in self-defence.
He also claimed that Malaysia’s abstention was not a double standard and that the country did not interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs.
Regarding the Israel-Palestinian issue, Riot said that Malaysia was looking for a peaceful solution between the two states.
He also reassured MPs present that Malaysia would give Sri Lanka a chance to prove itself.
“(But) if during the period of reconciliation, that they don’t achieve peace, then the international community will meet and vote whether they will interfere or not,” he told the House.
Business deals allegation
Pakatan Rakyat MPs however were not satisfied with Riot’s response.
Criticising the LLRC as “weak”, Klang MP (DAP) Charles Santiago said that the LLRC report supported the Sri Lankan government.
Ipoh Barat MP (DAP) M Kulasegaran said that it was “shameful” for Malaysia to be one of the eight abstaining countries.
“I compare, these are irrelevant countries. They are substandard (in) human rights values and so forth. Can we compare to them?”
“No! Malaysia is entirely different. Our standard is very high, our per capita income is very high. The expectation of the world is very high and we are a member of the Human Rights Council!” he said.
He also asked on the allegation that Malaysia’s abstention was due to billion-ringgit business deals with Sri Lanka.
Kulasegaran claimed that there were “many big business people” in league with the Barisan Nasional government who were investing in Sri Lanka.
In response, Riot said that matters of foreign trade did not come under his ministry and that it came under the Ministry of International trade and Industry.
Can the general election be further delayed?
The BN is facing many problems. On 25 March 2012, when about 10,000 members of the public were attending the rally protesting against the shortage of teachers in Chinese primary schools, about 100 members of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) and other organisations brought a watermelon to the Prime Minister Office (PMO) in Putrajaya and smashed it on the ground, demanding a solution for the extreme poverty of the Indians.
By LIM SUE GOAN
Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE
Sin Chew Daily
According to the latest rumour, it is said that the next general election will probably fall in September, not June.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak recently said that the date of the election will be a surprise. It seems to comply with the above speculation. However, he also pointed out that the support for the BN is peaking, including in Selangor. If it is the case, then what is the Prime Minister still waiting for?
If the general election is not being held in the next three months, it might be because the BN needs some time to solve thorny problems, particularly the rare-earth refinery plant issue, to fight for votes from swing, urban, young and Chinese voters.
The BN is facing many problems. On 25 March 2012, when about 10,000 members of the public were attending the rally protesting against the shortage of teachers in Chinese primary schools, about 100 members of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) and other organisations brought a watermelon to the Prime Minister Office (PMO) in Putrajaya and smashed it on the ground, demanding a solution for the extreme poverty of the Indians.
Members of the public were so agitated at the rally, showing that more efforts are required to gain Chinese votes. Although the strength of Hindraf has been polarised and grievances of the Indians have also been abated, there is still possibility of resurgence.
In fact, the BN's governance mechanism has faced challenges even before the 2008 general election. On 25 November 2007, Hindraf successfully gathered 30,000 people while 40,000 people joined the first Bersih rally on 10 November the same year.
On 9 July 2011, about 50,000 people attended the Bersih 2.0 rally and 30,000 participated in the Himpunan Hijau 2.0 on 26 February this year. They are then followed by the rally on 25 March to protest against the shortage of vernacular school teachers, as well as the Himpunan Hijau 3.0 scheduled on 13 April.
The high numbers of attendance of these rallies tell us that the anti-incumbent sentiment is still high and the effects brought by Umno's 1Malaysia concept, moderate line and policies are not as effective as expected.
The crux of the problem lies on the weak promotion on political reform. There are still weaknesses in the administrative system and therefore, the Pakatan Rakyat has continued pointing out its management weaknesses to offset the effects of various transformation plans.
The MCA and the DAP have engaged in a new war of words after Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong claimed to have been attacked at the rally. The MCA is again in an disadvantaged position due to the inconsistent arguments of the BN in responding to attack incidents over the past few decades.
To fight for swing votes, the BN must be daring to eliminate bureaucracy and administrative deviations. Only by doing so, old problems could be resolved and the stereotype of swing voters on the BN could be broken.
If the general election is held in September and the thorny problems remain unresolved, the BN might still be able to keep its regime with votes from its basic supporters, but there is no way to win back the two-thirds majority.
Moreover, how is the BN going to ensure no more scandal will be exposed in the coming few months?
Holding the election in the end of this year or early next year might also face economic risks. It is because no one knows whether the US will attack Iran or not, whether the international crude oil prices will rise to US$150, or whether the Euro zone will be struck by another debt crisis.
If the economy goes down, the good feelings created by money distribution and pay rise will be gone forever.
We are now in a period of political chaos with blurred concepts of right and wrong. Regardless when the next general election will be held, the outcome will be difficult to predict.
Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE
Sin Chew Daily
According to the latest rumour, it is said that the next general election will probably fall in September, not June.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak recently said that the date of the election will be a surprise. It seems to comply with the above speculation. However, he also pointed out that the support for the BN is peaking, including in Selangor. If it is the case, then what is the Prime Minister still waiting for?
If the general election is not being held in the next three months, it might be because the BN needs some time to solve thorny problems, particularly the rare-earth refinery plant issue, to fight for votes from swing, urban, young and Chinese voters.
The BN is facing many problems. On 25 March 2012, when about 10,000 members of the public were attending the rally protesting against the shortage of teachers in Chinese primary schools, about 100 members of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) and other organisations brought a watermelon to the Prime Minister Office (PMO) in Putrajaya and smashed it on the ground, demanding a solution for the extreme poverty of the Indians.
Members of the public were so agitated at the rally, showing that more efforts are required to gain Chinese votes. Although the strength of Hindraf has been polarised and grievances of the Indians have also been abated, there is still possibility of resurgence.
In fact, the BN's governance mechanism has faced challenges even before the 2008 general election. On 25 November 2007, Hindraf successfully gathered 30,000 people while 40,000 people joined the first Bersih rally on 10 November the same year.
On 9 July 2011, about 50,000 people attended the Bersih 2.0 rally and 30,000 participated in the Himpunan Hijau 2.0 on 26 February this year. They are then followed by the rally on 25 March to protest against the shortage of vernacular school teachers, as well as the Himpunan Hijau 3.0 scheduled on 13 April.
The high numbers of attendance of these rallies tell us that the anti-incumbent sentiment is still high and the effects brought by Umno's 1Malaysia concept, moderate line and policies are not as effective as expected.
The crux of the problem lies on the weak promotion on political reform. There are still weaknesses in the administrative system and therefore, the Pakatan Rakyat has continued pointing out its management weaknesses to offset the effects of various transformation plans.
The MCA and the DAP have engaged in a new war of words after Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong claimed to have been attacked at the rally. The MCA is again in an disadvantaged position due to the inconsistent arguments of the BN in responding to attack incidents over the past few decades.
To fight for swing votes, the BN must be daring to eliminate bureaucracy and administrative deviations. Only by doing so, old problems could be resolved and the stereotype of swing voters on the BN could be broken.
If the general election is held in September and the thorny problems remain unresolved, the BN might still be able to keep its regime with votes from its basic supporters, but there is no way to win back the two-thirds majority.
Moreover, how is the BN going to ensure no more scandal will be exposed in the coming few months?
Holding the election in the end of this year or early next year might also face economic risks. It is because no one knows whether the US will attack Iran or not, whether the international crude oil prices will rise to US$150, or whether the Euro zone will be struck by another debt crisis.
If the economy goes down, the good feelings created by money distribution and pay rise will be gone forever.
We are now in a period of political chaos with blurred concepts of right and wrong. Regardless when the next general election will be held, the outcome will be difficult to predict.
Nalla wants to 'impeach' Anwar in Parliament
(Malaysiakini) - Senator S Nallakaruppan is exploring the possibility of initiating an impeachment process against Anwar Ibrahim for allegedly lying to Parliament.
This was expressed through his newly-appointed lawyer Shafee Abdullah, who said that “technically, it can be done”, during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur today.
“The opposition leader is an official position in parliament. The individual plays a big role to form check-and-balance to (the government).
“As such, the personal conduct of a parliamentarian should come under the scrutiny of parliament. We will study if there is a process to impeach the opposition leader over his misconduct.
“If we manage to do it, it will be the first of such case in Malaysia,” said Shafee, a senior legal practitioner who is well known for his links with Umno.
‘Even Clinton was impeached’
Nallakaruppan had called for the press conference yesterday in order to announce Shafee’s appointment as his lawyer for a RM100 million suit brought by Anwar.
Anwar is suing Nallakaruppan, his former tennis partner, for making allegations about his sexual orientation in a front page report on the March 20 edition of Utusan Malaysia.
Shafee spoke about the possible impeachment after Nallakaruppan, who stands by his allegations, was asked by a reporter on whether it was possible.
Using the impeachment of former United States president Bill Clinton as an example, Shafee said a similar principle can be applied here.
“Clinton was impeached not because he had sex with (Monica) Lewinsky. He was impeached because he lied.
Shafee said he will be looking into the possibility of filing a “motion of dismissal” in order for Anwar to be referred to the rights and privileges committee for disciplinary action.
‘Anti-Anwar Alliance’
Meanwhile, Nallakaruppan that he and eight other former Anwar allies will be joining forces in order to “expose” more of Anwar’s alleged wrongdoings.
However, he was unable to provide examples of issues that would be raised, but did allude to the possibility of raising issues involving a woman by the name of “Shamsidar”.
“I don’t want to mention what form of evidence. But you will know in court,” he said.
Other than Nallakaruppan, members of the new anti-Anwar alliance are Kulim Bandar Baru MP Zulklifi Nordin, Bayan Baru MP Zahrain Mohd Hashim, Padang Serai MP N Gobalakrisnan, Anwar’s former aide Anuar Shaari, Keadilan founding member Ng Lam Yong, former AMK deputy chief Zahid Arif, Perkasa information chief Roslan Kassim and key witness in Anwar’s first sodomy trial Ummi Hafilda Ali.
Review of Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia
Lee Ting Hui, Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia: The Struggle for Survival
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011. Pp. xv, 282; figures, tables, abbreviations, glossary, bibliography, index.
Reviewed by Christine Chan.
As its title suggests, Lee Ting Hui’s book treats the ways in which Chinese schools in Peninsular Malaysia managed to survive from 1786 to 2003. Its approach is to consider how the British, Japanese and post-independence Malaysian governments posed challenges to Chinese schools and how the latter responded to those challenges (xiii).
Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia is arranged chronologically into seven chapters, with the first chapter providing an overview of the period from 1786-1941, beginning with the establishment of Chinese schools with the onset of Chinese migration to Malaya. Lee argues, on the basis of previous research (2006), that Chinese schools managed steadily to increase in number and to remain unaffected by British policy. The second chapter covers developments from the onset of Japanese occupation in 1941/1942 until Malaya achieved self-government in 1955. During the Japanese Occupation, Chinese schools were closed; they were only revived with the return of the British in 1945. The post-war period was also the time when Chinese educational organizations such as the United Chinese School Teachers’ Association and the United Chinese School Committees’ Association, which resurface constantly later in the narrative as the main defenders of Chinese education, were founded.
Chapter Three covers the period between 1956 and 1969. The former year saw the governing United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) declare that they would work towards an “ultimate objective” in education—“to use the Malay language as the main medium of instruction in all schools”. Lee notes that this objective “still holds today” (83). The latter year brought the 13 May racial riots between Malays and Chinese. Lee documents the decision for some Chinese-medium schools to switch to using English as the medium of instruction, while others became independent by refusing any aid from the government. Chapter Four covers developments during the 1970s, while Chapter Five treats 1980s. Each of these decades saw the government push towards its “ultimate objective” in education, resulting in severe difficulties for Chinese education. Some challenges were successfully overcome. For example, there was a campaign to revive the independent Chinese secondary schools in the 1970s. Others were not: the Malaysian government’s “Operation Lalang” (weeding) in the 1980s saw the arrest of 106 persons under the Internal Security Act, among whom were certain Chinese politicians and educationists.
Chapter Six of Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia discusses developments from the 1990s to 2003, when Mahathir Mohamad retired from his position as prime minister of Malaysia. This period, according to Lee, was “eventful” because Mahathir’s Vision 2020, a nation-building ideal, “brought both joy and disappointment to the Chinese community” (214), by threatening to end the use of Chinese to teach mathematics and science in National-type Chinese schools, but at the same time giving the Chinese community the chance to set up new colleges. Chapter Seven concludes the book by summarizing the various challenges posed by the government to Chinese schools, noting their responses to these challenges, and briefly examining the problems faced by the schools from 2004 to early 2009.
Lee Ting Hui’s latest book is a useful source of information on the history of Chinese schools in Peninsular Malaysia, based on detailed primary research in official annual reports on education and the publications of teachers’ or school committees’ associations. The book covers a wide range of issues concerning Chinese education, including funding, expenditure, language, staffing, school populations and school buildings. It can and will prove valuable for anyone interested in the topic of Chinese education in Malaysia. Useful background information accompanying the details from government reports and explaining responses from the Chinese community is also provided. For example, political and social developments in China such as the 1911 Sun Yat Sen Revolution or Malaysian developments like the 1969 racial riots between Malays and Chinese are incorporated into the story that Lee tells in Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia.
However, several weaknesses will diminish the book’s overall impact. For one, this book might be difficult for a non-Chinese-literate person to read, because of its constant use of Hanyu Pinyin names. For example, who would know that the head of the Nanyang Overseas Chinese General Association for the Relief of Refugees in the Fatherland, whom Lee names as Chen Jia Geng (29, 50), was actually Tan Kah Kee, unless the reader were familiar with the history of overseas Chinese, or bothered to flip to the glossary to find the more commonly used name (249)? Or that Jiang Jie Shi is Chiang Kai Shek, to name another example (25, 252). Several typographical errors and awkwardly expressed headings (e.g. “A parting of the ways for the MCA and Chinese educationists, an event of misfortune for Chinese education”, 99) point to the need for better proof-reading and editing of this book by ISEAS’s publishing unit. On a side (but still related) note, there exist library copies of this book that have not only Lee’s name on the cover but also that of a Malaysian educationist, Mok Soon Sang, as co-author. This occurrence is somewhat puzzling to me.
A more serious problem appears to be the lack of attempts to explain certain observations made by the author (or authors?). Although full of detail and careful primary research, Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia lapses at times into academic agnosticism. For example, in 1948, a Ten-Year Education Plan was implemented which sought to increase the amount of English language instruction in schools and gave equal status to the Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages in Singapore. Lee compares this to the earlier Cheeseman Plan, which had been accepted by the British in line with the Malayan Union but was strongly opposed by UMNO. The latter could not accept equal status for all four language streams of primary education. Lee seems to express surprise that, unlike the Cheeseman Plan, the Malay community did not oppose the Ten-Year Education Plan in Singapore. He concludes that “the reason for this is unfathomable” (51), but surely the area of the application of the plans (the Cheeseman Plan for the whole of Malaya, but the Ten-Year Education Plan for Singapore) and the contexts in which they were put forward make this difference quite fathomable. (The Cheeseman Plan was proposed alongside the Malayan Union Plan of 1946, which Malays opposed; it was thus not the contents of the Cheeseman Plan that they were against but rather what the plan represented in their eyes.) Lee’s surprise at the lack of opposition to certain policies is also expressed elsewhere. For example, he finds it “strange” that a government educational report that would affect Chinese primary schools was not opposed by the Chinese community, but instead attacked by UMNO (53). This reaction is possibly due to Lee’s approach of looking at government policy and the acceptance and/or rejection by the Malay and Chinese communities in broad strokes; more could be said about why there were varying responses at different times instead of merely dismissing them as “strange” or “unfathomable”.
This volume is a valuable study of the history of Chinese schools in Peninsular Malaysia over the decades. Although it focuses on the challenges posed by successive governments – the colonial government in the post-war period tried to introduce English-language instruction, while the Malay-dominated government in the post-independence period tried to dominate the education scene by achieving the “ultimate objective” of using Malay as the main language in all schools – it does not simply portray the Chinese community as victims reacting to problems. Much is said about the community’s losses, such as the conversion of Chinese schools to National-type schools, which used English as their medium of instruction and later used Malay. At the same time, the Chinese community’s agency is also shown in the ways in which it had negotiated and protested various policies, adapted to changes (Penang’s Zhong Ling High School, or Chung Ling, is the classic example of how a Chinese school transformed itself into a near- English school in 1956.), and implemented strategies to advance their interests (such as capitalizing on ties to Chinese political parties).
The story of how the Chinese minority in Malaysia managed to preserve much of its identity through Chinese education is a remarkable one, especially when one compares the situation in Malaysia with those of her neighbours, especially in the post-independence period.
In Singapore, which Lee’s book covers for the years before the island’s separation from the peninsula in 1965, there are no longer any Chinese-language-medium schools, whether independent or government-aided. Instead, all vernacular schools were made to use English as their language of instruction, and students had to learn Mandarin, Malay or Tamil as their second language, depending on which ethnic group they fell into. In 1980, several formerly Chinese-medium secondary schools came under the Special Assistance Plan (SAP), which allowed them to teach both English and Mandarin as first languages and to promote Chinese culture. Nevertheless, these schools, while preserving their Chinese names and having enrollments of predominantly Chinese students (since all students in SAP schools have to learn Chinese and be rather proficient at it before enrolling), still teach all other subjects in English. The Singapore government’s nation-building efforts are reflected in the purposeful choice of English, a language that does not belong to any of its ethnic groups, to bridge the communication gap that existed at the time of the nation’s founding. A second reason is economic, since English is an international language and will aid Singaporeans in connecting with the rest of the world in tourism, commerce and so on. Also in 1980, the first overseas Chinese university, Nanyang University ceased to exist and was merged with the University of Singapore to form the National University of Singapore, thus ending any Chinese-language higher education in Singapore. Whether the move was political, due to a fear of Chinese political activism and communism, or practical, due to the lack of employability of its graduates, it is clear that Chinese-medium schools were not desired by the authorities in post-independence Singapore.
From the point of view of Chinese educationists or advocates of the need to uphold a distinct Chinese identity, the situation in Indonesia was even bleaker. Any debate over whether Chinese in Indonesia should assimilate into the wider indigenous Indonesian community or integrate as a minority while keeping their customs and traditions ended with the emergence of Suharto’s New Order (1966-1998), which carried out “forced assimilation”. Indonesian Chinese citizens were made to change their names, the use of the Chinese language was banned in public, and Chinese schools were closed down. It is only in recent years, after the fall of the Suharto regime, that Chineseness has re-entered the Indonesian public sphere, with Chinese-language schools being set up and the widespread celebration of festivals such as the Lunar New Year.
However, one might point out that it was more successful nation-building attempts in Indonesia and Singapore that led to the demise of their Chinese schools, and conversely, that the failure of the Malaysians to achieve agreement on the type of nation they want to build has resulted in the survival of their Chinese schools (since they struggle to preserve their distinct Chinese identity vis-Ã -vis the Malay majority). During the age of the strong nation-state, the successful story of survival that Lee presents thus has to be seriously questioned. Despite enabling the Chinese community to preserve its ethnic identity, Chinese schools also alienated the community that they served from jobs and higher educational opportunities in Malaysia. Granting that this is not only because of Chinese schools but also because of the way that Malaysian society has been structured, one can nevertheless but wonder how different things could have turned out in Malaysia if Chinese schools had gone into decline and the gap between the various races had lessened.
The situation is likely to be different in this post-nation-building era. There appear to be greater overseas job and educational opportunities for Malaysians who attend Chinese schools, especially if they are from independent Chinese schools that teach both English and Chinese and sometimes even Malay. The setting up of a few Chinese colleges in Malaysia in recent years, which Lee briefly documents in the last chapter, also points to the increase in higher education options within Malaysia for the Chinese-educated community. An even more successful story of the Chinese schools in Malaysia might soon emerge with the rise of the People’s Republic of China and the desire of neighbouring nations to capitalize on it.
Christine Chan Li Hui has recently submitted an honours thesis entitled “TK-SD Kuncup Melati: An Indonesian Chinese Institution’s Adaptation, 1950-2010” to the history department of the National University of Singapore, in which she will begin study toward a master’s degree later this year.
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011. Pp. xv, 282; figures, tables, abbreviations, glossary, bibliography, index.
Reviewed by Christine Chan.
As its title suggests, Lee Ting Hui’s book treats the ways in which Chinese schools in Peninsular Malaysia managed to survive from 1786 to 2003. Its approach is to consider how the British, Japanese and post-independence Malaysian governments posed challenges to Chinese schools and how the latter responded to those challenges (xiii).
Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia is arranged chronologically into seven chapters, with the first chapter providing an overview of the period from 1786-1941, beginning with the establishment of Chinese schools with the onset of Chinese migration to Malaya. Lee argues, on the basis of previous research (2006), that Chinese schools managed steadily to increase in number and to remain unaffected by British policy. The second chapter covers developments from the onset of Japanese occupation in 1941/1942 until Malaya achieved self-government in 1955. During the Japanese Occupation, Chinese schools were closed; they were only revived with the return of the British in 1945. The post-war period was also the time when Chinese educational organizations such as the United Chinese School Teachers’ Association and the United Chinese School Committees’ Association, which resurface constantly later in the narrative as the main defenders of Chinese education, were founded.
Chapter Three covers the period between 1956 and 1969. The former year saw the governing United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) declare that they would work towards an “ultimate objective” in education—“to use the Malay language as the main medium of instruction in all schools”. Lee notes that this objective “still holds today” (83). The latter year brought the 13 May racial riots between Malays and Chinese. Lee documents the decision for some Chinese-medium schools to switch to using English as the medium of instruction, while others became independent by refusing any aid from the government. Chapter Four covers developments during the 1970s, while Chapter Five treats 1980s. Each of these decades saw the government push towards its “ultimate objective” in education, resulting in severe difficulties for Chinese education. Some challenges were successfully overcome. For example, there was a campaign to revive the independent Chinese secondary schools in the 1970s. Others were not: the Malaysian government’s “Operation Lalang” (weeding) in the 1980s saw the arrest of 106 persons under the Internal Security Act, among whom were certain Chinese politicians and educationists.
Chapter Six of Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia discusses developments from the 1990s to 2003, when Mahathir Mohamad retired from his position as prime minister of Malaysia. This period, according to Lee, was “eventful” because Mahathir’s Vision 2020, a nation-building ideal, “brought both joy and disappointment to the Chinese community” (214), by threatening to end the use of Chinese to teach mathematics and science in National-type Chinese schools, but at the same time giving the Chinese community the chance to set up new colleges. Chapter Seven concludes the book by summarizing the various challenges posed by the government to Chinese schools, noting their responses to these challenges, and briefly examining the problems faced by the schools from 2004 to early 2009.
Lee Ting Hui’s latest book is a useful source of information on the history of Chinese schools in Peninsular Malaysia, based on detailed primary research in official annual reports on education and the publications of teachers’ or school committees’ associations. The book covers a wide range of issues concerning Chinese education, including funding, expenditure, language, staffing, school populations and school buildings. It can and will prove valuable for anyone interested in the topic of Chinese education in Malaysia. Useful background information accompanying the details from government reports and explaining responses from the Chinese community is also provided. For example, political and social developments in China such as the 1911 Sun Yat Sen Revolution or Malaysian developments like the 1969 racial riots between Malays and Chinese are incorporated into the story that Lee tells in Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia.
However, several weaknesses will diminish the book’s overall impact. For one, this book might be difficult for a non-Chinese-literate person to read, because of its constant use of Hanyu Pinyin names. For example, who would know that the head of the Nanyang Overseas Chinese General Association for the Relief of Refugees in the Fatherland, whom Lee names as Chen Jia Geng (29, 50), was actually Tan Kah Kee, unless the reader were familiar with the history of overseas Chinese, or bothered to flip to the glossary to find the more commonly used name (249)? Or that Jiang Jie Shi is Chiang Kai Shek, to name another example (25, 252). Several typographical errors and awkwardly expressed headings (e.g. “A parting of the ways for the MCA and Chinese educationists, an event of misfortune for Chinese education”, 99) point to the need for better proof-reading and editing of this book by ISEAS’s publishing unit. On a side (but still related) note, there exist library copies of this book that have not only Lee’s name on the cover but also that of a Malaysian educationist, Mok Soon Sang, as co-author. This occurrence is somewhat puzzling to me.
A more serious problem appears to be the lack of attempts to explain certain observations made by the author (or authors?). Although full of detail and careful primary research, Chinese Schools in Peninsular Malaysia lapses at times into academic agnosticism. For example, in 1948, a Ten-Year Education Plan was implemented which sought to increase the amount of English language instruction in schools and gave equal status to the Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages in Singapore. Lee compares this to the earlier Cheeseman Plan, which had been accepted by the British in line with the Malayan Union but was strongly opposed by UMNO. The latter could not accept equal status for all four language streams of primary education. Lee seems to express surprise that, unlike the Cheeseman Plan, the Malay community did not oppose the Ten-Year Education Plan in Singapore. He concludes that “the reason for this is unfathomable” (51), but surely the area of the application of the plans (the Cheeseman Plan for the whole of Malaya, but the Ten-Year Education Plan for Singapore) and the contexts in which they were put forward make this difference quite fathomable. (The Cheeseman Plan was proposed alongside the Malayan Union Plan of 1946, which Malays opposed; it was thus not the contents of the Cheeseman Plan that they were against but rather what the plan represented in their eyes.) Lee’s surprise at the lack of opposition to certain policies is also expressed elsewhere. For example, he finds it “strange” that a government educational report that would affect Chinese primary schools was not opposed by the Chinese community, but instead attacked by UMNO (53). This reaction is possibly due to Lee’s approach of looking at government policy and the acceptance and/or rejection by the Malay and Chinese communities in broad strokes; more could be said about why there were varying responses at different times instead of merely dismissing them as “strange” or “unfathomable”.
This volume is a valuable study of the history of Chinese schools in Peninsular Malaysia over the decades. Although it focuses on the challenges posed by successive governments – the colonial government in the post-war period tried to introduce English-language instruction, while the Malay-dominated government in the post-independence period tried to dominate the education scene by achieving the “ultimate objective” of using Malay as the main language in all schools – it does not simply portray the Chinese community as victims reacting to problems. Much is said about the community’s losses, such as the conversion of Chinese schools to National-type schools, which used English as their medium of instruction and later used Malay. At the same time, the Chinese community’s agency is also shown in the ways in which it had negotiated and protested various policies, adapted to changes (Penang’s Zhong Ling High School, or Chung Ling, is the classic example of how a Chinese school transformed itself into a near- English school in 1956.), and implemented strategies to advance their interests (such as capitalizing on ties to Chinese political parties).
The story of how the Chinese minority in Malaysia managed to preserve much of its identity through Chinese education is a remarkable one, especially when one compares the situation in Malaysia with those of her neighbours, especially in the post-independence period.
In Singapore, which Lee’s book covers for the years before the island’s separation from the peninsula in 1965, there are no longer any Chinese-language-medium schools, whether independent or government-aided. Instead, all vernacular schools were made to use English as their language of instruction, and students had to learn Mandarin, Malay or Tamil as their second language, depending on which ethnic group they fell into. In 1980, several formerly Chinese-medium secondary schools came under the Special Assistance Plan (SAP), which allowed them to teach both English and Mandarin as first languages and to promote Chinese culture. Nevertheless, these schools, while preserving their Chinese names and having enrollments of predominantly Chinese students (since all students in SAP schools have to learn Chinese and be rather proficient at it before enrolling), still teach all other subjects in English. The Singapore government’s nation-building efforts are reflected in the purposeful choice of English, a language that does not belong to any of its ethnic groups, to bridge the communication gap that existed at the time of the nation’s founding. A second reason is economic, since English is an international language and will aid Singaporeans in connecting with the rest of the world in tourism, commerce and so on. Also in 1980, the first overseas Chinese university, Nanyang University ceased to exist and was merged with the University of Singapore to form the National University of Singapore, thus ending any Chinese-language higher education in Singapore. Whether the move was political, due to a fear of Chinese political activism and communism, or practical, due to the lack of employability of its graduates, it is clear that Chinese-medium schools were not desired by the authorities in post-independence Singapore.
From the point of view of Chinese educationists or advocates of the need to uphold a distinct Chinese identity, the situation in Indonesia was even bleaker. Any debate over whether Chinese in Indonesia should assimilate into the wider indigenous Indonesian community or integrate as a minority while keeping their customs and traditions ended with the emergence of Suharto’s New Order (1966-1998), which carried out “forced assimilation”. Indonesian Chinese citizens were made to change their names, the use of the Chinese language was banned in public, and Chinese schools were closed down. It is only in recent years, after the fall of the Suharto regime, that Chineseness has re-entered the Indonesian public sphere, with Chinese-language schools being set up and the widespread celebration of festivals such as the Lunar New Year.
However, one might point out that it was more successful nation-building attempts in Indonesia and Singapore that led to the demise of their Chinese schools, and conversely, that the failure of the Malaysians to achieve agreement on the type of nation they want to build has resulted in the survival of their Chinese schools (since they struggle to preserve their distinct Chinese identity vis-Ã -vis the Malay majority). During the age of the strong nation-state, the successful story of survival that Lee presents thus has to be seriously questioned. Despite enabling the Chinese community to preserve its ethnic identity, Chinese schools also alienated the community that they served from jobs and higher educational opportunities in Malaysia. Granting that this is not only because of Chinese schools but also because of the way that Malaysian society has been structured, one can nevertheless but wonder how different things could have turned out in Malaysia if Chinese schools had gone into decline and the gap between the various races had lessened.
The situation is likely to be different in this post-nation-building era. There appear to be greater overseas job and educational opportunities for Malaysians who attend Chinese schools, especially if they are from independent Chinese schools that teach both English and Chinese and sometimes even Malay. The setting up of a few Chinese colleges in Malaysia in recent years, which Lee briefly documents in the last chapter, also points to the increase in higher education options within Malaysia for the Chinese-educated community. An even more successful story of the Chinese schools in Malaysia might soon emerge with the rise of the People’s Republic of China and the desire of neighbouring nations to capitalize on it.
Christine Chan Li Hui has recently submitted an honours thesis entitled “TK-SD Kuncup Melati: An Indonesian Chinese Institution’s Adaptation, 1950-2010” to the history department of the National University of Singapore, in which she will begin study toward a master’s degree later this year.
Malaysia's UMNO Keeps a Scandal-Plagued Pol
Opposition will milk this one dry
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak apparently is having considerable trouble persuading Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the minister for women, family and community development and the source of a controversy over alleged misuse of public funds, to quit the United Malays National Organization.
It was announced three weeks ago that Shahrizat, who also serves as the head of Wanita Umno, the women’s wing of the party, would step down from the ministry when her term ends on April 8 as a result of what has become known as the Cowgate scandal. Her husband, Mohamed Salleh Ismail, and other members of the family have been accused of misusing a major portion of a RM250 million soft loan from the government to establish the National Feedlot Corporation, to slaughter cattle under Islamic dietary rules.
Mohamed Salleh Ismail has been charged with criminal breach of trust and violating the Companies Act in relation to allegations of misuse of RM49 million of the funds given to the company. According to a report by Malaysia’s Auditor General, the money was steered into the purchase of things that had nothing to do with the project to slaughter 60,000 cattle annually. The Auditor General found that the project had never come remotely close to meeting its goals. Subsequent allegations have involved the purchase of condominiums in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, travel for the family, a Mercedes-Benz sedan for Shahrizat and other items.
Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad reportedly has repeatedly told party leaders Shahrizat must go, party insiders say, and her main protector, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, is also said to be backing away from supporting her.
“Dr M wants her out and his people have told me so,” a source told Asia Sentinel. “So does Muhyiddin who is distancing himself from her. So she is quite alone.”
However, political bloggers in Kuala Lumpur say Shahrizat apparently has demanded successfully that she stay as a member of parliament, and to keep her job as head of Wanita as well.
“It’s common knowledge that the PM doesn’t dare sacrifice Shahrizat or hold her accountable or even ask her to quit her Wanita post because he doesn’t dare take the chance of a revolt within Wanita Umno so close to the elections,” the source said. “Knowing Malaysian and Malay politics, I can see his dilemma.”
Shahrizat, the source continued, remains popular with the women’s wing of the party “and Wanita Umno are the biggest vote getters for Umno and Barisan Nasional. During campaigning, they are very effective, going house-to-house, using the soft touch to win hearts, giving away sarongs and gifts and so on. It’s easier for a woman to enter an opposition stronghold than for men and that’s where Wanita Umno’s usefulness is to Umno and the Barisan.”
Despite the fallout over the National Feedlot scandal, the current administration has tried to distance Shahrizat from the NFC, saying she was wasn’t involved with what her husband and children were doing.
“That argument has failed to convince the general public but as far as Wanita Umno - the majority at least -- are concerned, they buy this argument and are actually trying to sell this same argument to others,” the source continued. “In any developed democracy, there is also the acceptance of the principles of accountability and integrity,” a source said. “In Malaysia, sadly, we hardly see any public official being accountable for numerous scandals which take place under their watch.”
That leaves Najib with a bigger dilemma. The opposition Pakatan Rakyat, throughout the five months since the scandal broke, has continued to drip out a steady stream of new revelations about the cattle feeding scheme, apparently provided by company and government insiders. While the prime minister may believe it crucial to keep Wanita Umno mollified, the public perception of the scandal is that Umno leaders passed a project that was basically unneeded – because there were plenty of abattoirs in Malaysia before they put up the RP250 million – and that the funds were passed on to an Umno stalwart who managed to squander them on luxuries and properties that had nothing to do with raising and butchering cattle. Najib’s gamble is thus that Wanita Umno can continue to generate enough votes to push the Barisan Nasional over the top.
“Najib (and Umno) are of course criticized all around for Shahrizat staying as women’s head,” an opposition figure said in an email interview. “Personally, I would prefer to see her remain in both the cabinet and Wanita Umno so that the opposition has a living target to hit at in campaigns.”
Snap elections are expected to be called relatively soon, either in May or June according to the conventional wisdom. Although Najib’s personal popularity has risen considerably from its low point after the government cracked down on peaceful marchers demanding electoral reform last July, UMNO remains in the doldrums, mired in scandals and perceived as a party of rent-seekers living off government-linked companies and preferential contracts.
“Given the current PM’s fear of doing badly in the elections and his fear of antagonizing the women’s wing, it is not out of character for him to accommodate Shahrizat on what in developed democracies would hold true – that she is innocent until found guilty,” the source said.
Indeed, a lawyer close to UMNO said, “Shahrizat has resigned as Minister and although Tun Mahathir and perhaps many Umno leaders and members would like to see her quit as Wanita Umno head as well, perhaps Najib has made a strategic call that she can stay. After all, elections are too near. I don't know about Shahrizat standing for elections but we must remember she is not part of NFC and hasn't been charged with any crime. Perhaps if she does get a seat it may just be fair play by Najib, leaving it to voters to decide her fate. And so will Wanita Umno in our own elections after the general election.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)