Pakistan: Taliban brainwashes kids with visions of virgins

Nawaz Kot, Pakistan (CNN) -- "When we got to this compound it was shocking for us," Lt. Col. Yusuf tells us, standing in the middle of what the Pakistani military says was a brainwashing center -- for children.

It was here, according to the Pakistani military, that children aged 12 to 18 were turned from innocent youngsters into cold-blooded killers, willing to blow themselves to bits as suicide bombers.

The discovery of the compound was first reported in Pakistani media last month. Yusuf says his unit took it over after a three day battle with militants.

Part of the compound consists of four rooms -- each wall adorned with brightly colored paintings in clear contrast to the barren and harsh landscape surrounding it. The children were told that this was what awaited them in heaven.

Each of the images has a river flowing through it. Some have people playing in the water. Others have women lining the banks.

The military says that the children are told that these are rivers of milk and honey, that the women are the virgins that await them in heaven. That the children were told that they will live in the company of the holy prophet and be served feasts.

One has a home similar to the mud homes in the area which the military says is meant to invoke memories of where the children are from but with a beautiful mountainous green backdrop. Written across it are the words "Long live the Taliban of the mountains."

The images may appear simple. But for the children from this part of Pakistan they are captivating. They grow up in abject poverty surrounded by dirt-colored mountains with treacherous gullies and valleys with no exposure to the outside world. They are gullible and easily manipulated.

"I have never seen such elaborate paintings about so-called heaven," Taliban expert Zahid Hussein says, looking at the images.

He has seen similar tactics in the past and spoken extensively with would-be child suicide bombers in the custody of the authorities.

"They [the militants] say life is a waste here and if you do a good thing you will go to heaven, immediately to heaven. For someone who does not have anything to look forward to, who does not have any opportunities and is living a wretched life, this sort of thing comes as a big incentive," Hussein explains.

He says the children end up believing that their life in this world is worthless, that life only starts in the hereafter. The Taliban is offering them a fast track option to paradise, a longed for escape from their daily reality surrounded by violence.

Nawaz Kot was once a Taliban stronghold.

"The militants were mostly hidden away in bunkers. The tactic they would use was long-range sniping and IEDs (improvised explosive device) on the road," Brigadier General Sarfraz Satter explains as we bump along the road just outside of his brigade's base in South Waziristan on our way to the training center. "They [the militants] had all those positions up there."

He points to the mountaintops in clear sight of his headquarters. When the military launched its operation to take these lands back, he says they knew that the compound was a training center, that perhaps children were involved. What they didn't realize was the sheer level of indoctrination.

The children were from the local area. He says the parents would send them thinking they were getting an education and, more importantly, free food.

"But they don't know what kind of religious education their child is being put through." General Satter says, acknowledging that for the next phase of operations to succeed, there has to be a focus on education. "When we start our rehabilitation, we have to reopen schools to stop them [the parents] from sending their children into the wrong hands."

The military says that the compound could house some 200-300 children. The Pakistani military believes it was in full use until the summer when they bombed it. Since then they say that numbers had dwindled although they are not sure how recently children were staying there. But for the children that have already passed through the compound, it's likely too late.

"The pamphlets we found tell us they were trained in weapons handling, preparing of suicide jackets and ambush tactics," Lt. Col. Yusuf says. "These terrorists keep the children at the frontline, and most of the casualties have been children when they [the terrorists] are attacking the posts.

"They say to them, 'Look your sacrifice will not be wasted,' and so he [the child] is mentally prepared to do whatever they want him to do,' expert Zahid Hussein further explains.

He says it's a complete distortion of Islam, but one that the children fervently believe.

"They are also led to believe that the Muslims who are killed in suicide bombings, they will go to heaven as well. So that is a very powerful instrument of brainwashing," he adds.

The Taliban says that this particular compound is not one of their's. But they say that they are actively training children from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Middle East to be suicide bombers.

As Pakistan tries to cope with an ever increasing wave of suicide bombing, a chilling statistic is coming to light.

"Almost 90 percent of suicide bombers, if you look at their profile, are 12 to 18 years old," Hussein says.

The war on terror expert says there also needs to be a war on poverty and a commitment to providing education and opportunity so that children in the future won't be turned into murderers, thinking that suicide and death are their only escape from a hopeless life.

No fresh polls for now, Liow disappointed

PRM-PSM: The emerging third political force?

Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) and Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) are keen to rekindle old ties and resurrect their common socialist struggle for the betterment of Malaysians.

And, it could spell danger for both existing political blocks, the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.

The cooperation among the socialist parties could well pave the way for the formation of a third political force in the not too distant future.

Leaders from both parties did not rule out such possibility, although currently they maintain that their respective parties would remain independent entities friendly to Pakatan.

For both PSM and PRM, the common enemy remains the Umno-controlled BN.

PSM president Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim said his party are in serious discussions with PRM on ways and means to work on a common ground and strengthen leadership and grassroots support for both parties.

Our short term goal is to strengthen both the parties and work out a common socialist formula for Malaysians, he said.

When prodded on their long-term goal, Mohd Nasir refused to be drawn in to make a prediction but hinted that a third force could emerge if so desired by the people.

But if people were unhappy with existing political blocks, a third force could emerge to provide the people with an additional optional to choose from, Nasir told Malaysiakini.

Progressive and viable political choice

A rejuvenated PRM vice-president Gary Nair concurred that there was a high probability of PRM and PSM forming a third political force which would accommodate parties with a similar agenda.

He indicated that the third coalition could include the Human Rights Party (HRP) and other minority-based parties, especially from Sabah and Sarawak.

However, he said making the third force a political reality was still far away

We need to have greater dialogue sessions and build on a common agenda that would provide a different, viable and progressive political choice for Malaysians, Nair told Malaysiakini.

He said the PRM leadership's immediate goal was to revive the party and strengthen its grassroots support.

He said PRM was recovering from the recently concluded court battle over its legitimate existence.

When asked on why PRM did not want to join Pakatan, Nair said such a move could be resisted by certain ex-PRM leaders in the coalition. He declined to reveal the names of the leaders.

Moreover, he said Pakatan needed to prove that it was different from BN.

Nasir and Nair said although their parties were friendly with Pakatan, nonetheless they know the limitation of the cooperation.

Banggarama forced to convert to Islam at 7 years of age.

Now she cannot revert to her original Hindu religion which she is practicing now (TN 24/12/09 at page 6). She was forcibly converted to Islam by UMNOs’ welfare officers when she was 7 years old and was staying at a Welfare home.

But Article 11 of the Federal Constitution clearly stipulates that a child below the age of 18 cannot convert to another religion. But the implementation of the law and the Federal Constitution in Malaysia is bigoted, racist and religious extremism.

She has now filed a civil suit and wants Justice. Will UMNOs’ Courts give her Justice?

P. Uthayakumar

1,000 new Agro Bazar Kedai Rakyat but Indians excluded

This year more than 40 new Agro Bazar shops are being targeted with 1,000 new shops in the 10th Malaysia Plan (UM 1/1/2010 at page 4 Mega Fokus).

In the past 12 years in this business Muhamad Idris has bought a his own house for RM 100,000.00 besides having bought a shop house, a food shop, a boat and a van.

But we do not know of any Malaysian Indian who has been given an opportunity to own any of these Agro Bank shops and the upward mobility opportunities that comes with it like what came for Muhamad Idris.

And opportunities for Indians to participate in the upcoming 1,000 new Agro Bazar Kedai Rakyat are denied.

P. Uthayakumar.

Nearly Half Of Tamil School Pupils Do No Fare Well In UPSR - Khalid

SHAH ALAM, Jan 5 (Bernama) -- Annually about 45 per cent of Tamil School pupils in Selangor do not fare well in the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) examination and this was something that had the state government worried, said Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

He said this could be due to a lack of support from the parents of the pupils who were mainly in the lower income group or absence of an effective mechanism help them achieve better performance.

He said this when handing over financial aid from the state government to Tamil schools at the Selangor state secretariat building here today.

At the function, 31 Tamil schools received financial aid totalling RM704,000 while Parent-Teacher Associations of Tamil schools received a total of RM508,000 in aid.

Khalid said there were 97 Tamil schools with an enrolment of 34,000 pupils in Selangor and that 80 per cent of the pupils came from families in the lower income group.

Nazri: Judge was wrong in ‘Allah’ decision

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 5 — Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has come out in defence of the Home Ministry’s move in appealing to the Court of Appeal over the controversial “Allah” issue.

He said that High Court judge Lau Lee Lan, who made the ruling that Catholics could use the word “Allah” in their weekly publication Herald, was wrong.

Nazri asserted that the judicial review was supposed to be on whether the Home Minister had the power to impose the ban, not on whether non-Muslims should be allowed to use the word “Allah”.

“In my opinion, the judge has erred in making the decision. The issue is whether the Home Minister had the power to impose a ban on the Catholic church in using the term “Allah”, not whether “Allah” can be used or not.

“The Home Minister was definitely acting within his powers in exercising the ban, in view of public interest and sensitivities in order to avoid public unrest over the matter,” said Nazri.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s department explained that the supposed error in the judge’s ruling justified the Home Ministry seeking an appeal at the Appellate Court.

“We have to take into consideration the culture and nature of Malaysia. What is considered normal in the United States and Europe is not necessarily normal here.

“The Home Minister was doing the right thing, in making a decision to avoid public unrest and dissatisfaction among Muslims, who make up more than 60 per cent in this country,” said Nazri.

Nazri compared the “Allah” uproar to the cow-head protests in Shah Alam, saying that it is essentially very similar.

“Take the cow-head protests for example. If you look at it from a legal perspective, there seems to be nothing wrong with stepping on the head of a cow. But because a significant portion of this country’s

citizens are Hindus, the government has taken action against the cow-head protestors.”

The now-infamous cow head protest, which took place in Shah Alam in August last year was spearheaded by a group of Malay residents “angry” at the Selangor State Government for relocating a Hindu temple to Section 23, a Malay-Muslim majority area.

“I see the usage of the word “Allah” and the cow-head incident as the same. If you can take action against cow-head protestors, why not over the usage of “Allah” among non-Muslims? We have to be fair in the matter,” stated Nazri.

He went on to question the purpose of the Catholic church’s insistence in using the word “Allah”, saying that it was “irresponsible” and “looking for trouble”.

“If you do want to use the word God in Bahasa Malaysia, God is Tuhan. I don’t understand why you want to use Allah.

“The Malay word for God is Tuhan. Of course Muslims are not satisfied. For 50 plus years after independence this issue has never cropped up before.”

Nazri also urged fellow Muslims to not be carried away by emotions and to let common sense prevail, adding that if they demonstrate and cause public unrest, it may affect the decision making process in the Court of Appeal.

“We leave it to the Court of Appeal to find a solution to the matter.”

Tony Fernandes set to take over West Ham

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 5 – Air Asia boss Tony Fernandes (pic) is poised to launch a takeover of English Premier League club West Ham United this week, the Daily Telegraph newspaper has reported from London.

The newspaper said that Fernandes, a lifelong supporter of West Ham, could be announced as the club’s new owner before this Sunday’s league match at home to Wolves.

As recently as last month, Fernandes had ruled out any plans to immediately launch a bid for the club. But the British daily said the Air Asia boss has now finally decided he wants to invest in the club.

Fernandes has been having sporadic talks about taking a stake in West Ham for several months now. But he told Singapore’s The Straits Times in December that he had ruled out making a bid for the club as he is busy running an F1 team — the 45-year-old is Lotus’ team principal for next season.

The paper also revealed that he held detailed discussions with West Ham chairman Andrew Bernhardt on a previous occasion, but apparently they did not bear fruit.

The Daily Telegraph has now reported that talks with Bernhardt have continued and, it is believed, Fernandes has finally decided that he wants to invest in the club.

Two other bidders have submitted offers. Last week David Sullivan, the former Birmingham City co-owner, underwent the second stage of the due diligence process. On Monday night the Intermarket Group claimed it had met Rothschild, the bank that has been engaged by Bernhardt to sift through the offers, and will formally submit a bid in writing today, the Daily Telegraph said.

But the newspaper said that it is Fernandes’s bid that has caused the greatest excitement given his track-record for innovative ideas, flair and growing businesses as well as his passion for sport.

The businessman is also firmly committed to supporting manager Gianfranco Zola and met the Italian after the Boxing Day victory over Portsmouth.

Day four of the Rosli Dahlan trial: the MACC is made to eat shit

In Ramli’s trial, the Defence thought there were only two cover reports -- R/No. 098/2007 and R/No. 075/2007. However, in a grueling cross-examination yesterday, Kevin disclosed the existence of two additional "cover reports". Nevertheless, none of these cover reports implicated RamIi in any crime.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Yesterday, in the fourth day of Rosli Dahlan’s trial, Kevin Morais was caught lying under oath during cross-examination by Dato' K. Kumaraendran. Kevin admitted that there were several "cover" reports lodged, all aimed at fixing up Dato' Ramli Yusuff, the then Director of the CCID.

In Ramli’s trial, the Defence thought there were only two cover reports -- R/No. 098/2007 and R/No. 075/2007. However, in a grueling cross-examination yesterday, Kevin disclosed the existence of two additional "cover reports". Nevertheless, none of these cover reports implicated Ramli in any crime.

Kevin said he relied on R/No. 098/2007 (the first report) lodged by MACC Officer Azmi Ismail to issue the Section 32 Notice against Ramli. It was then disclosed that this first report was based on another report -- R/No. 075/2007 (the second report) -- filed by another MACC officer, Fikhri. However, this second report also did not mention Ramli’s name.

The explosive revelation by Kevin, and something no one realised earlier, is that this second report in turn relied on yet another report -- R/No: 072/2007 (the third report) – which, yet again, also made no mention of Ramli. In fact, this report actually stated that the underworld operator named Moo Sai Chin had alleged that Dato' Johari Baharom, the Deputy Minister then, and several Ministry officers, received RM4 million from Moo to secure his release from detention without trial (under the EO).

And as if that was not explosive enough, Kevin revealed that the third report in turn relied on still a fourth report R/No. 065/2007, which also made no mention of Ramli but again referred to Johari Baharom as having received bribes.

In March 2007, Johari Baharom and the IGP, Musa Hassan, were locked in an open feud that was much publicised by the mainstream newspapers. Johari had accused the IGP of working hand-in-glove with the loan shark and illegal gaming syndicate and received bribes of RM2.2 million. An anonymous blog then appeared (which had only a single posting) alleging that Johari received RM4.4 million in bribes for releasing some underworld operators from detention.

Recently, Malaysia Today published the Statutory Declaration of the IGP’s ADC who stated that Musa conspired with Christopher Wan, then Director of the CID, to fix up Johari by creating a fake blog. It appears, from what was revealed by Kevin yesterday, that Moo was the pawn used by the IGP to make the allegations against Johari. And this is what R/No. 072/2007 and 065/2007 show.

If we trace the timeline it all becomes very clear. Musa becomee IGP on 9 September 2006. One month later, on 9 October 2006, Moo is detained upon the orders of the IGP. Musa then gets ACP Sanusi Sidek of the PDRM Tatatertib to frighten the shit out of Moo. Moo was then forced to implicate Ramli who at that time was tipped to be the next Deputy IGP -- and therefore the next IGP upon Musa's retirement.

And the rest, as they say, is now history and Musa is on his third term as IGP and is on the way to his fourth term next year because ‘there is no suitable successor’ -- as the excuse goes.

The transcripts of the proceedings plus copies of the reports can be read below. It is a bit lengthy but certainly worth reading.

Day 4 Trial of Rosli Dahlan: 5th January 2010

Continued Cross-Examination of Kevin Morais

Dato’ Kumaraendran (Dato K) - We have asked a few documents from the DPP, which he said he will give to me. Did you bring these documents?

DPP - Its ok, Dato can ask the questions with regards to the documents.

Dato K - We have asked for the notice sent to Dato Ramli Yusuff (DRY), akaun-akaun bank yang dirujuk oleh Kevin. Did you bring them today Kevin?

DPP - which do you need?

Dato K - The bank accounts of Moo Sai Chin (MSC) that you referred to when you sent a notice to Rosli Dahlan (RD).

DPP - Which do you want, notice or accounts?

Dato K -Don’t be difficult DPP.

Kevin (K) - Yes I brought the accounts and notice.

Dato K: I need to save the time of the court. I don’t want to stop every time to refer to a document. Yet, the DPP wasn’t prepared to give the documents.

1. Kamu katakan MSC buat bayaran melalui syarikatnya, benar?

K - Benar


2. Kevin, kamu bergantung pada bank statement tersebut?

K - Yes.



3. You have brought the accounts?

K - Yes.



4 Tolong serahkan

K - Okay.



5. Kevin, the company from which the cheques were issued are from Shuttle Eight?

K - Yes.



6. You agree that MSC doesn’t appear as a shareholder or director of Shuttle Eight?

K - If I’m not mistaken, we did a search on Shuttle Eight. I can’t remember the search results at this point of time.



7. Your honor, can I show the witness the company search. Could you please look at the company search that we made? You agree MSC’s name was never shown there as a shareholder or as a director?

K - It depends on the dates you are asking for, because your search is for from 2007 whereas I was referring to 2002.



8. Can you get a copy of the search that you did? Can you produce it if asked?

K - Yes.



9. Saya katakan that MSC was never a director or shareholder of that company.

K - I can’t answer that question right now until I see the documents held by the IO.



10. Do you agree that you have to first ascertain that MSC was a director or shareholder of that company before you can use that company’s bank account, before you send a notice under s. 32 against DRY?

K - Ia adalah antara factor-faktor yang diambil kira.



11. You kata dia keluarkan RM 25k. Bila dia keluarkan?

K - Dia tidak sebut masa yang ditetapkan. Dia kata tiap tiap bulan dia beri.



12. When was the first payment?

K - I can’t remember ….



13. (Kevin took 20 minites pretending to look at the documents). Please ask the permission of the court to refer to your documents. If not it will take a long time.



14. Can’t you tell by the looking at the statement of accounts? Can you say by looking at the statement if any payment was made for RM 25k by cheque?

K - It says the is a payment for RM 26k.



15. Yes, but my question is about RM 25k, which you said was paid to DRY.

K - The statement just says a cheque of 26k, this is in the 31 Dec 1999 – 1st January 2000 statement.



16. Notice will be marked as P10. Accounts as P11.



17. Can you please refer to P11. Bila cheque 26k dikeluarkan?

K - 3 Jan 2001.



18. You said that you bergantung kepada percakapan MSC that he made payment of RM 25k to DRY. So where is it in the statement of account about this RM 25k?

K - Yes, MSC said that he took out RM 26k, but only gave RM25k to DRY.



19. You are changing your evidence. According to your evidence-in-chief (EIC) and the cross-examination, the first payment was in 1999. Based on this statement that you produce, adakah you setuju ini menunjukkan MSC keluarkan duit pada 2001, tapi bayar pada 1999?

K - He said he paid from 1999-2002.



20. Did you bring the 1999 accounts?



DPP - To facilitate this proceeding, can we call the IO to find the documents?



21. I object to the IO at this stage. Kevin is now witness and must answer what he relied on. IO is an important witness to confirm if Kevin is true. So IO bukan sekarang. Kevin jawab dulu.



DPP - It would be easier if the IO is here. Saya nak cuba buat senang untuk semua pihak.

DPP request break @11am to sort out the documents

22. Kevin, before we start, you said you have the 1999 company search of Shuttle Eight?

K - Yes.



23. Did you see this search sebelum keluarkan Notis kepada DRY?

K - Yes.



24. But this search isn’t in the file?

K - No.



25. Why isn’t it in the file?

K - The search was for DRY but it is not in the RD file case.



26. After 2pm can you get the search?

K - I will try.



27. Saya katakan, Kevin, that in the search, MSC was never there as a shareholder or a director.

K - If I am not mistaken his name was there.



28. Saya refer to the earlier cross examination of you, you said “Saya juga telah merujuk keada penyata bank MSC, yang menunjukkan dia telah keluarkan RM25k setiap bulan dari 1999-2002. Is that your statement?

K - Yes.



29. Maksud awak, MSC telah keluarkan 25k tiap-tiap bulan, setiap bulan pakai cek?

K - Yes.



30. Tapi you tak nampak cek itu?

K - I just saw the statement of accounts, not the cheques.



31. Saya tunjukkan akaun tahun 2000, bermula dari January 2000 till December 2000. Saya minta izin, mark semua ini. Marked as (D12, 1-12).

My question is, adakah mana-mana dalam akaun ini, from January- December 2000, was there any cheque issued for RM25k?

K - RM 26k yes, but not for RM25k.





32. Don’t be smart. My question is specific. Was there a cheque issued for RM25k each month?

K - 31st July to 31st August 2000, there is a cheque for 25,000.20.



33. Again you are trying to be funny. My question is, was there a cheque for RM25k, I did not ask about RM25,000.20

K - (No answer)



DPP - Defence should let the witness speak.



Dato K - I would appreciate if the DPP don’t keep butting into my cross-examination.



K - Apart from what I said earlier, about payment for RM 25,000.20, there is nothing else.



34. So there was no amount of RM25k?

K - Yes.



35. You had given evidence earlier that MSC has taken out RM 25k every month. Today you confirm that there is no RM 25k been taken out? Why is it so difficult to give a straight answer? Please do not be evasive.

K - Tidak, I don’t agree.



36. Now, show me where RM25k has been taken out.

K - What I’m saying is, RM 25k adalah daripada RM 26k yang dikeluarkan.



37. No, your answer is very clear in your evidence earlier. You stated that MSC withdrew RM 25k every month. You confirmed that that was your evidence? Now with your new statement, would you agree with me, what you stated is wrong?

K - (No answer from the witness)



DPP - Defence mengasak saksi, biarlah dia jawab apa dia hendak bukan memaksa beri jawapan yang defence hendak.



Judge - Never mind, please proceed.



38. I put it to you – You are lying under oath!

K - Tidak yang Arif.



39. Look at December statement, exhibit D12(12) December 2000.



Judge - Which exhibit is this?



Defence - D12(1).



40. Kevin, D12(1) cheque no. 671043 for RM26k, this was highlighted by the learned DPP which the DPP can confirm, can you confirm this?

It doesn’t matter.

In your cross examination in DRY’s trial, and the EIC in this trial, did you in any way clarify to the court in DRY trial and here, that the RM 25k was taken as part of the RM 26k from the account?

K - I can’t remember.



41. In the EIC of RD trial, you were asked about the RM 25k. Did you clarify that it was from the RM 26k.

K - Ia tidak ditanya.



42 You are trying to be smart. You also said, correct me if I am wrong, semua cheque itu ialah ‘cash cheque’, you said this during this hearing. Can you look at the accounts and tell me where it is stated that it is a cash cheque. D12(1-12).

K - It was from the cheque butts. I looked at the cheque butts.



43 My question is specific, when you look at the statement, can you say they are cash cheques?

K - No.



44. Did you clarify this in the EIC?

K - Ia tidak ditanya?



45. The cheque butts, we willl look at it later on. Can you produce it?

K - If ordered by the court, we can produce it.



46. This is the 2001 accounts, can we mark it D13 (1-12).

Would you agree with me Kevin, that there wasn’t a RM 25k withdrawal for each month? If there is, please tell the court.

K - RM25k tepat dan genap tiada Yang Ariff



47 Looking at the statement, can you tell if the cheques issued by the company were cash cheques?

K - From the statement, I can’t tell.



48. I mark this D14 from January 2002 to December 2002. D14(1-12).

Could you tell the court, if I have missed something, was there any RM 25k taken out?

K - No, there is no such sum of RM 25k.



49. And, you can also confirm that looking at D14, you cannot say that those cheques are cash cheques?

K - Ya, tidak boleh.



50. From January 2003 till December 2003, please be marked as D15(1-12).

K - I don’t think 2003 was in the scope of our investigation. I did not consider 2003 when I looked at the IP.



51. So you want to stop at 2002. Okay, no problem. I won’t mark them. In the accounts, there were various figures: of RM 30k, RM 50k , RM 60k. Can you confirm, by looking at MSC statement (D9), that this is the statement that you relied on to issue your notice.

K - This is one of the factors.



61. Does it say anywhere in the statement, that MSC withdrew a bigger sum and gave DRY RM 25k?

K - No, he didn’t.



62. Did you call for the cheques that were used to give the money?

K - No I didn’t call for the cheques.



63. You wouldn’t know whether the cheques had gone into any account or not, because you had not seen the cheques?

K - Tidak, saya tidak tahu kerana tidak lihat cheque.



64. On hindsight, would you say you should have called for the cheques to confirm if what MSC had said was true?

K - Not necessary to do that.



65. So, you simply decided to rely on a criminal’s word?

- No, we also had other information too.



65. Before you issued the notice to DRY, wouldn’t it have been better to confirm that the cheques had gone to DRY’s account or somebody else’s account?

K - Tidak semestinya bagitu.



66. You just relied on the word of a convict?

K - No, I also relied on the bank statements and cheque butts.



67. By relying on the bank statement, which has clearly shown there is no issuance of RM 25k; there is no clarification in the statement by MSC that from the money he drew, whatever large sum he drew, he had paid DRY.

Would you agree, in the absence of this, the issuance of the notice, the first notice to DRY was bad?

K - No Your Honor.



68. In your evidence at the EIC in this trial, you said you relied on the police report P2, which is 098/2007, made by Azmi bin Ismail.

K - Not only P2, but other reports as well.



69. Would you agree with me, 098/2007 relied on the report of 075/2007.

K - Yes I think so, memang benar.



70. Did the name of the word Dato Ramli (DRY) appear in R/No: 075/2007.

K - I am not too sure.



71. Saya bacakan R/No. 098/2007 “Berdasarkan aduan ibu pejabat 075/2007, disyaki Datuk Ramli Yusuff (reads the report out)?” So isn’t it true, you are referring to report 075/2007?

K - Yes I am.



72. Now can you look at report 075, (P1). Does it talk about DRY taking money?

K - Tidak.



73. You tengok statement D9 (MSC statement). There is a report number on the top. What is the number?

K - 072/2007.



74. So you now agree that MSC’s statement was recorded based on R/No. 072/2007. Another cover report that we do not know of?

K - Yes.



75. Did you sight the report?

K - Kalau tak silap saya, ada saya lihat.



76. Now looking at 072/2007, is there any way that DRY has been implicated taking money?

K - No.



77. This report specifically says that Dato Johari Baharum has taken corrupt money from MSC?

K - Ya, it also says ada beberapa pegawai lain juga mengambil wang rasuah.



78. Yet again this 072/2007 refers to another R/No. 065/2007 (Marked as D16). Did you call for the R/No. 65/2007? Should you have as an experienced DPP?

K - I don’t claim to be an experienced DPP. Yes, I didn’t call for the report (D16).



DPP - Object. Witness said he has not seen to R/No. 065/2007. So no point to ask him about that report as this means that whatever he will say is hearsay.



Dato K - My purpose is, having seen that 072 relied on 065, Kevin should have called for R/No. 065/2007 and then only can he come to a reasonable ground whether to issue a notice.



DPP - You don’t need to call R/No. 065/2007 because it is not relevant, and it is hearsay.



Dato K - I am not relying on an irrelevant report. Why is DPP so afraid to go this route? Can this R/No. 065/2007 be marked as D16.



79. Kevin, now look at R/Nos. 075; 072; and 065, isn’t it true that MSC never implicated DRY?

K - I don’t understand the question.



80. Did MSC make a report to the BPR?

K - No



81. R/No. 072/2007 was made on 7th March 2007.

K - Yes.



82. Did any of your officers tell MSC to make an ACA report?

K - I don’t know.



83. Would you agree with me that the name DRY came out of the blue when the statement was recorded from MSC?

K - If we follow the chronology, the first report 072 (D16- lodged on 7th March 2007. Statement of MSC was also taken on 7th March. DRY name came from the statement.***



84. When was MSC statement recorded?

K - 7th March 2007.



85. What time, 10.35 am?

K - Yes.



84. Look at ID3. Fikri is a BPR officer?

K - Yes.



85. This was made on the 8th of March. One day after that. After MSC’s statement was recorded, Fikhri lodged R/No. 072/2007, yet his report still did not mention nor implicate DRY, true?

K - Yes.



86. Only one month later in R/No.098/2007, having dwelled upon for one month, a bright idea from BPR officer Azmi, a report was lodged that implicated DRY!

K - (No answer)



87. ID3, made on 8th of March 2007, one day after MSC gave his statement. Can you just confirm that in that report DRY’s name didn’t come up. Confirm that?

K - Yes, true.



88. I put it to you; you didn’t apply your mind on the full facts of the case to come to a conclusion that the suspect has committed an offence.

K - Tidak benar. I followed the chronology of events.

Proceedings stop at 1pm. Adjourned till 2pm

Dato K - Could this be marked IDD 17, this is the report number.



89. In DRY trial, you were asked what were the documents that you relied on before you issued the notice.

K - Yes I remember the question.



90. When you were asked that question, the documents you relied on before you issued the s.32 notice, what were the documents?

K - I have to refer to the notes of evidence.



91. I can lend you the notes. You said you relied on the 2 police reports, 098/2007 and 075/2007 and the bank statements of the company.



DPP - I object, where are the notes of evidence? Are they real?



92. What were the documents you relied on before you issued the notice under s32(1) to DRY?

K - Reports number 098/2007 and 075/2007, the MSC’s statement and also the bank statements.



93. Any other documents you relied on?

K - report yang lagi satu, report 072/2007, dan penyata akaun.



94. Any other documents?

K - The cheque butts.



95. In DRY trials, did you mention the cheque butts?

K - I can’t remember whether that is something that I mentioned.



96. I put it to you cheque butt was never raised by you in DRY’s trial.



DPP - I object.



97. I put it to you that today is the first time you are mentioning cheque butts.



DPP - I don’t think it is necessary to go there. The fact that Kevin says he does not know is enough, you don’t need to put it to him.



98. I put it to you: you didn’t mention anything about cheque butts in Ramli’s trial.

K - If I have the chance to see notes of evidence, I can answer that question.



99. I put it to you that the mention of cheque butts today is an afterthought.

K - I don’t agree.



100. Kevin, in this trial, you said that you took into account as a whole, when you considered RD as an associate. You said RD is a friend of DRY in university.

K - Yes I said that.



102. Secondly, you also said that RD acted for DRY as a lawyer in the Shariah court.

K - Yes.



103. You said he acted as a solicitor for Bonus Circle where DRY has an interest.

K - Yes I said that.



104. You also said RDe acted for Bonus Circle in 2 property transactions.

K - Yes



105. You said, after seeing all these four factors, you say that RD is an associate.

K - Yes, that is what I said.



106. Would you like to add anything?

K - No.



107. Can I refer to s.2 of the Act? Under s.2, there are several categories of persons that can be considered as an associate. Kevin, you said that RD acted as a lawyer for BC in Megan Phileo

K - Yes, benar.



109. What were the documents that you relied on? Is there an SPA?

K - Yes.



110. Do you have a copy of the sale and purchase agreement?



DPP - We don’t have a copy.



Dato - It’s okay, I can provide copies to yourself and the court. (Proceeds to show the SPA to Kevin).



111. Now, would you agree with me, the solicitors for BC in that transaction (ID18) is Nordin Adenan Ismail & Co?

K - Yes I do.



112. Why did you mislead the court when you said that RD was the solicitor for BC in that transaction?

K - No I did not. There is another document.



113. Could you read the agreement to the court.

K - Agreement between Phileo and BC.



114. What was the property for that sale and purchase?

K - Units No B-09-03.



115. This is an S&P. The solicitors that acted for BC are?

K - Nordin Adnan. It doesn’t say they are the lawyers for BC. I know there is another agreement.



116. You come to court, without any documents? You are not prepared? You take things very lightly?

K - (No answer)



117. If this is not the agreement you relied on, is there another S&P Agreement? You said you relied on an S&P Agreement where RD acted for BC. This is the only S&P agreement. If you have any other, produce it. Is there any other S&P Agreement?

K - I do not know whether there is any other agreement or not. I need to check.

Break at 15:20 at the request of the DPP to go and find documents

118. Kevin, were you able to find the any other sale and purchase agreement between BC and Phileo?

K - Yang Arif, saya telah silap bercakap tentang S&P Agreement.



119. Last hearing, you said RD was a solicitor for BC.

K - Seteleah saya semak, sebenarnya ialah untuk Loan assignment. Saya silap cakap. Sekarang saya sedar ia bukan S&P, tapi loan agreement (LA). Saya minta maaf.



120 Did you say in evidence today that RD is a solicitor for BC? You confirm today.

K - Yes.



121. In the last hearing, the EIC, you also said that RD also acted as a solicitor for BC in the purchase of Phileo.

K - Yes.



122. Would you agree with me, that you misled the court when you said RD is the solicitor in the transaction?

K - Saya tidak setuju. Saya hanya silap cakap S&P, tapi sebenarnya ianya adalah LA.



123. I say to you RD didn’t act for BC in the loan agreement?

K - According to the Company Secretary, RD did the loan agreement.



124. That could be hearsay. In the loan agreement, was RD the solicitor?

K - It only mentions Allen Gledhill (AG).



125. Don’t mislead. Look at the signature, who is the lawyer?

K - Ng Sing and Chong Wang Ming. Two names.



126. Is RD in the loan agreement?

K - It’s not stated.



127. RD is also not in the agreement?

K - It was his firm.



128. Are you saying that Allen & Gledhill acted for BC?

K - Yes.



129. Can you look at the loan agreement, marked (D19). Where in the loan agreement shows Allen & Gledhill are acting for BC?

K - On the bottom. It just says Messrs Allen & Gledhill.



130. Who is the first signature?

K - Lim Fang Sing (LFS).



131 Did you find out which firm is she from?

K - No.



132 Read above the signature.

K - Attorney for the bank.



133. Yes, look now at above BC. Who is acting for it?

K - The directors.



134. Who are they? You should know them by heart now, you gave evidence on this in DRY’s trial!

K - I can’t read the signatures.



135. Do you agree A&G acted for the bank?

K - It doesn’t say so, we can’t say that.



137. My question is, who is A&G acting for.

K - It just says Lim Fang Sin.



138. You are being difficult. Can you read loudly, this part.

K - As attorney for and behalf of the bank



140. Can you read this document provided by the DPP.

K - To A&G from Hock Hua Bank (HHB).



DPP: That document, D19, the earlier document is the loan agreement.



141. Read it out, the HHB letter. The bank appoints Allen & Gledhill to act on behalf of the bank for the charge.

K - It doesn’t state here…..



142. The copy from HHB dated 15th February 1999. Mark this exhibit D20. Can you confirm that this is the letter from HHB to A & G?

K - Yes.



142. It says here, enclosed are the following documents, copy of the letter, copy of the agreement, and kindly liase with the borrower. Please prepare a standard ….. Doesn’t that mean that HHB is appointing AG to prepare the loan documents?

K - Not necessarily, it doesn’t say so….



143. You are being really difficult and stubborn. Are they giving A&G these documents for love and affection?

K - I am entitled to my opinion.



143. Nobody asked for your opinion. Just state the facts, you are a witness of fact. Okay, we can go further. Look at the letter. Read it aloud.

K - (Kevin reads it aloud)



144. Now read the last page, loudly. Very loudly, the last paragraph.

K - (Kevin reads it loudly)



145. After all this, are you still saying A&G is still not acting for HHB bank?

K - No, they are not.



146. What is wrong with you? Okay. This is a letter dated 27.11.99 to Nordin Adnan. Read the part where it says we act for HHB.

K - Okay. (Kevin reads it aloud).



147. Could you please confirm on that letter, that A&G acted for HHB.

K - Yes.



148. What are the initials on that letter?

K - LFS.



149. LFS refers to one of the assistants called Lim Fang Seng. Is there such a name there?

K - There is.



150. Can you confirm it is LFS? From A&G to Nordin Adnan.

K - Yes.



151. Look at loan agreement, see the signature, where they say attorney for the bank. Do you still want to say you still do not know that A&G does not act for the bank?

K - (mumbled….)



DPP - Object. The witness has already said he does not know A&G acted for the bank.



152. Can you see a sign by a LFS signed on the loan document?

K - Yes.



153***. Based on this loan document, and the letter from AG that they are acting for the bank, and the other document, dated 15.10.1999, taking all 3 documents together, would you now say that A&G is acting for the bank?

K - I’m still not convinced, because letter of 15 Oct 1999, just says, “ …..”

To me is that a bit peculiar for the bank to say so. That is why I said, there is an interest.



154. Where does it say AG has interest in BC?

K - (No answer)



155. Did BC take a loan?

K - Yes.



156. From which bank

K - HHB.



157. HHB has to get a lawyer right?

K - Yes.



157. Who did they appoint as a lawyer, isn’t it A&G?

K - There is no appointment by them. There is no letter by HHB which clearly says “We appoint you…”



158. Where in those documents (the two letters and the loan agreement) does it say, RD acts for BC?

K - It doesn’t say that RD acts for BC.



159. Do you have any other documents that say A&G or RD acted for BC? Please take your time, subject to what Your Lordship says.

K - There is a letter from A&G, saying that they are not on the panel of HHB.



160. Yes, they are not on the panel. Does not mean they can’t act ad hoc. Is there anything else?

K - There is a letter from A&G to HHB, saying we are not on the panel.



161. Yes, but they still acted on an ad hoc basis for HHB.



162. On these documents, is there anything that says that A&G or RD acted for BC?

K - There is a letter of guarantee, where RD signed as a lawyer.



163***. Guarantee for what, on behalf of whom?

K - Guarantee for the loan, for (two ladies’ names).



164. Do you have a copy of it?

K - yes.



165. This is a loan taken by whom?

K - Roma, Roslina and DRY.



166***. The dates?

K - 15 Dec 1999. It is on behalf of BC, to BC, on paragraph 1.



167. isn’t it true RD signed as a witness, in the presence of…

K - Yes.



168. My question is, is it anywhere in the documents that show RD or A&G acted for the transaction of the sale.

K - If you read it together, they are not on the panel of HHB.



169. You are being very stubborn. Ok. Who appointed HHB?

K - The borrowers have a right to appoint their own solicitors. That’s why this letter of 15 Oct 1999 is a letter where HHB has allowed AG to be appointed solicitors, for the borrower and the bank.



170. Where does it say that they are acting for borrower and the bank?

K - Para 10.



171. Where does it say RD is acting for BC?

K - It’s a point where the bank appointed A&G.



172. Let’s go step by step, do you know a lawyer can only act for 1 side in a loan transaction, it’s against the Legal Profession Act to act for two sides.



173. Are you aware that Nordin Adnan was acting for BC?

K - For the sale and purchase, yes.



DPP: He is referring to letter of guarantee. Why don’t we mark is an exhibit. Marked as P21.



174. Would you agree with me, even if we can stretch the language, there is nowhere to say that HHB is appointing A&G to act for BC?

K - I don’t think HHB is interested in knowing who acts for BC. There is no letter that says from HHB to appoint A&G for BC



175. Is there letter from BC to AG to act for them in the loan document?

K - No.



176. There is no letter from BC requesting AG to act for them in the loan

K - Correct.



177. There is letter from HHB and a letter from AG writing to Nordin. None of these letters are informing A&G that they act for BC.

K - No.



178. Nordin Adnan was acting in the S&P. And in the S&P, he is also applying for a loan.

K - I don’t have the S&P



179. Is there a clause to show that in the event they apply for the loan?

K - It doesn’t say anything about a loan, just says the balance purchase price must be paid.



180. Let me bring you back. You agree that nowhere in the documents show A&G nor RD acted for BC, either in the S&P agreement or in the loan.

K - Not in the S&P. I still hold in the loan that A&G was acting for both sides.



181***. You hold that A&G also acted for BC. How so?

K - Based on the documents, A&G telah bertindak untuk bank in this transaction dan juga untuk BC. This is based on the letter dated 15 oct 1999, the whole letter, the tenor of the letter (P22). Paragraph 10.



182. Read it out.

K - (Reads it aloud)



183. Your reading of that clause, A&G is acting for both sides?

K - That is my reading.



184. The letter from the 2nd paragraph on the 1st page, doesn’t talk about BC.

K - No it doesn’t.



185. Now the letter has been sent to Nordin Adnan, who has been acting for BC in that transaction. When you said that RD was the lawyer in that S&P agreement, you admitted that was a mistake. So you agree you misled the court?

K - I made a mistake.



186. You agree that RD doesn’t appear in the loan document?

K - A&G does appear.



187. You are really difficult. I asked you about RD. Okay, can you look at the letter, how many lawyers are there in A&G?

K - 9 partner, 18 lawyers.



188. You said RD acted for BC through A&G. Would you agree with me, that in the loan, his name doesn’t appear at all?

K - The loan guarantee, it does.



189. How about in the loan documentation that you pointed out.

K - His name doesn’t appear.



190. When you said that RD was not involved, you said you made a mistake.

K - He was involved through the firm.



192. Where does it show RD acted through the firm?

K - He is a partner, from the documentation it seems so.



193. Where is the evidence that RD acted through AG for the loan documentation?

K - The fact that it is from AG where he is a partner, it is enough to convince me that he is involved in the transaction.



194. Would you agree, that you said that RD was a solicitor in the purchase of the Danga Bay property?



Judge: We shall adjourn till tomorrow and you may start on the Danga bay property.



Adjourn to later today, to 6th January 2010.

How RM2 million a year became RM21 million a year for 15 years

As promised, Malaysia Today is going to publish a series of reports backed by official documents to prove that there is more than meets the eye in how the Ministry of Defence under Najib Tun Razak spent the taxpayers’ money. All these incidences involved blatant abuse of power and violation of procedures. Today is the first in a series of exposes.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Since 1988, the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) used to train its personnel in Korat, Thailand, at a cost of RM2 million per year.

In 2007, the then Deputy Prime Minister approved the leasing of the Aircraft Combat Manoeuvring Instrument (ACMI) from a Malaysian company at a cost of RM21 million per year -- more than ten times what the RMAF was paying to train its personnel in Thailand. The leasing was for 15 years.

The contract was based on ‘negotiated without tender’ and the company had no prior experience in the business. The negotiated contract was not conducted through the normal procedure nor was it approved through the proper channels. Yet the current Prime Minister approved the contract in violation of procedure and what could be classified as abuse of power.

Malaysia Today kicks off this expose with the documents below. More on this matter will be revealed as we go along to show the many blatant incidences of abuse of power and violation of procedure perpetuated by the Ministry of Defence under Najib Tun Razak.

Use of the term ‘Allah’: Who is threatening whom?

The Dec 31 High Court ruling reversing a Home Ministry ban on the use of the word ‘Allah’ for the Catholic weekly newsletter Herald in its Bahasa Malaysia section appears to have given the religious hardliners the perfect New Year present to continue their crude campaign aimed at fanning Islamic religious sentiments in the country.

Press Statement by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee (Centre for Policy Initiatives)

Malaysians – those not religiously affiliated to Catholicism or Islam – are wondering if the extremist reaction by Utusan Malaysia and its fellow travellers serves any purpose, especially since the Prime Minister has assured that the government is aware of the sensitivities of Muslims, and called for calm and for the matter to be resolved through the court process.

Below is an example of what Utusan has been feeding the Malay public.

From Utusan Malaysia, Jan 3, 2010

Starting from the banner splashed across its front page and items filling up pages two, four and five, the paper ran headlines and opinions ranging from ‘Court does not respect sensitivities of Muslims’; to inexplicably calling for the civil case to be heard in Syariah Court; to appealing for Muslim unity; suggesting for the Religious Department to act as intervener in the court process; and beseeching intervention by the Council of Rulers.

The tally of 16 news articles does not include other lengthy op-eds in the middle pages about the mission to defend Islam, including one by Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah.

The flagship Utusan editorial by Awang Selamat invoked Perak Mufti Harussani Zakaria’s claim that “all these happen due to the weaknesses and disunity of Muslims”.

Playing Cassandra, Awang Selamat proclaimed that the Malay “discord and foolhardiness in politics, has pushed Islam to the corner”, and added “It is embarrassing that Islamic parties cannot unite in ensuring the survival of Islam”. He laid the blame at the door of “certain liberal-thinking leaders in PAS like Khalid Samad, who is a great supporter of the use of the term ‘Allah’ by other religions”.

In what is probably the single most fear mongering statement made by a newspaperman, Awang Selamat made the absolutely ridiculous claim that “status quo Islam di Malaysia boleh berubah bila-bila masa kerana angkara pemimpin Islam sendiri” (the status quo of Islam in Malaysia can change at any time because of Muslim leaders themselves).

‘Utusan Malaysia’ itching for a fight

My other distinct impression is that Utusan and the racial and religious hardliners aligned to it – and that appears to include Dr Mahathir Mohamad – are spoiling for a fight.

They should not and will not get a fight. What they are getting instead is reasoned and calm arguments on why this issue should not be blown out of proportion.

According to Herald editor Father Lawrence Andrew, Christian natives in Borneo have been using ‘Allah’ for 400 years and clearly long before Sabah and Sarawak agreed to merge with the peninsula. Hence, it is quite simply a matter of language and terminology which has nothing to do whatsoever with the ridiculous suspicions and concerns of backdoor conversions and worse that are now being bandied about (for a fuller discussion, see Existential angst in objection to ‘Allah’ use, by Dr Lim Teck Ghee and Helen Ang in www.cpiasia.net) .

Sane and sensible Malaysians following the ugly and pugnacious words coming from the extremist side must be wondering how in God’s name could Muslims perceive that there is a threat to Islam in Malaysia, given Malay and Muslim dominance in almost all sectors of the body polity.

According to the Catholic Hierarchy organization, there are about 784,000 Catholics in our country of 24.74 million or 3.17% of the total population. Can anyone believe that such a tiny minority of the country’s population could threaten the position of Islam in Malaysia or undermine the Islamic faith?

Dr Mahathir, from whom one would expect a higher sense of public responsibility, has been reported to have said that he is concerned that the term Allah may be used in such a way that could inflame the anger of Muslims, or in his own words, “they may use it on banners or write something that might not reflect Islam”. This is a statement that stoops so low that it is almost beyond belief that it could have come from a former Prime Minister.

Surely the ex-Prime Minister is aware that not only are there 13.37 million Muslims in the country or 52% of the population of 25.72 million if the latest CIA World Fact Book is to be believed, the primacy of the position of Islam is fully guaranteed both through Islam’s status as the religion of the Federation enshrined in the constitution, and the position of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong and Malay state rulers as heads of the religion.

If he is not, then other Muslims in the country should tell Utusan, Dr Mahathir and others of similar ilk how confident and secure they feel about their religion in the face of this ‘historic’ and ‘unprecedented’ threat from non-Muslims.

The real threat to Islam is in the feverish minds of the extremists rushing to prove their ‘purer’ Islamic credentials. If they can purge themselves of these imagined furies, we will all be able to sleep more peacefully in Malaysia.

Jangan Hipokrit Bila Bertuhan

Dari blog

Kelihatan polemik berhubung nama Allah dibenarkan penggunaannya oleh Herald lewat penghakiman Datuk Lau Bee Lan dalam kamar Mahkamah Tinggi (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-kuasa Khas) beberapa hari lepas telah semakin meleret-leret ke satu tahap yang adakalanya mendukacitakan, dan tidak kurang memualkan.

Ada pihak yang menyatakan sebagai Muslim, saya tidak boleh berkecuali, mesti pilih setuju atau menentang. Ya,dalam bab mempertahankan agama saya akan menyokong, tetapi menggunakan agama untuk kepentingan tertentu, sudah pasti saya menentang sehabisnya.

Sebagai orang tidak mempunyai latar belakang dalam bidang agama, maka saya lebih senang untuk melihat sesuatu isu itu melalui pelbagai perspektif, baik dari aspek agama sendiri, aspek sejarah, aspek perlembagaan dan aspek rasionaliti.

Saya senang membaca beberapa tulisan Dr. Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin berhubung isu ini lewat beberapa tulisan terdahulu beliau (Beza Antara Merebut Nama Allah dan Mempertahankan Aqidah) dan yang terbaru, Kenyataan Pertama Dr. Mohd Asri.

Saya juga sempat meneliti satu kupasan ilmiah nukilan Dr. Muqtader Khan, seorang profesor di Jabatan Sains Politik dan Hubungan Antarabangsa di Universiti Delaware, Prophet Muhammad’s promise to Christians. Kupasan ini antara lain menggambarkan bagaimana hubungan antara Muslim dan Kristian ini perlu dilaksanakan sebaiknya.

Tulisan mantan Presiden ABIM, Dr. Muhammad Nur Manuty juga sangat mencerahkan lewat satu kenyataan media beliau berhubung Penggunaan Kalimah Allah ini.

Terdapat beberapa ayat Al-Quran yang menyatakan bagaimana penggunaan nama Allah SWT ini digunapakai oleh penganut agama samawi yang lain terdahulu, sebagaimana terkandung di dalam surah Al-Hajj ayat 39-40:

“Diizinkan berperang bagi orang-orang (Islam) yang diperangi (oleh golongan penceroboh), kerana sesungguhnya mereka telah dianiaya; dan sesungguhnya Allah Amat Berkuasa untuk menolong mereka (mencapai kemenangan).

Iaitu mereka yang diusir dari kampung halamannya dengan tidak berdasarkan sebarang alasan yang benar, (mereka diusir) semata-mata kerana mereka berkata: “Tuhan kami ialah Allah”. Dan kalaulah Allah tidak mendorong setengah manusia menentang pencerobohan setengahnya yang lain, nescaya runtuhlah tempat-tempat pertapaan serta gereja-gereja (kaum Nasrani), dan tempat-tempat sembahyang (kaum Yahudi), dan juga masjid-masjid (orang Islam) yang sentiasa disebut nama Allah banyak-banyak padanya dan sesungguhnya Allah akan menolong sesiapa yang menolong ugamaNya (ugama Islam); sesungguhnya Allah Maha Kuat, lagi Maha Kuasa…”

Samada keputusan membenarkan penggunaan nama Allah ini wajar atau tidak, saya serahkan pada ahli agama dan mereka yang mempunyai autoriti. Mereka lebih arif untuk menentukan samada wujud keperluan untuk mengekalkan keputusan itu ataupun menarik balik melalui semakan kehakiman di peringkat Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan kelak.

Saya bersetuju bahawa isu ini sedikit sebanyak mendatangkan kegelisahan dan ketidakselesaan di kalangan ahli agama dan masyarakat negara kita, khuatir sekiranya keputusan mahkamah ini dijadikan lesen bagi kalangan pendakwah Kristian menyalahtafsir dan menyalahguna kalimah Allah ini untuk perkara yang berpotensi mengelirukan masyarakat Muslim yang lemah pemahaman.

Saya berpendapat, jika ia dibenarkan dalam konteks negara kita, maka satu prosedur yang ketat haruslah dikenakan ke atas mereka agar tidak berlaku penyelewengan istilah yang memungkinkan dakwah mereka disebarluas samada secara senyap mahupun secara terangan. Mekanisme yang jelas dan tersusun haruslah difikirkan dengan teliti agar pengurusan agama yang melibatkan Islam dan agama-agama lain tidak dicaca-marbakan sehingga membawa kepada kecelaruan di kalangan masyarakat.

Ini setidak-tidaknya memberi ruang kepada autoriti agama di Malaysia mengambil langkah proaktif dalam hal ehwal berhubung pengurusan agama di Malaysia.

Saranan Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz juga sangat bernas, di mana isu ini memerlukan autoriti agama Islam dan alim ulama’ Malaysia duduk semeja berdialog dengan autoriti agama Kristian bagi menghalusi isu ini sedalam-dalamnya agar dapat mengelakkan kekeliruan kelak.

Saya percaya ramai kalangan kita yang mual dengan lagak sesetengah pihak dalam negara kita yang berlumba-lumba menjadi juara dalam isu ini. Seolah-olah isu ini menjadi nisan tanpa nama ke atas imej dan kelangsungan Islam sebagaimana yang tertakluk di bawah Artikel 3 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan juga sejarah.

Yang saya mualkan ialah wujudkan satu bentuk keadaan di mana wujudnya hubaya yang bersikap ‘lebih sudu daripada kuah’. Seolah-olah keputusan 31 Disember lepas merupakan paku terakhir buat keranda pemakaman maruah Islam dan muslim Malaysia seluruhnya.

Saya melihat berlaku kecenderungan sesetengah pihak yang menilai tinggi rendahnya kedudukan Islam di Malaysia ini daripada sudut sisi perlakuan orang lain BERBANDING melihat kepada perilaku dan pembawaan penganutnya sendiri. Dan pihak-pihak ini jarang benar berhujah dengan menggunakan dalil yang segar dan sihat, sebaliknya melawan dengan provokasi yang pastinya bersadur emosi.

Dalam bab mempertahankan nama Allah, merekalah di hadapan, malah saya percaya dengan laungan Jihad sebagaimana yang boleh ditonton di kaca televisyen memungkinkan mereka ini berada di barisan hadapan jika Malaysia berhadapan musibah kelak!

Tetapi sayangnya mereka ini tidak istiqamah. Nama Allah disayang dijulang ditimang, tetapi bila datang bab mempertahankan syiar dan syariat, tidak tahu di mana mereka ini.

Apa pendirian mereka mengenai hukum hudud? Apakah mereka akan terus berdolak dalik dengan hukuman sebat Kartika yang sehingga kini masih tertunda rentetan pelbagai polemik?

Apakah penindasan sesama Islam itu dibenarkan dalam Islam? Apakah menguruskan aset negara dan wang rakyat secara tidak berhemah sehingga meleburkan ratusan juta ringgit itu dibenarkan dalam Islam?

Apakah rasuah dan penyelewengan kuasa itu hukumnya halal dalam Islam? Apakah penipuan dalam sistem pilihanraya itu wajib dilaksanakan demi mengekalkan kuasa di dalam Islam?

Saya lihat sebuah akhbar perdana, begitu bersungguh dengan paparan utamanya betapa umat Islam perlu bersatu menghadapi situasi ini semalam. Seolah-olah mereka benar-benar bertindak pendinding akhir kepada isu ini. Seolah-olah tiada lagi Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk dilakukan semakan kehakiman.

Pada saya mudah saja, jika betullah editorial akhbar ini benar-benar ikhlas mempertahankan maruah agama, saya kira elok benar jika mereka tamatkan penerbitan Majalah Mangga terlebih dahulu yang saban keluaran tak lekang dengan gambar separuh bogel artis Malaysia yang kalangannya beragama Islam di dalam kolam renang dan gambar-gambar yang sewaktu dengannya.

Matlamat sama sekali tidak menghalalkan cara.Itu jelas dan tuntas.Janganlah menjadikan isu ini sebagai satu asas untuk mencetus provokasi atas nama ‘mempertahankan agama’ di sebalik pelbagai lagi insiatif boleh difikirkan untuk memurnikan pemahaman dan pengurusan agama di Malaysia.

Sebab itu saya benci sikap selektif, tambahan lagi bila melibatkan bab-bab agama. Seolah-olah Allah SWT boleh dikaburi dan malaikat itu tidak mencatit. Bila mengaku beragama dan berTuhan, jangan sesekali kita hipokrit dan selektif.

Surah Al-Baqarah ayat 209 yang antara lain bermaksud:

“Wahai orang-orang yang beriman! Masuklah kamu ke dalam Ugama Islam secara keseluruhannya (dengan mematuhi segala hukum-hukumnya); dan janganlah kamu menurut jejak langkah Syaitan; sesungguhnya Syaitan itu musuh bagi kamu yang terang nyata.”

Semoga ini menjadi ingatan jua buat diri saya untuk menghindarkan diri daripada terjerumus daripada kalangan seumpama ini. Naudzubillah.

Wallahua’lam.

Have the two missing RM100 million F5 fighter jet engines ended up as scrap metal or sinkers for fishing? All the more why there must be a Royal Commi

By Lim Kit Siang,

The explanation by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail on the two missing RM100 million F5 fighter engines have raised public incredulity and outrage to new heights, spawning even more questions, including:

Firstly, why have the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers taken such an inordinately long time of over 16 months in the investigations into the two J85-GE-21 engines, which power the F5 fighters, which had been stolen from two RMAF facilities while some components from the same planes were also unaccounted for?

All that Gani can say now is that police had completed its investigations “to a large extent” and that he would announce “very soon” the decision on the next course of action against those involved in the thefts.

This is totally unsatisfactory as according to police investigations, the engines were taken out of the RMAF base on Dec 20, 2007 and Jan 1, 2008, and sent to a premises in Subang Jaya.

The military only realised that the engines were missing on May 22 of that year and launched an investigation, and the base’s chief Major Zulfikli Ayub later lodged a report at the Brickfields police station on Aug 4.

Secondly, have the two missing RM100 million F5 fighter jet engines ended up as scrap metal or sinkers for fishing?

Gani stressed that he was being sarcastic as “I really do not know what is being done to it now, whether the engines are used as scrap metal or as sinker for fishing.” (Star)

But such unintended sarcasm is at the expense of the Mindef, Police and the AG himself!

Thirdly, what is the use or worth of Gani’s “vow” to bring back the two stolen jet engines when the government does not know where they are, what they have become or has not been able to bring to book the culprits responsible?

Fourthly, has kleptocracy (a government characterized by rampant greed and corruption) become so rampant that mere “rank and file” can walk away with two RM100 million jet engines from top-security areas without the involvement “senior military personnel” in the scandal?

This is the implication when Gani said that no senior military personnel was involved in the scandal, only those from the “rank and file”.

If so, this is all the more justification why there must be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into rampant government kleptocracy in Malaysia.

The questions posed by a visitor to my blog warrants response by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, himself as he was the Defence Minister as the operative time of the theft of the two jet engines and also because of all his sloganeering about KPIs, NKRAs and most of all, “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”:

“What kind of outfit are they operating if rank and file could steal and cart two RMAF F5-E jet engines out with impunity???

“If security were so lax in a military base what is there to prevent enemies of the state from securing corrupt rank and file for access to plant bombs in the jet planes at the base in sabotage of the nation’s defence system? Isn’t this a case of criminal negligence of higher ups to allow security breach of such nature to occur in extreme threat to national interest?

“If the theft occurred in 2007 you mean that they need to take over 2 years to discover this? Does that not mean that in these two years no pilot test-fly the jet plans and no maintenance people maintain these planes for all the two years for otherwise the theft would surely have been earlier discovered?

“If thats the way they neglect the planes that are supposed to defend the country’s territorial integrity – what hope is there for a proper defence of the country’s national security? And why should so much of the Public Expenditures/Taxes go to pay for these defence systems if there were no proper inventory controls?

“Worse still if higher ups were in complicity for a sting of such daring proportion and scale to be carried out.

“If it were so easy to take out military hardware from a secure base due to lack of inventory controls what is there to stop the hardware being highjacked at source even before it arrives at the secure military base???

“For example if we buy planes or submarines from a foreign country what is there to stop the so called low ranking rank and file from selling them to another third country and arrange for these planes and submarines from going direct from the first mentioned to the third country direct whilst the inventory over here registers that they (planes and submarines) have arrived at the base here when in fact they have not? Have you seen the military arms-in-being when they arrive here? Can we check inventory records ? No – because of Official Secrets Act.

“So if rank and file can pull a stunt of such magnitude what is there to stop a total hijack and detour (at source) if ever (hypothetically) some higher up general or brigadier were ever involved in complicity in such a bold sting???

“I am just extrapolating the situation as logically will result based on such a ridiculous situation of jet engines being in the position to be stolen by rank and file!”

Four In Family Brutally Slain

GEMENCHEH, Jan 5 (Bernama) -- An elderly couple, their son-in-law and their granddaughter were found brutally murdered at their homes in in Kampung Bukit Rokan, about six kilometres from here Tuesday.

The dead were the imam of the Kampung Bukit Rokan mosque, Atan Daud, 90, his wife Sutiah Katas, 80, their son-in-law, Ismail Awang, 76, and granddaughter Siti Katijah Ismail,22.

Negeri Sembilan police chief Datuk Osman Salleh said three of the victims were found in the living room of Atan's house while Siti Khatijah was found dead in the living room of her house next door.

"Ismail's head was severed, Siti Khatijah had a knife still buried in her chest while the elderly couple had slash wounds in their hands, probably caused by their attempts to defend themselves from a parang attack," he told a press conference here.

He said police suspected the slaying probably happened in the morning and that the bodies were found by Siti Khadijah's younger sister upon her returning from school at midday.

"Police are doing everything possibe to bring the person or persons responsible for this ghastly murders to book," he said, adding that the cooperation of police in other states had been enlisted in tracking down the murderer or murderers.

A bloodstained parang was also found at the scene.

Police are looking for a sibling of Siti Khatijah, Rashidi Ismail, 34, (NRIC No.760315-05-5025), to assist investigations.

He has been found to be missing and uses a blue Suzuki motorcycle with registration number BAY 2805.

RMAF Personnel, Company Director To Be Charged Over Missing F-5E Jet Engines

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 6 (Bernama) -- A Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) personnel with the rank of sergeant and a company director will be charged in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court Wednesday in connection with the missing two F-5E jet engines.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said the RMAF personnel would be charged for stealing while the company director for disposing off stolen properties.

"Investigations revealed that both F-5E jet engines were removed from the Material Udara 1 (Matra 1) godown in Kuala Lumpur as a result of a collaboration between an RMAF personnel with the rank of sergeant and a company director to dispose off both jet engines," he said in a statement Tuesday night.

He said based on information from witnesses and documents obtained, he ordered the duo to be charged.

The sergeant will be charged under Section 380 of the Penal Code to be read with Section 109 of the same code, while the company director, under Section 414 of the code.

The jets engines were found missing in 2007 while being taken for a routine maintenance from the 12th Squadron (Scorpion) in Butterworth to the RMAF godown in Kuala Lumpur.

The jet engines were discovered stolen by RMAF on May 22, 2008 and a police report was lodged on Aug 4 the same year.

Court dismisses orang asli bid

The Star

TEMERLOH: Temerloh High Court Tuesday dismissed the application by two orang asli who sought a judicial review of the decision by a local district and land office which had cut off water and electricity supply to a multi-purpose building that was also used as a place of worship by 70 Jahut Christians in Kampung Pasu.

Judicial Commissioner Justice Akhtar Tahir said that the decision to cut the water and electricity supply was proper because the building was illegally erected.

He added that under Section 6 and 7 of the Aborigines Act, the state authority was empowered to gazette an area as orang asli reserve land.

"However, in this case, the land or area is not gazetted for the orang asli and as such, the application is dismissed.

''The decision made by the Temerloh District Land Administrator is proper,'' Justice Akhtar said.

The judicial review was initiatied by father and son, Wet Ket, 59, and Yaman Wet, 33, who named Temerloh district and land office and Pahang government as respondents.

They filed the application in December 2007.

Senior federal counsel Kamal Azira Hassan represented the respondents while counsel Annou Xavier and Kenny Ng appeared on behalf of Wet and Yaman.

The applicants were accompanied by 10 people in the court here Tuesday.

In July 2003, the applicants erected the building, which was also used as a church by the Jahut Christians.

They, however, received a notice by the district office at the end of July stating that the building was illegally built on government land.

In Dec 2006, Wet and Yaman lodged a police report and complained to the Government and following some negotiations, they were given a compensation of RM35,000 to rebuild the place.

Their application for water and electricity was, however, rejected by the Temerloh district and land office on the grounds that it was erected on an ungazetted land while the building was constructed without the approval from the authorities.

Unsung heroes in the struggle for Merdeka - Aliran

We are so used to the mainstream version of history. Catch this story by Hishamuddin Yahaya in Aliran Monthly to find out more about the little-known heroes in the struggle for independence.

(From left) Ishak Haji Mohammed, Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy and Ahmad Boestamam – Photos courtesy of Aliran Monthly

Apart from the prominent figures above, countless numbers of ordinary Malaysians, including workers, were involved in the quest for independence.

“Lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama”

The seeds of independence had been sowed long before the existence of Umno, notes Hishamuddin Yahaya. This is a tribute to the unsung heroes of the Merdeka struggle.

Can Umno’s claim that they fought for the country’s independence stand the test of time? The veracity of this claim is now shrouded with doubt. A book in bahasa, entitled Anak Merdeka, written by Haji Salleh Majid and published in 1991, exposed the fallacy of this claim. The author was no politician but an ordinary man who lived to witness the political development of this country evolving from the 1940s to the day of Merdeka.

Early attempts to gain independence

Early attempts to achieve independence were mostly unrecorded. For example, in the early 1940s and before the Japanese occupation of Malaya, Ishak Haji Mohammed (commonly known as Pak Sako), together with an Indonesian delegation, surreptitiously went to Japan soliciting Japanese help to fight for the independence of their respective countries. This was followed by Soekarno meeting Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy to plan strategies for both countries’ independence. Though both attempts failed for various reasons, the seeds of independence had been sowed long before the existence of Umno.

Ishak Haji Mohamad’s secret trip to Japan was risky business, inviting prosecution for treason, punishable by death, but such was the dexterity of this pure nationalist. Though he was in the colonial civil service at that time, his patriotism and love for the country was never sacrificed to the colonial masters he served. In fact it was while in Japan that the name Sako was begotten. The Japanese found it difficult to spell and pronounce his name Ishak, so they called him Isako. Later it became his pen name, Pak Sako.

Indonesia's independence

The independence of Indonesia on 17 August 1945 triggered fire in the hearts of Malays of Indonesian descent. After all, Indonesia was the “motherland”, separated only by the narrow Straits of Malacca. Both were Malay lands; and if one could gain independence, why not the other? Furthermore, an independent Indonesia could provide moral and material help to Malays in the struggle for independence. Thus, begun the dawn of Merdeka.

Formation of PKMM

It was not until early 1946 that Malaya’s first independent movement was formed. It was a political party called Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM). Its founder members were Malays of Indonesian descent, notable among them were Ahmad Boestamam and Musa Ahmad. The party published its first newspaper called Suara Rakayt at Hale Street, Ipoh. The contents were one hundred per cent political. In no time, PKMM opened branches all over the country with its headquarters at 2 Batu Road (now Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman) Kuala Lumpur. It did not take long for Pak Sako and Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy to join the party.

“Merdeka!” was the greeting of party members whenever they met. It was said in a spirited voice with clenched fist brought to the chest. Anytime and anywhere they met, the greeting was “Merdeka!”

Formation of Umno

The United Malays National Organisation (Umno) was formed in June 1946, six months after the formation of PKMM. It was established with the sole objective of opposing the proposed Malayan Union which relegated the powers of the Malayan Rulers to the British Residents. Umno was not an independence movement. In fact, it vehemently opposed independence as the leaders were mostly colonial civil servants who had sold their lives and soul to their colonial masters. Not only was Umno opposed to independence, the word “Merdeka”was taboo to them. Umno’s greeting was “hidup Melayu!”

The other reason Umno opposed independence was that the Malays were poor and uneducated; left to themselves, Malaya would be a failed state.

The PKMM, on the other hand, thought otherwise. The party wanted independence first; then there would be ample opportunity to educate the Malays as the country was rich in natural resources, and it would not be a failed state. These opposing positions divided the two parties and led to enmity.

PKMM and the labour movement

Enhanced by its committed leaders, the PKMM was a symbol of solidarity. The spirit within party members raged like wildfire. Branches and bureaus were established. Apart from the youth and women’s wings, labour, agriculture and religious bureaus were established. The labour bureau was the most active and most successful political agitator. Through it, the PKMM penetrated the Malayan labour movement, which was very responsive to the former’s presence as the living conditions of the labourers at that time were deplorable. In fact, the presence of the PKMM was welcomed and long awaited.

Incidentally, the Malayan labour movement had affiliated itself with the world labour movement, the World Federation of Trade Unions(WFTU), whose headquarters was in Paris, and not with the American-controlled International Labour Organisation (ILO), whose headquarters was in New York. The WFTU was leftist inclined, and with the Malayan labour movement affiliated to it, the PKMM’s penetration into the movement heightened British suspicion of the party.

Organised strikes

Between 1946-1948, the labour movement was so active (except in Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah) that intermitternt strikes almost crippled the rubber and tin industries. The port workers of Singapore too joined in the strikes, crippling Malaya’s major port.

As expected, the British operative policy of divide and rule was immediately put into action. While pretending to acknowledge the labourers’ plight, the PKMM was declared illegal and its leaders incarcerated.

The organised strikes did not ease with the banning of the PKMM. Day by day, British economic interests were in jeopardy. The rubber and tin industries, the mainstay of the British economy, faced imminent paralysis. By this time the colonial government had sent a loud and clear message to Whitehall. By this time, Whitehall realised that the independence of India and Indonesia had given impetus to Malaya to free itself from the shackles of colonial rule. This aspiration could no longer be contained and sooner or later Malaya had to be given its independence.

Independence on a silver platter

The British had learnt that independence achieved through war not only resulted in the loss of life and property, but left a grudge within the beneficiary state, resulting in the nationalisation of the colonialists’ assets. This meant the British could lose everything. So the only option was for a negotiated independence. The question then was who would be the British protege so that their assets would be fully protected and the expatriates could hold on to their jobs a little longer.

With PKMM banned and its leaders incarcerated, the only organised movement that dominated the political scene then was Umno, which was seen as a safe bet. Firstly, most of their leaders were British educated and had embraced British culture and values ever since their high school days in Britain or at the Malay College Kuala Kangsar. Secondly, they were mostly the sons of the Malay rulers and chieftains who had been close to the British. These people had regarded the British as their icons and mentors and viewed them as their savoir.

Umno, the opportunist

Umno was quick to seize the opportunity. With its adversary, the PKMM banned and driven into oblivion, Umno took over where the PKMM had left off. From an anti-Malayan Union organi-sation, it suddenly assumed the role of a force fighting for independence. The British were very comfortable with Umno’s new role, and negotiations for independence took off.

The negotiations that followed were mainly technical and focussed on two major issues: to prepare the country’s constitution and to agree on the date of the declaration of independence. A body was formed, headed by Lord Reid, to look into a constitution and the date of independence was agreed as 31 August 1957. For political exigency, Umno would have to forge an alliance with the ethnic Chinese and Indian political parties, and hence “Perikatan” (Alliance) was formed.

Pending full independence, Malaya was ruled by the Federal Legislative Council consisting of appointed members representing the various races and professions. With independence granted on a silver platter, the British were successful in retaining the entire system and had their assets protected. For Umno and the Alliance, the declaration of independence was a jubilant moment as it was achieved without shedding a drop of blood.

Declaration of independence

On 31 August 1957, Malaya was re-reborn. As the clock struck midnight, the Union Jack was lowered and the new Malayan flag was hoisted in front of the clock tower opposite the Selangor Padang. The shouts of “Merdeka!” — no less than seven times — reverberated and resounded in the air. The shouts were led by Tuanku Abdul Rahman, who stood on a rostrum surrounded by his Cabinet Ministers, some of whom, I observed, were obviously drunk.

The official declaration of independence was held at Stadium Merdeka the next morning, attended by all the Malay Rulers, the British High Commissioner and the representatives of the Queen (Duke of Gloucester). I was there with my father and sibling “representing” Temerloh, Pahang.

Thus, Malaya was born as an independent state, a member of the British Commonwealth and member of the United Nations. It was the culmination of a long and difficult struggle, an achievement won not by the educated class, but by labourers, port workers and others — the downtrodden — whose existence we hardly knew.

They were the real fighters of Merdeka, whose actions created a landscape for independence. Those were the people who laboured endlessly to enrich the colonial masters in return for a pittance and who now lay in the graves unknown and forgotten.

They were Malays, Indians, Chinese and others and they were certainly not Umno members. They were the unsung heroes who sacrificed their lives and freedom for future generations, but who only found their own freedom in the silence of their graves. It is those people who deserve to be commemorated on 31 August every year and not “the patriots” who hoisted the jalur gemilang on the roofs of mansions at the prestigious addresses of Kuala Lumpur or those who flew the jalur gemilang on the roofs of their flashy cars.

To the real patriots and the fighters of independence, we offer them our unreserved salute. As for Umno, we only have this to say: “Lembu punya susu, sapi dapat nama.”

Dato Hishamuddin bin Haji Yahaya is a lawyer and former MP for Temerloh.

Stay connected, current and committed to justice. We deliver the truth right to your doorstep every month for only RM30 a year -- which is far less than your newspaper bill each month. All you have to do is click here.

Justice was never won without personal sacrifice - whether measured in time volunteered, energy devoted to a cause, or financial support generously given. We need your support in our struggle for justice. Your contribution no matter how small will be like a droplet that builds up into a wave of change. Click here if you would like to contribute financially.

No high ranking officers or official profited from 50m engine theft? Hmm.

by Nathaniel Tan

So it seems no high ranking officers were involved in the RM 50 million jet engine theft.

The last thing I want to do is cast aspersions of our men in uniform, but I can’t help but feel that perhaps, the small fish are being sacrificed to protect the big fish.

It’s possible I suppose, albeit perhaps less than probable, that leakage and theft of such massive proportions were basically carried out by men who could not even make officer rank.

Were they the only ones who profiteered from this? Perhaps, but I keep thinking back to submarines and MiG jets. This is a land where arms trading is extremely lucrative – lucrative enough for people to end up blown to pieces.

I won’t pretend to know all the facts, or say that this is anything beyond speculation, but something tells me that this crime goes beyond a few enlisted men.