PEGUAM BELA CADANG RAJA PETRA DAN BALA JADI SAKSI - malayau

SHAH ALAM 31 Okt. - Peguam Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin yang mewakili Koperal Sirul Azhar Umar memaklumkan kepada Mahkamah Tinggi di sini bahawa pihaknya bercadang memanggil pengendali laman blog Malaysia Today, Raja Petra Kamarudin yang kini ditahan di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) sebagai saksi.

Beliau memaklumkan perkara tersebut ketika Hakim Datuk Mohd. Zaki Md. Yasin bertanya siapakah saksi-saksi yang akan dipanggil oleh pembelaan.

Menurutnya, beliau mencadangkan Raja Petra sebagai saksi berikutan dia pernah membuat akuan bersumpah membabitkan kes bunuh wanita Mongolia, Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Selain Raja Petra, peguam tersebut berkata, pihaknya turut bercadang memanggil semula penyiasat persendirian, P. Balasubramaniam sebagai saksi tetapi tidak pasti sama ada boleh berbuat demikian kerana beliau tidak tahu di mana lelaki itu kini berada.

Balasubramaniam menghilangkan diri selepas menarik balik akuan bersumpah yang diikrarkannya berhubung kes bunuh Altantuya.

kah kah kah…. raja petra?…. kah kah kah…. balasubramaniam?..... kah kah kah….

ini teater…. ini sandiwara… kah kah kah tujuan untuk nak sedap hati rakyat kah kah kah...

jangan orang ramai marah pada mat mongol kerana razak bebas…. kah kah kah….

kenapa sekarang baru nak bawa?.... kah kah kah…. bila lanun besar dah lepas?….kah kah kah…

napa tak panggil bala jadi saksi dulu lagi... kah kah kah… kan bala kata najib entot entot altantuya… kah kah kah…. kan bala kata razak dapat entot entot lepas najib…. kah kah kah…

pdrm nak minta interpol tolong cari bala… apa cerita? …. kah kah kah… sampai kiamat tak jumpa…. kah kah kah…tanya bik mama mana bala…. kah kah kah

raja petra pun TIDAK akan di panggil…. PERCAYALAH ….. ini sandiwara….mesti hakim kata tak jumpa raja petra.... tak tahu mana rumah raja petra....kah kah kah

bala?.... kah kah kah.... lagi tak tahu.... kah kah kah

Zaid Ibrahim resigns as senator

By Elizabeth Looi
elizabethlooi@thenutgraph.com

KUALA LUMPUR, 31 Oct 2008: Former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has resigned his position as senator.

Zaid, in announcing this at the start of his speech today at the Lawasia 2008 Conference here, said he had been asked to resign by the government.

"I was asked to resign as senator after I stepped down as minister. So I thought it was only appropriate for me to quit as senator as well," he said.

When contacted later, Zaid, a lawyer by training, said he submitted his letter of resignation two weeks ago.

He had previously stated his intention to continue as a senator and keep pushing for law reforms. In a Bernama report on 17 Sept, Zaid said he would apply the necessary expertise and experience he had gained in the legal arena to carry out changes to the country's judiciary.

Zaid, a former member of parliament (MP) for Kota Baru, did not contest in the 8 March 2008 general election.

But he was appointed a senator by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on 18 March and made minister in the prime minister's department, in charge of legal affairs and the judiciary.

During his tenure, he tried to spearhead judicial reform, but found little support among his colleagues in the cabinet.

He resigned as minister on 15 Sept over the use of the Internal Security Act (ISA) to detain blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, Seputeh MP Teresa Kok and Sin Chew Daily reporter Tan Hoon Cheng on 12 Sept.

Kok and Tan were later released

Pesanan Hishamuddin Rais kepada Che Det dan UMNO

STATISTIK EKUITI DAN BUMIPUTERA TIADA MAKNA

Tian Chua MP dan Hishamuddin Rais

Pembohongan ada pelbagai bentuk. Ada orang yang membuat janji tetapi tidak ditunaikan. Ada parti politik yang membuat manifesto pilihanraya tetapi sesudah menang dan berkuasa manifesto ini dilupakan. Ada menteri yang berjanji akan telus tetapi apabila berkuasa menjadi kukubesi. Ada menteri yang berjanji menentang nepotisma tetapi apabila berkuasa yang diutamakan ialah kaum keluarga. Semua ini pembohongan yang kita semua tahu, sedar dan faham.

Ada lagi satu pembohongan yang namanya – Statistik. Malah statistik adalah pembohong yang paling tersusun lagi licik lengok jalannya. Saya tidak pernah percaya kepada statistik. Saya menolak statistik sebagai patukan untuk dijadikan rujukan. Ini kerana selama ini saya melihat bahawa statistik ini boleh dimanipulasi dan ditunggang terbalikan. Statistik juga dijadikan senjata untuk mengolah pandangan orang ramai.

Mari kita lihat kes statistik tentang pencapaian ekonomi Bumiputera yang terus dihebohkan. Kes statistik ini menjadi heboh dan sengaja diheboh-hebohkan untuk tujuan mendapat sokongan politik. Mula-mula keluar satu angka statistik mengatakan bahawa Dasar Ekonomi Baru telah berjaya mencapai matlamat. Bumiputera sudah memiliki 45% ekuiti ekonomi negara ini.

Kemudian, satu lagi statistik yang mengatakan Dasar Ekonomi Baru belum berjaya. Bumiputera hanya memiliki hampir 19% sahaja. Kemudian satu lagi angka statistik keluar – bukan yang ini dan bukan yang itu – tetapi dipaparkan satu angka baru. Tiga angka statistik dimunculkan kepada umum. Membingongkan ? Tidak. Lupakan sahaja kerana ketiga-tiga angka ini tidak memiliki apa-apa untuk kita semua.

Saya tidak peduli sama ada Bumiputera memiliki 50%, 60% atau 100% ekuiti ekonomi negara ini. Angka-angka ini tidak memberi apa-apa makna kepada saya. Hujah saya menolak angka statistik ini cukup senang. Statistik ini hanyalah satu ‘omong kosong’. Statistik adalah angka-angka yang dikumpul tetapi dalam kehidupan harian kita ianya tidak bermakna.

Kalaupun Bumiputera memiliki 70% atau 90% ekuiti ekonomi negara ini, untuk rakyat seperti kita, ianya tidak akan mendatangkan apa-apa perubahan yang hakiki. Kalau kita Bumiputera naik bas tambangnya sama dengan yang Bukan Bumiputera, beli sayur harganya sama, bil lektrik, bil air dan harga top-up pun sama. Setiap bulan sewa bilik harganya sama. Di hujung tahun kos kehidupan bertambah – Bumiputera atau Bukan Bumiputera. Pemilikan ekonomi Bumiputera ini tidak ada sangkut paut dengan kehidupan harian kita, walaupun kita Bumiputera.

Katakanlah Bumiputera dalam negara ini telah memiliki 50% dari jumlah ekuiti ekonomi negara. Saya cukup yakin 50% ekonomi ini tidak akan dimiliki oleh semua Bumiputera. Jumlah 50% ekonomi negara ini mungkin dimiliki oleh 10 orang, 20 orang, 200 atau 200,000 orang Bumiputera. Apa yang terjadi kepada 16 juta Bumiputera yang lain? Mereka juga Bumiputera dan apabila statistik ini dirangka kewujudaan mereka juga dihitung sama. Jelas disini statistik ini tidak memiliki apa-apa makna.

Dalam ekonomi kapitalis, setiap individu dan warga diberi kebebasan untuk memiliki sebanyak mana kekayaan. Dalam ekonomi kapitalis disediakan ruang dan galakan untuk warga mencari dan mengumpul kekayaan. Jika kita faham ini maka bermakna kita semua sebagai warga akan mendapat peluang yang sama. Salah. Kita TIDAK akan memiliki peluang yang sama dalam ekonomi kapitalis. Peluang ini tidak wujud untuk kita yang tidak memiliki modal. Hanya mereka yang memiliki modal sahaja yang akan dapat mempergunakan peluang itu.

Bagitu juga dalam hal Dasar Ekonomi Baru ini. DEB ini telah menobatkan bahawa setiap Bumiputera di Malaysia berhak untuk memiliki 30% ekuiti ekonomi negara. Ini dongeng. Ini juga statistik. Mak Jah dari Felda Taib Andak yang memohon untuk mendapat projek membuat Istana Negara yang berharga 400 juta ringgit itu tidak akan mendapat melawan Maya Maju Sdn.Bhd. Mak Jah dan syarikat Maya Maju ini sama , mereka berstatus Bumiputera. Tetapi hakikatnya adalah berlainan. Ada hukum-hukum dan syarat-syarat lain yang TIDAK bertulis. Bumiputera ini hanya satu dongeng sama seperti statistik. Ianya tidak memiliki apa-apa makna yang hakiki.

Heboh-heboh statistik baru-baru ini bertujuan untuk mengolah persetujuan rakyat terutama Bumiputera untuk terus menyokong DEB. Dan terus menyokong gerombolan United Malays National Organisation. Amat jelas dari heboh-heboh ini ada dua pembohongan. Bohong pertama statistik. Bohong kedua ialah Bumiputera. Dua pembohongan ikat berikat.

Saya sedar ramai yang terpengaruh dengan pembohongan ini. Di sini saya ingin menerangkan terutama yang menganggap diri mereka Bumiputera. Saya harap mereka sedar bahawa konsep Bumiputera itu tidak ada apa-apa makna. Konsep ini juga sama dengan peratus statistik pencapaian ekuiti ekonomi Bumiputera - kedua-dua hanyalah ‘dondang sayang’ yang kedengaran tetapi tidak dapat dimasukkan ke dalam saku.

Selama 30 tahun ini bunyi perkataan Bumiputera telah dijadikan kempen oleh gerombolan United Malays National Organisation untuk mengumpul sokongan terutama dari orang Melayu. Rasa saya, manusia Bumiputera ini telah lama berdongeng bukan kerana ganja tetapi kerana mendengar bunyi dan statistik Bumiputera. Masanya telah sampai untuk kita bangun dari terus berdongeng dan berkhayal. Sila lihat disekeliling dan perhatikan apa yang sedang berlaku.

Ini bukan labun atau kempen politik kosong agar saya mendapat menjadi YB. Kalau tidak percaya apa yang saya tulis ini, sila pergi lawat Kampung Chubadak dekat Sentul di mana tanah yang di teroka oleh Bumiputera berpuluh-puluh tahun dahulu akan dirampas oleh pemaju… opps saya tidak jelas pemaju jenis mana – mungkin Bumiputera atau mungkin dari Nigeria atau mungkin dari gerombolan United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) yang buat ‘joint venture’ dengan gerombolan Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA).

Atau sila pergi ke Kampung Berembang di belakang Jalan Ampang – tidak jauh dari KLCC opps…maaf kerana nama ini nama Mat Saleh. Lihat di mana rumah-rumah Bumiputera telah dibumikan. Atau ke Plentong di Johor Bahru. Lihat bumiputera anak beranak ini sedang tidur di atas bumi. Ini bukan statistik. Ini adalah manusia hidup yang boleh kita pegang dan lawan bercakap. Mereka inilah yang tidak termasuk dalam kajian dari pakar-pakar statistik yang asli mahupun dari pakar-pakar statistik ‘cap ayam’.(tt)—Hishamuddin Rais

'Black eye' probe completed, says ACA

The Anti-Corruption Agency, which has been tasked to probe the black-eye incident involving Anwar Ibrahim 10 years ago, has wrapped up the investigation.

MCPX

According to Bernama, ACA chief Ahmad Said Hamdan said the agency’s prosecution department is currently studying the investigation papers.

Ahmad Said added that it was up to the agency’s prosecution department to decide when the findings of the investigation can be made public.

Anwar has accused attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and police chief Musa Hassan of manipulating evidence in an investigation into an alleged beating he received while in police custody a decade ago.

Anwar, then deputy prime minister, was arrested in 1998 and later jailed for sodomy and corruption. The sex conviction was later overturned.

In June this year, Anwar revived the black-eye controversy by filing a police report against Abdul Gani and Musa, alleging the two men of fabricating evidence over the beating.

The government subsequently ordered a probe.

Last month, DAP leader Lim Kit Siang told Parliament that the findings of the black-eye probe by solicitor-general Idrus Harun had "implicated" Abdul Gani.

"I have come to know that the solicitor-general found the AG guilty of abusing his power to fabricate evidence against Permatang Pauh (Anwar) and Gani should resign now," he said.

Probe done by ACA, not AG’s Chambers

However, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohamed Nazri Aziz denied that the investigation had been completed.

He said the probe was being handled by the ACA and not by the solicitor-general - the No 2 man in the Attorney-General’s Chambers. It would be improper for the Idrus to be investigating his boss, said Nazri.

Musa has since filed a defamation suit against Anwar over the allegations.

Former police chief Abdul Rahim Nor had in 2005 publicly apologised to Anwar for assaulting him in 1998 while in police custody.

His apology was part of an out-of-court settlement whereby Anwar agreed to withdraw the suit in return for an open apology and an unspecified sum in compensation.

Meanwhile, a retired senior police officer who probed the infamous ‘black eye’ incident has recently made startling claims that Abdul Gani (far left in photo) had tampered with evidence in the case.

Mat Zain Ibrahim, who had led the investigation team, made his revelations in a 18-page statement of claim in a RM30 million defamation suit that he filed against Anwar.

Altantuya murder trial: Defence to call Bala and RPK

(The Sun) SHAH ALAM: It looks like the Altantuya murder trial may well generate more heat on Nov 10.

Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar's lawyer Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin said they plan to summon two witnesses -- Abdul Razak Baginda's private investigator P. Balasubramaniam (who had gone missing) and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin, who is currently under Internal Security Act detention.

Kamarul said he will write to the Home Minister to allow Raja Petra to be called up as a witness. As for the P.I., he did not say how he would reach him.

“I will be looking into the two statutory declarations made by Balasubramaniam and one by Raja Petra and check on their authenticity,” he added.

The first declaration by the P.I. had made sensational accusations, including that deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak had a relationship with the late Altantuya Shaariibuu. This was revealed at a press conference with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

However, just as sensationally, he made another declaration to retract that particular accusation. After that, he and his family disappeared from their Rawang home, and have not been seen since.

Azilah’s lawyer Datuk Hazman Ahmad said they plan to call four witnesses to take the stand, including DSP Musa Safri, Azilah’s fiancée Norazila
Baharuddin, one Sjn Idris, one Sjn Shamlin and Sub Inspector Megat.

He said his client was disappointed with the decision but rated Azilah’s chances as 50/50. Azilah’s fiancée Norazila Baharuddin was teary eyed and sombre.

She declined to take questions from reporters. Also present was Azilah’s girlfriend Rohaniza Roslan who was also a witness in the trial and other family members.

Abdul Razak’s lawyer Wong Kian Keong applied to hold watching brief during the defence hearing.

After the decision was delivered, Abdul Razak was flanked by daughter Rowena, wife Mazlinda Makhzan and his brother who shielded him from aggressive press photographers who trailed the family all the way to their car waiting at the entrance of the court.

Altantuya’s father Shaariibuu Setev said while he respected the court’s decision, he was not convinced of Abdul Razak’s innocence.

Translating for Shaariibuu, Mongolian Consulate in Malaysia Datuk Syed Abdul Rahman Al-Habshi said: “As far as he is concerned, his daughter knows only one man in Malaysia and that is Razak Baginda. However, he has been set free while the two policemen whom she does not know have to put in their defence.”

Shaariibuu said he would consult the Mongolian Justice Department before deciding on his next course of action.

Anwar's sodomy case: Nov 7 decision on validity of certificate of transfer

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 31 - The Sessions Court here will decide on Nov 7 the validity of the certificate to transfer to the High Court the sodomy case involving Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Sessions Court Judge S.M Komathy set the date after hearing submissions from both the prosecution and defence.

The decision on the validity of the certificate is crucial as it will determine whether the case can be transferred to the High Court for trial.

Anwar had opposed the prosecution's bid to transfer the case to the High Court by questioning the validity of the transfer certificate signed by Attorney General (AG) Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

Gani is still under probe by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) following a police report lodged against him by Anwar over fabrication of evidence in the investigation of the "black-eye" incident when Anwar was arrested in 1998.

Anwar, 61, is facing trial for voluntarily committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature with a former aide, 23-year-old Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan, at Unit 11-5-1, Desa Damansara Condominium, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26.

If convicted, he will face imprisonment of up to 20 years under Section 377B of the Penal Code. Presently, he is on bail on a personal bond of RM20,000.

In today's proceedings, Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Mohamed Yusof Zainal Abiden said that Gani had the power to sign the certificate as he was performing an administrative function and exercising his discretionary power conferred upon him personally by law under Section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

"Hence, notwithstanding any imputation of bias and in order not to stultify the efficacy of the law, the statutory provisions would have abrogated the allegation and exclude bias," he said.

Yusof contended that there was no suggestion by the counsel representing Anwar that the AG had offended against the principles governing exercise of discretionary power as there was no imputation cast upon him that he had done anything forbidden by the law in the issuance of the said certificate.

On the contention by Anwar that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his statement which reported by the media, had guaranteed that Gani would not be involved in this case, Yusof said the authority or discretion to institute a prosecution and all other powers incidental to it, is vested with the AG by virtue of Articles 145(3) and 145(3A) of the Federal Constitution.

He said any promise with regard to the prosecution or anything incidental to it can only be made by the AG and not the prime minister.

"Surely, the prime minister could not be seen to be making promise on behalf of a competent authority which is given the exclusive discretion under the Federal Constitution with regard to prosecution or any matter incidental thereto," he said.

On the other hand, Anwar's lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah argued that there was no reason to suggest that the Sessions Court was less competent or could not or lack jurisdiction to hear a public interest case.

Sulaiman said the contention that the reasons why this case should be heard in the High Court, among others that it was of public interest and it involved complicated laws of DNA evidence, were spurious and should not be entertained.

"It is an affront to our justice system and would offend any right minded thinking person...Are the prosecution implying that the Sessions Court, which has heard over thousands of sexual assault cases throughout the country over the years, is suddenly by reason of the personality of the accused inept and incompetent?" he contended.

- Bernama

Zaid: Ketuanan Melayu has failed

The 'Ketuanan Melayu' model has failed, declared former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim in an incisive speech at the LawAsia 2008 conference in Kuala Lumpur this morning.

MCPX

"It has resulted in waste of crucial resources, energy and time and has distracted from the real issues confronting the country," said Zaid, who criticised the race-based policy despite being a member of the ruling Umno party which was set up to safeguard Malay interests.

Zaid also noted that 'deputy premier in waiting' Muhyiddin Yassin had suggested the need for a closed-door forum for leaders of the Barisan Nasional (BN) to develop a common stand, a renewed national consensus grounded on the social contract.

"This is positive step but it should include all political leaders and be premised on the
social contract that was the foundation of independence," said the lawyer by training who was made senator and subsequently minister entrusted with the task of reforming the judiciary by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi following the March 8 general election.

He quit last month in protest against the arrest of three individuals under the Internal Security Act (ISA) which provides for detention without trial.

Zaid said March 8 was a clear indicator that the ruling BN coalition no longer exclusively speaks for the people.

He also underscored the importance of promoting discourse and dialogue so that Malaysians learn to talk and to listen to one another again.

"Communication and trust amongst the people must be re-established," he said.

The former minister called on the BN government to abandon its 'reworked' concept of the social contract and embrace a fresh perspective borne out of discussions and agreements made in good faith with all the communities.

"It is time for us all to practise a more transparent and egalitarian form of democracy and to recognise and respect the rights and dignity of all the citizens of this country."

Mukhriz singled out for criticism

Singling out Mukhriz Mahathir for criticism, Zaid said the Umno Youth chief aspirant typifies what is perceived as the kind of Umno leader who appeals to the right-wing of Malay polity.

Zaid also referred to the recent remarks made by the son of former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad that there was no need for law and judicial reforms as it would not benefit the Malays,

"That he may be right is sad as it leads to the ossification of values that will only work against the interests of the party and the nation," Zaid lamented in his 16-page speech.

"This type of thinking may pave the way to a suggestion in the future that we may as well do away with general elections altogether as they may not be good for the Malays for, if the justice that a revitalised rule of law would allow for is not to the benefit of the Malays, what is? More inefficiency, more corruption and a more authoritarian style of government perhaps.

"We are a deeply divided nation, adrift for our having abandoned democratic traditions and the rule of law in favour of a political ideology that serves no one save those who rule."

According to Zaid, the obsession with the Ketuanan Melayu doctrine has destroyed something precious in Malaysians.

"It makes us lose our sense of balance and fairness. When a certain Chinese lady was appointed head of a state development corporation, having served in that corporation for 33 years, there were protests from Malay groups because she is Chinese," he said referring to the controversy involving the appointment of Low Siew Moi as acting head of the Selangor Development Cooperation (PKNS).

"A new economic vision is necessary, one that is more forward looking in outlook and guided by positive values that would serve to enhance cooperation amongst the races. This will encourage change for the better, to develop new forms of behaviour and shifts of attitudes, to believe that only economic growth will serve social equity, to aspire to a higher standard of living for all regardless of race.

"We need to meaningfully acknowledge that wealth is based on insight, sophisticated human capital and attitude change. A new dynamics focused on cooperation and competition will spur innovation and creativity.

"Some might say that this is a fantasy. I disagree. How do we go about transforming the culture and values of the bumiputeras so that their ability to create new economic wealth can be sustained?

"By changing our political and legal landscapes with freedom and democracy."

On that note, Zaid said Mahathir was right to have asked the Malays to embrace modernity but the 82-year-old statesman fell short by only focusing on the physical aspects of modernity.

"He was mistaken to think all that was needed to change the Malay mindset was science and technology. He should have also promoted the values of freedom, human rights and the respect of the law.

"If affirmative action is truly benchmarked on the equitable sharing of wealth that is sustainable, then we must confront the truth and change our political paradigm, 40 years of discrimination and subsidy have not brought us closer. There is a huge economic dimension to the rule of law and democracy that this government must learn to appreciate."

Conflicts of jurisdiction require resolution

Zaid conceded that relationship between Islam, the state, law and politics in Malaysia is complex.

"How do we manage legal pluralism in Malaysia? Can a cohesive united Bangsa Malaysia be built on a bifurcated foundation of Syariah and secular principles? Will non-Muslims have a say on the operation of Islamic law when it affects the general character and experience of the nation? This is a difficult challenge and the solution has to be found."

He quoted leading Muslim legal scholar Abdullah Ahmad an-Na'im who believed that a distinction should be made between state and politics.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, he noted, believes that Islam can be the mediating instrument between state and politics through the principles and institutions of constitutionalism and the protection of equal human rights of all citizens.

"Whatever the formula, we can only devise a system that rejects absolutism and tyranny and allows for freedom and plurality if we are able to first agree that discourse and dialogue is vital. Democracy and respect for the rights and dignity of all Malaysians is the prerequisite to this approach."

Zaid stressed that the conflicts of jurisdiction in Malaysia require resolution.

The civil courts, he said, are "denuded of jurisdiction" to deal with matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Syariah court.

"No court has been given the jurisdiction and power to resolve issues that may arise in both the Syariah courts and the civil courts. The present separation of jurisdictions presupposes that
matters will fall nicely into one jurisdiction or the other.

However, human affairs are never that neat. What happens to the children of a marriage where one party converts to Islam and the other party seeks recourse in the civil court? Or when the Syariah Court pronounces that a deceased person was a Muslim despite his family contesting the conversion?

"Or where the receiver of a company is restrained from dealing with a property by a Syariah Court order arising out of a family dispute?

Where do the aggrieved parties go? I had suggested the establishment of the constitutional court, but that plea has fallen on deaf ears."

Malays not under seige

The former minister had also touched on the use of draconian measures, which according to him have seen a marked increase in dealing with political and social tensions.

"Some people say that groups such as Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force) advocate violence and therefore this justifies the use of such measures. They may have overlooked the fact that
violence begets violence.

"Was not the detention of Hindraf leaders under the ISA itself an act of aggression, especially to people who consider themselves marginalised and without recourse?

"It is time that the people running this country realise that we will not be able to resolve conflicts and differences peacefully if we ourselves do not value peaceful means in dealing with problems."

Zaid argued that the situation had been aggravated by the absence of an even-handed approach in dealing with organisations such as Hindraf.

"While I applaud the prime minister for calling upon the Indian community to reject extremism, should not a similar call be made on the Malay community and (Malay daily) Utusan Malaysia?

I call on the prime minister, both the outgoing and the incoming, to deal with such issues fairly. Start by releasing the Hindraf leaders detained under the ISA. The release would create a window for constructive dialogue on underlying causes of resentment.

"I also appeal for the release of (Malaysia Today editor) Raja Petra (Kamarudin) from ISA detention. He is a champion of free speech. His writings, no matter how offensive they may be to some, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as a threat to the national security of this country."

The Malays, Zaid said, are now a clear majority in numbers and the fear of their being outnumbered is baseless.

"They are not under seige. The institutions of government are such that the Malays are effectively represented, and there is no way the interest of the Malays can be taken away other than through their own weakness and folly."

Theology Versus Secularism

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It appears like the Turkish Prime Minister is in trouble with Turkey’s court. They have accused him of being anti-secular, which is a crime in Turkey. They say the Prime Minister want to abolish or remove the anti-tudung law, which means Turkey’s citizens will no longer be forced NOT to wear the tudung. If you remember, recently, a Turkish lady Member of Parliament was evicted from parliament for insisting that she wear her tudung in the building. University student too must remove their tudung before they enter the university gate.

Turkey is on the other extreme of Afghanistan where the “religious police” would throw acid on faces of women who do not wear the tudung.

Malaysia of 2008 is a far cry from Malaysia of 1958, the first Anniversary of Merdeka. Then, skirts and bare-backs were the order of the day and the tudung was a rare thing at best, the more “decent” Malay women would wear a selendang wit the front hair revealed. Today, women who wear bare-back clothes are arrested.

What happened over those 50 years? Have Malays become more religious and more conscious of their Islamic duties? Over the last month, three women have been charged for corruption and fraud. All are pretty senior Malay government officers. And all wear the tudung. So, the wearing of the tudung can’t be equated with being more religious or being a better Muslim. If not, they would not accept bribes or cheat. Wearing the tudung is merely a symbol. It is a symbol that you are very Islamic. But this does not mean you really are.

Malays, today, talk about restoring the Caliphate and implementing Islamic laws. In short, rejecting a Secular State in favour of a Theology State – meaning an Islamic State of course. But do these some people know what an Islamic State is? And do these people also know how the many experiments of Islamic States have gone horribly wrong and the new “Islamic” government was worse than the old government it replaced?

In a nutshell a Secular State or Theology State is just a name. Names are not crucial. What is would be the function rather than form. Form must follow functions, and not the other way round.

Let us examine some of the failed experiments. Some predominantly Muslim countries have flirted with the idea of changing their government and have discovered that the newly installed Muslim leaders were no better, or worse, that the “kafir” leaders. Millions have died because of this, Muslims killed at the hand of Muslims.

Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Pakistan, Serbia, Gratis, Syria, Bosnia – just think of any country where either Muslims, Christians or Jews make up the majority population and I will show you a tragedy. No, theology is not the answer. We can’t solve problems by replacing a Secular State with a Theology State. History has shown us that, in fact, more damage is caused. The system is not the solution. It is those behind the system that matter.

A year after the end of the Second World War the Algerians wanted the French Colonialists out of their country. The eight-year war led to the loss of more than a million lives. Both sides wee equally guilty of the barbaric killings where old folks, babies and women were not spared. Finally, in 1962, the French decided to go home. But until today the killings continue; except now it is not Muslims killing Christians but Islamists killing Secularists – and vice versa.

The Turks too wanted the kafir out, so millions of Armenians were massacred. The Kurds were the willing servants to rape and murder the Armenians. This was ethic cleansing of the kind perpetuated by the Germans during World War 2; though maybe only a quarter in number died compared to the Jews.

Later the Kurds were themselves exterminated by the Iraqis and Turks. And the same went for the Afghans where they first killed each other to establish an Islamic State and then the Islamic State killed off as many as the previous “kafir” state did. In Iran, too, more died in the new Islamic State than in the Shah’s “kafir” state.

An Islamic State is no guarantee that you would get a good government. Neither would a Secular State. So it is best that the rhetoric and setting up an Islamic State be discarded and instead we focus on the issue of the setting up of a just state of whatever kind.

We have seen too many deaths over the last 60 years, people killed in the name of Islam. Tens of millions have been killed. Two million in Afghanistan. One million in Iran. One million in Iraq. One million in Turkey. More than one million in Algeria. Many more millions in other Muslim countries. The list goes on.

The Iranians say: those Iranians who died fighting Iraqis are going to heaven as the Iraqis are “kafir”. The Iraqis say: those Iraqis who died fighting Iranians are going to heaven as the Iranians are “kafir”. So, both Iranians and Iraqis are “kafir”. Or is it both Iranians and Iraqis who kill each other are going to heaven since both kill and die in the name of Islam?

With all this killing and the tens of millions of deaths over the last 60 years, all the so-called “Islamic States” are nothing short of failed states whereas “God-less” states like Sweden are heaven on earth.

Maybe you need to choose an Islamic State to go to heaven. But thus far all the Islamic States have proven to be hell. Maybe this is because they talk more about life after death rather than about life itself.

READ ALSO: Turkish court says PM involved in anti-secularism

Race And Islam

By Farish A. Noor

It is odd, to say the least, that after more than fourteen centuries there remain some people who claim to be Muslims but who still have not internalised the universal values of Islam. Odder still that there remain those who on the one hand can embrace Islam’s universal claim of brotherhood (and sisterhood), but still cannot get around to understanding the simple idea that Islam and racism do not mix.

Evidence of such discrepancies can be found pretty much everywhere these days: It has, sadly, become the normative cultural norm in so many Muslim societies today that those who are fair are better off and given the privileges that they feel is the natural right of all light-skinned people. It is also interesting to note that Muslims tend to rejoice whenever a white American or European converts to Islam, but seem less enthusiastic in their recognition of the fact that thousands of Africans and Asians are converting to Islam every year.

Furthermore when it comes to governance and politics, it remains painfully clear that some Muslims still place blood and race above competency and merit till today; and that despite their profession of faith they remain embedded in the stagnant mode of racialised thinking that operates on the basis that some races are better than others.

One such case has popped up recently in multi-culti Malaysia, where a row was sparked off by the nomination of a Chinese woman – Low Siew Moi – as the head of a state institution linked to the economic management and development of the state of Selangor, the PKNS. Despite the fact that Low Siew Moi was selected by the Chief Minister of the state, Tan Sri Khalid, on the basis of merit; some quarters chose to publicly disagree with her appointment on the grounds that the Malay-Muslims of the state would object to the appointment. But objection on what grounds? On the basis that she is a Chinese woman?

Here the already convoluted waters of Malaysia’s racialised politics turns a shade murkier; for among those who objected to the appointment of Low Siew Moi were some members of the Malaysian Islamic party PAS.

Malaysia’s politics has been defined by racial concerns and the communitarian demands of the various religious and ethnic groups of the country since its independence in 1957. Over the past three decades, however, the tone and tenor of the country’s conservative, right-wing ethno-nationalist politics was further coloured by the Islamisation race in the country with the Malaysian government attempting to further inculcate Islamic values into the norms of governance in Malaysia as well.

Ironically however, Malaysia’s Islamisation programme seems to be more concerned with book-banning, fatwas on social behaviour (including the recent revelation that there may be a fatwa on Yoga soon, wait for it), and moral policing instead. Where, the Islamic scholar may ask, were the universal values of Islam in the midst of all this social engineering? Did the leaders of Malaysia not realise, or forget, the simple idea that Islam is an egalitarian faith that is colour-blind; and that the concept of ‘race’ is an alien idea in Islam?

The dilemma that Malaysia is facing now is the same dilemma faced by many other Muslim societies where the defence and promotion of Islam often goes hand-in-hand with the defence and promotion of the communitarian interests of Muslims. In Malaysia’s case, where Muslims are overwhelmingly Malay, then this also translates as the defence of Malay interests – to the extent of propagating the ethno-nationalist idea of Malay cultural dominance as well. Now what on earth is Islamic about this?

Here is where orthodox Muslim scholarship has to come in and make its timely intervention: For it has to be remembered that the success of Islam and the success of Muslims are two entirely different things, that may also clash and negate each other at times. The victory of Islam, so to speak, has to be understood as the victory of universal values such as egalitarianism and equality before God. The victory of Muslims, on the other hand, may at times be understood as political victories that may or may not conform to the standards of Islamic ethics. The defeat of the Kuwaitis at the hands of Saddam Hussein, for instance, was a case of one Muslim state defeating another: but was this a victory for Islam? Likewise, when Muslims openly and abrasively demand special rights and privileges for themselves at the cost of equality and meritocracy, is this really a victory for Islam?

Those who have criticised and opposed the appointment of Low Siew Moi as the head of PKNS on the grounds that the job should have been given to a Malay-Muslim instead should therefore look closely at themselves and ask: What is it that you are fighting for? Malay-Muslim dominance or a better form of governance that is based on merit and equality? The Islamic scholar will remind you that the latter is Islamic, while the former is not.

In any case, for Muslims to even think in racialised communitarian terms is a misnomer of sorts as such modes of communitarian, sectarian thinking has no real place in Islamic orthodoxy and ethics. To quote Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, spiritual leader of the Malaysian Islamic Party PAS: ‘tell me, what race was Adam?’. ‘Nuff said I think.

LATEST: Razak Baginda acquitted

A happy and smiling Abdul Razak Baginda, accompanied by his wife (partly hidden), leaves the Shah Alam High Court soon after he was acquitted this morning on a charge of abetting in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu. Two policemen charged with him were ordered to enter their defence for the murder. – Picture by Choo Choy May

Sodomy trial transfer: Court hears objections from Anwar

PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim is back in court for his sodomy trial today.

MCPX

Sessions judge SM Komathy Suppiah is hearing arguments from both sides on whether the trial should not be transferred to the High Court as requested by the prosecution.

In the last sitting on Oct 7, Komathy had dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the prosecution that she had no jurisdiction to hear the defence team's argument against the transfer.

The prosecution, led by Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, had argued that the judge "had no choice" but to transfer the case to the higher court.

Komathy however ruled that she had the jurisdiction and allowed the defence team to make their submissions. Anwar's lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah continued his submissions this morning and this was followed by Mohd Yusof.

The court is not expected to make a decision on the matter today.

Anwar's objection to the transfer is due to the transfer certificate being signed by attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail.

This objection was on the basis that the AG should not have played any role in this case as he was being investigated following a complaint that he had allegedly tampered with evidence in Anwar's trials 10 years ago.

The defence lawyers based their objection on a statement made by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who assured that the AG would not be involved in the latest sodomy case.

Defence submits affidavit from Wan Azizah

This morning Sulaiman also tendered an affidavit by Anwar's wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail which stated that she was given an undertaking by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that the sodomy trial would be conducted in a proper manner.

In her affidavit, Wan Azizah said the premier gave her this assurance in response to her worries on the possible involvement of Abdul Gani and police chief Musa Hassan in the case.

She said that as a result of that assurance, she had a legitimate expectation on Abdul Gani's non-involvement in the case. She said she was disappointed when Abdul Gani had signed the transfer order.

Anwar had claimed trial on Aug 7 when charged with sodomising his former aide, 23-year-old Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

If convicted, he could face a 20-year jail term. He is currently out on a RM20,000 personal bond.

Abdul Razak Baginda acquitted

(malaysiakini)The Shah Alam High Court today acquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda of abetting the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.

MCPX

Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin ruled that the prosecution failed to prove a case against Abdul Razak.

"I find there is no prima facie case for him to answer his charge. He is therefore acquitted and discharged," said Mohd Zaki.

Abdul Razak, a close associate of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak had faced the death penalty by hanging if found guilty, of abetting the 2006 murder of his former lover Altantuya, whose body was blown up with explosives in a jungle clearing.

In one of the longest hearings in Malaysia's history, the court spent 151 days hearing testimony from 84 witnesses on whether Abdul Razak and two police officers accused of carrying out the murder should face trial.

The court however ordered chief inspector Azilah Hadri, 32 and corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 37, from the elite Special Action Force (UTK) which guards the prime minister and deputy prime minister -, to enter their defence to the charge of murder.

Both have decided to testify under oath and they will be taking the stand on Nov 10.

The prosecution is also expected to file an appeal against Abdul Razak's acquittal.

Deputy public prosecutor Tun Majid Tun Hamzah said the decision could be contested.

"We will consider appealing the decision. The battle is not over yet," he said.

On hearing that he could walk free, Abdul Razak, 48, hugged his wife and daughter from the dock while his elderly parents sat crying in the court.

"I just want to go home," he said as he was escorted out through a huge media scrum at abouit 10.10am.

Altantuya's father distraught over decision

Altantuya's father Setev Shaariibuu, who has repeatedly criticised the handling of the case, was distraught over the decision.

"I am not satisfied. My daughter knows only one Malaysian and it is Razak Baginda. Now my daughter is dead and Baginda is freed... the country has lost credibility in the world," he told reporters.

Karpal Singh, a lawyer representing Altantuya's family, said that based on the evidence Abdul Razak should have been called to defend the accusations.

"They should not have acquitted him at this stage of the trial," he said.

Najib, who is expected to be appointed premier next March when Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi stands down, has vehemently denied any involvement in the case.

Top blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin has repeatedly linked Najib and his wife to the murder on his popular website Malaysia Today. He was jailed in September under tough security laws for insulting Islam.

Abdullah last month defended his deputy over new allegations that Najib interfered in the case, after Malaysia Today published an SMS text message exchange purportedly between the deputy premier and Abdul Razak's lawyer.

Altantuya was allegedly shot before her body was blown up with explosives two years ago.

Azilah and Sirul are jointly charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, at a location between Lot 12843 and Lot 16735 in Mukim Bukit Raja, Selangor between 10am on Oct 19, 2006 and 1am the following day.

Abdul Razak was charged with abetting them. He is a known confidante of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, having worked on government arms procurement projects while the latter was defence minister.

Anwar wishes Abdul Razak well

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, during the lunch break in his sodomy trial case, said that he wished Abdul Razak well.

“At the personal and family level, I wish Razak well. He is now back with the family, but the issue here revolves around the court procedure and the investigation (into the murder).

“There is growing perception that the investigation was not done professionally. There is a clear motive to cover up (the murder), a lot of evidence was not adduce. The prosecution has failed to conduct the case professionally from the beginning, changes were (also) made to the court and the judge.

“Now that there is more allegations involving DPM Najib - the SMSes and (other) evidence the public has raised a number of times - this case clearly is bigger (than just Abdul Razak).”

Eurocopter scandal: No inspection done on choppers

Defence Deputy Minister Abu Seman Yusop received a beating from Pakatan Rakyat MPs today when he openly admitted that the multi-billion ringgit military helicopters did not undergo any physical inspection.

MCPX

Abu Seman, in his Budget 2009 winding-up speech, said the ministry’s technical committee had decided to buy 12 units of the Eurocopter Cougar EC 725 helicopters based on documents alone.

He also took pains to explain that the purchase of the helicopters had cost the government RM1.6 billion, instead of the RM1.1 billion figure given by the ministry’s secretary-general Abu Bakar Abdullah in a press statement last week.

His revelation sparked an uproar in the House and prompted several Pakatan Rakyat MPs, led by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, to grill him.

“How is it that a government procurement as big as this did not undergo any physical inspection? I have eight years of experience as finance minister and we have never make procurements without first inspecting (the items),” thundered Anwar.

M Manogaran (DAP-Teluk Intan) took a swipe at the deputy minister, saying that “even when you purchase something as small as a Perodua Kancil, you would want to inspect it first, what more when it is helicopters worth RM1.6 billion.”

Anwar said various aspects have to be taken into consideration like the safety of the pilots should there be any defects in the helicopters and it was absurd of the government not to make such deliberations when procuring the helicopters.

He demanded answers as to why conflicting figures have been cited on the cost of the helicopters.

Abu Seman then replied that it was a mistake on his part as he had overlooked the fact that the services charge and ‘offset package’ like supplementary military hardware had added RM500 million to the original RM1.1 billion to make it RM1.6 billion.

Set up Royal Commission

At a press conference later, Anwar said he could not accept the reasons given by Abu Seman although he believes that the deputy minister was only “reading the text provided to him by his superior” and was not involved in the matter.

“This is a shocking revelation by the deputy minister. A procurement this big without a physical inspection being done is swindling the people’s money par excellence.

“How can you allocate RM1.6 billion for something that you have never even seen or (when you don’t) know if it works or not.”

He said he could “vouch on behalf of the Malaysian army that they would definitely want to inspect the helicopters before purchasing it.”

Asked what he thought of all this, Anwar reiterated his demand for the government to set up a royal commission to probe the matter.

Earlier today, a decision on Anwar’s emergency motion to set up a royal commission to probe not just into the Eurocopter scandal but two other ‘mega-projects’ was deferred to Monday by the speaker.

A RM11.31 billion high-speed broadband project and the RM4.26 billion purchase of the Bank Internasional Indonesia by Maybank were the other projects Anwar had wanted to government to probe.

Raja Nazrin: Governments must not discriminate

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 - The Raja Muda of Perak Raja Nazrin Shah said today that governments should not set down discriminatory laws or policies but must ensure inclusive development through empowerment.

"No segment of society must be disrespected, discredited and disenfranchised," he said in his address at the 21st LawAsia Conference here.
He said that no single group in any country should feel their contributions are unrecognized or unwanted.

While the Perak Raja Muda did not specify what laws or which countries he was referring to, his remarks comes amid a roiling debate over the country's "social contract" and the government's pro-Bumiputera affirmative action policies.

His advice also comes on the heels of the recent statement by the Rulers Council calling on all parties to stop questioning the social contract between Malays and non-Malays as it would cause unease.

In his speech today, Raja Nazrin called for the abandonment of what he called "the silo mentality where we only look up at what is happening and not beside us at what others are experiencing."
He made a case instead for policies which empower through inclusiveness.

"Only with inclusive development through empowerment can societies become strong," he said.
The lack of empowerment, he said, would lead to a sense of alienation and hostility that could result in "rash acts of violence."
"We cannot morally turn our backs on the fundamental responsibility of ensuring that all stakeholders in our society, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, have a place under the sun."

Among the prerequisites cited by Raja Nazrin for empowerment was for governments to strengthen the rule of law and to ensure greater political participation for citizens as stakeholders.

"It is only when citizens are also stakeholders will there be the widest sense of ownership of problems and challenges," he said.

Najib: No time frame on dismantling NEP

By Debra Chong(themalaysianinsider)

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 - Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak appeared today to welcome debate on the proposed gradual dismantling of NEP-type policies but he would not set a time frame for the process.

Speaking to reporters in Parliament today, he, however, sidestepped a question on whether he thought his proposal would cost him support among the Malay grassroots.

Instead, he once again emphasized any move to dismantle elements of the affirmative action policies would be a gradual process.

Najib said it would happen at a time "when the Malays are comfortable enough to talk about it," and "as and when it is required."

The DPM had said in a recent interview on Bloomberg television that he was ready to gradually end elements of the affirmative action programme "in the not-too-distant future."

In the interview, he had pointed out that "if we do not change, the people will change us".

His remarks have sparked off a widespread debate with former PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad weighing in recently to say that the time was not the right time yet to end the Bumiputera policy, especially the target of 30 per cent equity in public listed companies.

But in recent days, leaders from Umno's coalition partner MCA have started applying pressure on the government by calling for a review of the 30% ruling, sparking unhappiness from some quarters in Umno.

Najib said today that he did not want to give a time frame for his proposal to be implemented, but he indicated that he welcomed debate on the issue.

"We should engage on this issue to ensure what is good for all communities," he said.

Long time Muslim yoga instructor expresses shock over UKM lecturer's statement

New Straits Times GEORGE TOWN, PENANG: A long-time yoga instructor has expressed shock and dismay over statement by a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) lecturer who said that practising yoga could cause Muslims to deviate from the teachings of Islam. Datin Suleiha Merican, 56, who has been practising yoga for 40 years, said the meditation technique is a science of health and had nothing to do with religion. "When we are strong in our faith, why would we want to deviate? The professor's statement is totally uncalled for," she said. Suleiha was commenting on Prof Zakaria Stapa's statement that yoga could be traced back to Hinduism and that practising it could cause Muslims to deviate from the teachings of Islam. Zakaria, who is from the Faculty of Islamic Studies, also urged Muslims who are practising yoga to stop it and return to the teachings of Islam. Suleiha said she still diligently performed prayers every day despite practising yoga. "There is no conflict at all as yoga is not religion-based. There is no problem. I would definitely encourage Muslims to practise yoga," she said. Suleiha said yoga was the answer to health problems, such as headaches and back pain. She noted that hospitals in the United Kingdom and United States offerred yoga as an alternative therapy. "Every part of the world I have gone to there are Muslims who practice yoga practitioners, for instance in Iran," she said. Suleiha, who runs the Maya Yoga Studio in Damansara Perdana, said yoga ran in the family as her father and her grandfather were also yoga instructors. It was reported that the national fatwa council is also expected to announce its stand on Muslims practising yoga soon. The Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (JAKIM) deputy director-general of operations, Othman Mustapha, was quoted as saying that an announcement on the decision would be made by the council soon.

Eurocopter deal - shameful episode in Parliament

Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Wira Abu Seman Yusof was literally grilled in Parliament for over two hours over the billion-ringgit 12 Cougar EC725 Europter helicopters deal as he was totally at sea and unable to answer the most elementary of questions, such as

(i) Why three sets of different figures for the 12 Cougar helicopter deal - RM1.1 billion given by Defence Ministry Secretary-General Datuk Abu Bakar Abdullah; RM1.67 billion given by the Prime Minister-cum-Defence Minister; and RM1.604 billion stated by Abu Seman Yusof in Parliament today;

(ii) Why no physical evaluation or test flights for the short-listed helicopters; or as I said in Parlaiment, getting Malaysia into the Guinness Book of Records as probably the only government in the world to order sophisticated and expensive aircrafts without any test flight although such physical evaluation for the short-listed tenderers was one of the conditions specified in the tender docunment.

Abu Seman was dumbstruck when asked both questions and was unable to give any sensible reply. It was a most shameful episode in Parliament.

It has to be left to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to try to immediately repair the damage created by the deputy Defence Minister by answering these two questions outside Parliament, as in the following report:

The Malaysian Insider
Thursday October 30 2008
PM admits price mistake, Najib says RMAF pilots tested Eurocopters at Lima

By Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi admitted he had made an error when he spoke of the package price of the much-disputed Eurocopter helicopter deal and which had caused an uproar among Opposition lawmakers in Parliament.

Abdullah who is also the Defence Minister said he was informed by officials in the Defence Ministry this morning on his slip.

The correct figure is RM1.604 billion, but he had thought it was RM1.67 billion and had rounded it up to RM1.7 billion.

“I apologise for my mistake,” he said.

Asked to respond to the opposition’s calls for him to explain the price discrepancy inside the Dewan Rakyat, Abdullah said it was unnecessary as he had already announced that the deal would be deferred to a later date.

He pointed out that the price would be renegotiated again as and when the government finally decides to purchase the helicopters.

“This is academic,” he said.

Speaking at the same press conference, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak also denied claims that no physical evaluation was conducted on Eurocopter aircraft.

Najib who until last month held the Minister of Defence portfolio emphasised that the Eurocopter EC725 Cougar was not a new or ‘experimental’ aircraft. He noted that many countries had tested it out, including in combat in Afghanistan.

He said that Royal Malaysian Air Force pilots had tested it in local flight at the Langkawi International Marine Aerospace (Lima) show previously.

Asked to comment on calls by the Opposition for an independent expert panel to evaluate the procurement process, Najib said: “They are making too much a big deal out of it.”

Anwar court case to be mentioned 31.10.2008

The charge against Anwar Ibrahim will be mentioned at Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court, Jalan Duta 31st October at 9:30am

Sessions Court judge SM Komathy Suppiah will deliver her decision tomorrow on whether the matter can be moved up to the High Court as applied by the prosecution.

Komathy had allowed Anwar to be released on a personal bond set at RM20,000 without surety after his defence lawyers pleaded for him to be released on personal bond under Section 388 (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code while the prosecution argued for bail to be set at RM20,000 on 7th August this year.

Earlier this month, Komathy dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the prosecution that she had no choice but to transfer the case to a higher court. Komathy then ruled to hear the merits of an objection raised by Anwar’s legal team against the transfer notice.

Office of Anwar Ibrahim

Article 121 (1A) (Must See this Clips)

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 3/Ch 1/3 :: Article 121 (1A)

Mahathir is back with a vengeance

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 — With a hit count reaching almost nine million in just one year, it would not be wrong to describe former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as Malaysia's most successful blogger.

His blog, chedet.com, routinely attracts hundreds of comments, and is frequently quoted by the mainstream media. Ironically, he started the blog only because he was blacked out in the media for his harsh criticism of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Five years to the day since his retirement in 2003, Dr Mahathir's influence seems to be growing steadily as Malaysia readies for a new prime minister by the end of March next year.

His every move is dissected for its significance. When he showed up at International Trade Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin's Hari Raya open house last week, it stirred much excitement as it was perceived as an endorsement of the minister. This can count for a lot in the upcoming election in Umno, whose members still love him.

Is Dr Mahathir making a political comeback? Not exactly. But there is a strong belief that his influence is on the rise.

Observers suggest that he could have a big say in the next administration after he played a key role in securing the early retirement of Abdullah, who was blamed for the poor showing of the Barisan Nasional in the March polls.

Many believe that Dr Mahathir's skilful manoeuvres behind the scenes were instrumental in getting Deputy Premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak to persuade Abdullah to retire earlier than his original plan of June 2010. The whiff of resurgent power has sent Umno leaders and the media flocking to Dr Mahathir again, and he is back in the limelight after five years of being out in the cold.

“His views are being reported more widely, precisely because many people think that he will make a comeback,” said political analyst Ong Kian Ming.

Professor Agus Yusoff, from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, agreed that this was one perception, but felt that the bigger reason was the weakness of the current leadership.

“His views are being heard now because people are looking for better leadership. They see Dr Mahathir as experienced, and his views relevant,” he said.

Things have come full circle for Dr Mahathir, 82. His star dimmed soon after his retirement when Abdullah won a massive mandate in 2004. But the former premier soon sprang back into limelight after he began to give voice to public misgivings about Abdullah's weak administration.

His attacks gripped Malaysians for months in 2005, but they soon wore thin — until the March election that saw the BN suffer heavy losses. His campaign to topple his successor gained unstoppable momentum, returning him to a position of influence. Dr Mahathir's recent blog entry criticising the reach of vote-buying, or “money politics”, in Umno was debated widely in Umno circles.

His most recent acerbic comments on Najib's alleged young advisers sparked even more talk.

In a blog entry on Tuesday, he warned Najib not to repeat the mistake of cloistering himself with young advisers as Abdullah had, to the anger of Umno.

Dr Mahathir named consultancy firm Ethos as the Deputy Premier's adviser, and claimed that it also had links to Abdullah's young advisers.

“They (Ethos) are interested in getting a portion of the EPF worth RM300 billion to manage its investments, apparently with returns of up to 40 per cent,” he wrote, referring to the Employees Provident Fund.

The management of Ethos was quoted in The Edge business weekly recently about their interest in managing part of EPF investments. Najib has not responded.

Political observers believe that he will not marginalise the former premier, especially after seeing how Dr Mahathir's constant sniping damaged Abdullah's reputation.

“Najib will certainly prefer to have Dr Mahathir inside as an adviser rather than outside lobbing criticism at him,” said Ong.

This has led some people to predict a return of Mahathirism, suggesting a stronger hand on government than Abdullah's looser style. But Najib's supporters have denied this perception.

“Najib is not a puppet, he will have his own way and will want to make his own mark,” said Agus.

Meanwhile, Dr Mahathir's every move and word will continue to be watched, and his blog can expect to hit the 10 million mark very soon. — The Straits Times

Munawar’s sodomy conviction stays

The Malaysian Insider
by Debra Chong

PUTRAJAYA, Oct 30 — The Federal Court here today dismissed Dr Munawar Anees's application for an appeal against his 10-year-old sodomy conviction.

"We have decided that the application should be dismissed. We will give our grounds later," said Chief Justice Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, who led the three-member panel of judges.

Pakistan-born Munawar is a former speechwriter to opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim when the latter was Deputy Prime Minister over a decade ago.

In mid September 1998, Munawar was arrested under the Internal Security Act and later charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with sodomy alongside Anwar and Anwar's Indonesian adopted brother Sukma Darmawan.

Munawar pleaded guilty, as did Sukma. He was sentenced to six months’ jail, which he served.

Subsequently, he filed an appeal against his conviction on the grounds that his plea of guilty then was obtained through force while detained under the ISA.

His application was thrown out by the KL High Court in September 2003. Meanwhile, Anwar and Sukma were both cleared of the sodomy convictions.

Munawar took up the matter to the Court of Appeal. The matter was dismissed there as well in October last year though no grounds were given then.

The Federal Court was the last legal avenue available for Munawar's application.

The US-based project management consultant, now 60, had been waiting in court since 8.30am for the decision. He appeared dumbfounded by the decision. He rose up and left the courtroom swiftly.

Speaking to reporters on the grand staircase leading to the lobby of the Palace of Justice, he said: "This is a total disappointment. A total denial of justice. The system is playing with the lives of people.

"Where is the justice for me and my family?"

His voice continued to rise as his frustration became more apparent.

"I will not stop. The system has tried to fail me but it will not fail me. If I don't get justice in this country, my children and my grandchildren will stand up for the justice denied to me," Munawar pledged.

Lawyer Mabel Sebastian, who was standing in for Munawar's counsel Manjeet Singh Dhillon to receive the judgment today, said the next step was up to the latter.

Manjeet is away on business abroad and will only return next week.

Syed Hamid Albar vs. Hindraf on Indian marginalization

by H Lee

So Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar – in a decision, as he puts it, of self-sacrifice for the sake of protecting society – has banned Hindraf.

Similar home ministerial valour must have been present when he chose to detain Raja Petra, Teresa Kok, Tan Hoon Cheng and hundreds of others under the ISA.

Many Malaysians have expressed their outrage at the latest cruel and callous act of repression against a civil group which has highlighted the continuing plight of marginalised Malaysian Indians.

I would like to examine an aspect: the assertion that Malaysian Indians are not marginalised and are actually doing better than Bumiputera Malaysians, and thus, they have no grounds to feel
aggrieved, let alone angry. This is a cynical and specious claim.

We should first take note of the often ignored fact that the Malaysian Indian community is diverse, stratified and complex. Like any other.

Some are rich, some are part of the middle class, some are poor; some are posited in the mainstream, some are at the margins – and some are beyond the margins, trapped in urban squalor. The imperative question is whether the concerns of the Indian poor are being addressed by our
government’s attitudes and policies.

But the ruling regime would rather treat groups as monolithic blobs, then go about brandishing statistics to preempt debate - and stamp the lowly back into their place.

And so, in dismissing Hindraf’s cause, Syed Hamid invoked the reality of high proportions of Indians among registered legal professionals (21.4 percent) and among doctors (18.4 percent), and the ratio of Indian to Bumiputera household incomes, of… 1.20. That’s right, according to 2007 household income survey data, Indian households on average have 20 percent more income than Bumiputera households.

Is there something wrong with these figures? Why has the message of Hindraf resonated when official data paint opposing images of social mobility and nice averages?

There is no need to question the numbers, but every need to handle them responsibly, within context and in recognition of their limited scope. These bits of information provide no basis to conclude that all of the community is doing well and should therefore shut up and get on with their happy lives.

In fact, we do have evidence that Malaysians Indians are struggling as much as others to earn a decent living.

Averaging numbers

Of course there are many Indian lawyers and doctors – who’s not cognisant of that? But there are far more Indian labourers, factory workers, and others at the low reaches of the labour market.

It is highly probable that the household income of the Indian community is propped up by the high earnings of professionals and managers.

Meagre family incomes of displaced agricultural workers and urban elementary workers get shrouded in the process of averaging the incomes of all Indian families.

Consider some changes that have taken place in the past decade or so.

In 1995, 17.7 percent of employed Indians worked as agricultural labor, while 8.7 percent were in professional and technical occupations.

By 2005, only 4.9 percent of employed Indians were agricultural workers, but 20.1 percent worked as professionals and technicians.

Albeit rather cursorily, we gain some impression here of developments at two ends of the socio-economic hierarchy: the continuous urbanisation of a low-skilled former plantation workforce; a steadily growing presence in highly qualified jobs providing middle class living standards.

In what sort of jobs are most Indians working? Within communities, Indians registered the highest proportion of persons classified as production workers.

In 2005, 45.8 percent of employed Indians fell in this category, compared to 33.8 percent Chinese and 34.1 percent Bumiputera.

Due to the unfree state of information in this land, the most we can do with officially disclosed statistics is make deductions and inferences such as these.

We are still left with a knowledge gap.

However, a study by Branko Milanovic, a World Bank researcher and renowned scholar of global inequality, helps fill the void¹.

He analysed Malaysia’s household income data of 1997. This is from the national survey that the Statistics Department conducts twice in five years, from which all the inequality measurements we know are calculated.

One difference with the official accounts is that Milanovic focussed on individual earnings (wages, salaries and bonuses) instead of household income (the sum of household members’ earnings, property income and remittances). His findings are therefore more reflective of the earnings capacity of Malaysians in the labour market.

The housewife factor

The study analyses inequality more generally, but in the process finds something very striking: in 1997, the ratio of Indian to Bumiputera individual earnings was 0.98.

The official figure for Indian: Bumiputera household income was 1.41. In other words, the average earnings of individual Indians was basically the same as the average earnings of individual Bumiputera, even though average household incomes were quite unequal.

How might this be possible?

In terms of the gap between individual earnings inequality and household income inequality, we could postulate that combined earnings of Indians, especially in households with both spouses in professional jobs, raised their income to levels significantly higher than Bumiputera households.

This is a guess, and that’s as far as we can go with available data.

What’s not a guess is this objective report that average individual earnings of Indians and Bumiputeras were equal in 1997.

In 2007, with an Indian-to-Bumiputera household income ratio of 1.20, what might the inter-group earnings ratio look like? We don’t know, but it is more than likely that the ratio is less than 1.20.

It is possible that earnings are on average close to equal, or that Indian earnings are less than Bumiputera earnings.

Consider recent data on the distribution of employed persons by occupation.

In 2005, with 45.8 percent of the total employed Indians engaged as production workers and 4.9 percent as agricultural workers, it is plausible that average individual earnings are on par with the average among employed Bumiputera, of whom 34.1 percent are production workers and 15.2 percent are agricultural workers.

These two low-paying occupational groups account for about 50 percent of employed persons of both race groups.

Again, we won’t have a clear picture unless we have access to data and can engage in constructive discussion.

Hindraf has grounds

We have a clear enough picture, however, to affirm the plight of marginalised Indian households, whose tough circumstances in labour markets and poor living conditions are a shameful reality that cannot be garbed in middle-class statistics.

Hindraf has grounds for grievance – yes, even in the official data, if only we would take a more balanced and critical look.

And we could better understand this whole inequality thing, and devise fairer and more effective policies, if the ruling regime would release more information to our - um - knowledge society.

Resistance towards extending the same policies to members of the Indian community as currently provided to Bumiputera is partly predicated on official household income statistics.

But they give us an oversimplified and selective glimpse to a complex of problems.

It is high time to reevaluate the way we assess income and earnings and to aim assistance at the people who need or merit it most.

¹ Branko Milanovic (2006) “Inequality and Determinants of Earnings in Malaysia, 1984-97″, in the Asian Economic Journal, 20(2).

Article 153 and the “Social Contract”

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

My sedition trial will resume on 10^th November 2008 after a three week postponement. Thus far six prosecution witnesses have testified and it appears like the prosecution has 10-13 more witnesses lined up.

Basically, the government is of the view that my article, “Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell”, is seditious. And to ensure that I am duly punished, other than facing trial, I am also under Internal Security Act detention. This means, even if the court acquits me, I shall still not be free. It is like taking double insurance. Either way you are covered.

I suppose sedition is the natural thing to charge me with. Moses was charged with sedition that he had to flee Egypt. Jesus was charged with sedition and the Christians believe he was executed because of that. Muhammad too was charged with sedition and the Muslims believe that God commanded him to flee Mecca lest he get murdered that same evening.

I am not trying to compare myself to the three main prophets of the Abrahamic religions. What I am trying to say is that if even the three most important prophets of the Jews, Christians and Muslim are not spared the allegation of sedition, then who am I to escape?

On 7^th November, the court will decide if my ISA detention is legal. I could say that my freedom is now in the hands of the judge and may he rule wisely. And of course, to me, “wisely” would mean to free me – whereas that may not quite be the government’s view of “wise”.

Something significant of late was the Rulers’ statement on Article 153 and the “Social Contract”. We could say that this was historic as the Rulers have never thus far made such statements. Could this be said as something timely or something the Rulers should not have done? I really don’t know.

The Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government’s ruling of imposing a 50% Bumiputra quota on houses in the state does not help either. Why 50%? Why even 30%? Should in the first place there even be a quota?

If you have not done so this you should read Zaid Ibrahim’s book “In Good Faith”, Zaid has addressed this matter of Article 153 and the “Social Contract” with great clarity.

What the Kedah state government has done is unconstitutional. Article 8 and Article 153 of the Constitution do not allow this. You just can’t dictate how people run their businesses.

Those who support the imposition of quotas argue that there exists a “Social Contract” that allows them to do so. But while they mention this “Social Contract”, they fail to mention the terms of this “contract”, what it says, and who is bound by it.

In short, if I am not a party to that contract can I be bound by it? The contract was entered into by the Malays and the then immigrant Indians and Chinese; of course it is not really a written contract as much as a verbal contract and we all know that a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on.

Nevertheless, should Malaysian-born Indians and Chinese who have never even visited India and China be made to abide to a verbal “contract” made by their immigrant parents and/or grandparents? How long will this “contract” run? Will Indians and Chinese 1000 years from now still be made to abide to a “contract” made in 1957?

There should be a cut-off date. There must come a point of time when all Malaysians are regarded as equal. How can an Indonesian who migrated to this country a few years ago be regarded as Bumiputra when Chinese and Indians who come to this country in the 1400s are still second class citizens?

Yes, Article 153 accords Malays certain rights and privileges. But that same Article, and Article 8, do not allow imposing of quotas and permits which deny Indians and Chinese their rights in favour of the Malays. This, many people do not seem to understand.

We also seem to have forgotten that the New Economic Policy is a two-pronged attack. Other than reducing the gap between the different races it is also about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. And this would mean regardless of race.

When we talk about the Malay farmers and fisherman. We do not seem to realize that there are Chinese farmers and fishermen as well. Poverty does not recognize race.

It is time that the “Social Contract” be reviewed. A new “Social Contract” must be drawn up that looks into the SOCIAL structure and not RACIAL structure that the present “Social Contract” addresses. Only then can it be called a “Social Contract”. If not, then let us call it what it really is, a “Racial Contract”.

The poverty level also needs to be reviewed. The new “hardcore” poverty level should be RM1200. Anyone earning below RM1200 per month should be considered poor. That would mean a high percentage of Malaysians. Then the NEW “Social Contract” should address the needs of those who live below the NEW poverty level of RM1200.

And the NEW “Social Contract” should no longer be a verbal contract but chiseled in stone. And it should be a contract to take care of Malays, Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, Ibans, Dayaks, etc. As long as you are poor, meaning earning below RM1200 then you are taken care of. That should be Malaysia’s NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT.

Before I sign off, I would like to apologise for the quality of my articles. It is not so convenient to type from where I currently live so I need to just get my points across without much focus on the presentation. I hope this will not be for long and that I may soon be back with you. Anyway I was told that Malaysia Today is under control and in good hands. Till we speak again.