Indians Support For PM Has Increased

KUALA LUMPUR, July 12 (Bernama) -- A random survey by the MIC revealed that the support from the Indian community for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's leadership has increased, its president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said today.

"We expect the support to increase further in the next few months," he said.

At the same time, he said, the support for the MIC has also improved tremendously after its poor showing in the last general election, losing six out of nine parliamentary and 12 out of 19 state seats.

"The prime minister's 1Malaysia concept has captivated the hearts and minds of the Indians as it is not merely a slogan but has been translated into actions beneficial to the community," he told reporters after opening the party's Youth wing's leadership forum here.

It was reported recently that the Merdeka Centre survey showed that some 74 per cent of Indians polled were satisfied with Najib's performance as prime minister.

Samy Vellu said the increase in the support for the prime minister among the Indians was attributed to the many reforms undertaken by Najib and his administration.

He said the 11 initiatives announced by the prime minister yesterday, including allocating RM15 million under the Tekun scheme for Indian entrepreneurs has boosted the support among Indians towards the prime minister.

"Before this, the prime minister allocated RM100 million for Tamil schools, RM20 for Indian youth development programmes and RM499 million worth of Amanah Saham Malaysia shares," he said.

Intake of Indians into public universities and public sector had also improved, he said, stressing that almost nine per cent of Indians were recruited into the civil service.

Samy Vellu said many of the new policies and allocations for the Indian community introduced by the government were contained in several recommendations made by the MIC over the past 18 months.

He thanked Najib for considering many of the party's proposals which were also similar to the demands made by other Indian organisations.

On the MIC elections, Samy Vellu said he would probably announce his line-up after the nominations for the post of deputy president, three vice-presidents and 23 Central Working Committee members.

"I can't say now but I have my own preferred candidates (for the posts)," he said.

The MIC polls are scheduled to be held on Sept 12 while nominations would take place two weeks before polling.

Samy Vellu is said to be backing incumbent MIC deputy president Datuk G. Palanivel for the number two post while the contenders are former deputy president Datuk S. Subramaniam and vice-president Datuk S. Sothinathan.

MIC secretary-general and Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam may also join in the fray.

Gobbledegook and regurgitation in the written judgments of the Court of Appeal in Zambry vs Nizar (Part 2) — NH Chan (loyarburok.com)

JULY 11 — On Tuesday, July 7, 2009 I posted an article under the above title on the web with various news portals and here. At that time I only had the written judgments of two of the judges Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA. I have just received the third judgment of Zainun Ali JCA. Below is my critique of the written judgment of Zainun Ali JCA.

The points that really matter

As I have said it before in the first part of this article, there are only two points that really matter in the appeal of the case in question. They involve the reading of two clauses in Article 16 of the Perak Constitution and an understanding of what the clauses mean. A very experienced judge, the late Lord Justice Salmon in a talk which he gave to young members of the English Bar, Some Thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar, said:

… remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three. Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest.

Actually, Salmon LJ was revealing to budding advocates the mind of a judge. The young advocates are informed, before they embark on their career, that a judge makes his decision by discovering the point that really matters or, exceptionally, the points that really matter. This revelation should place aspiring advocates on the right direction to becoming good advocates.

If a judge misses the point or points altogether, the whole decision becomes nothing but gobbledegook if it is unintelligible or a regurgitation of a lot of information on the facts and the law without understanding them.

A decision which does not decide on any point that really matters is not a judgment at all. A decision which misses the point altogether is merely the extraneous ranting of an incompetent judge. At best, the legal principles described in the decision may be described as nothing more than obiter dictum or dicta; but if it is just to repeat known law (which is unconnected to any point in issue) as was done here in most of the judgment of Zainun Ali JCA, it is not even dicta.

In truth, such a decision is useless because it cannot be cited as an authority as it is only regurgitating what is already known. But a decision that misses the point or points altogether is no authority on the issue or issues before the court. Because the decision did not decide on the issues or points that matter, such a decision is at best merely obiter dicta (the Latin phrase means “incidental”).

Professor Andrew Harding in his essay, Crises of Confidence and Perak’s Constitutional Impasse, gave an illustration of such a situation in Amir Kahar (Sabah, 1995) which the High Court judge in the present case had distinguished. This is what Professor Harding wrote:

Amir Kahar, [the High Court judge] said, was correct on its facts but did not raise the issue in question as the Chief Minister of Sabah in that case had in fact resigned and the only issue was as to the effect of his resignation with regard to the rest of the Cabinet; accordingly the court’s views in that case on the issue of confidence were merely obiter dicta (incidental).

If a judgment decides on the points that really matter, the judgment which decides on those points is described as the ratio decidendi of the decision (this Latin phrase means “the reason for a decision”).

The incidental part of a judgment which does not form the reason for the decision (the ratio of the judgment) is an obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta). This Latin phrase means “incidental”. An obiter dictum is never cited as an authority for the proposition it states, although an intellectually dishonest judge would treat it as such, in the hope that the reader would take his word for it and not read the whole judgment that he has referred to in support of his proposition.

Sometimes an obiter dictum has much persuasive value depending on the standing of the judge. Such obiter dictum may sometimes be adopted by a judge as his judgment in an appropriate case. Only the ratio decidendi of a judgment can be used as authority for the proposition that it states. But the remarks which are incidental to the decision are obiter.

Let us now expose the fallacy of the judgment of Zainun Ali JCA

The judgment is 115 pages long — it is like using a blunderbuss to shoot at a target, scattering shots in all directions, and not hitting it. It is the longest of the three. Most of it has nothing to do with the two points that really matter in this appeal which we know are Clause (2)(a) and Clause (6) of Article 16 of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. And when she does come to the two points that are the real issues in the appeal she misses the points altogether by giving a wrong reason for them.

Here at p. 12 is an example of irrelevant writing. This is what she wrote, p. 12:

Inclined as is the Federal Constitution towards the Westminster structure, it has its own peculiarities. The Westminster model is not to be found in one document, but could be seen in bits and pieces in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and a series of Parliament Acts. Conversely, the Federal Constitution however is embodied in one document and gathers unto itself various sources of law some of which are implicit. The unique presence of the written law, shot through with informal and unwritten sources in the form of conventions, prerogatives, discretionary and residual powers as such, help ensure the continuation of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Thus the sources of law in our Constitution are several. Article 160(1) of the Federal Constitution says it all. “Law includes written law, the common law, insofar as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof and any custom or usage having the force of law in the Federation or any part thereof”.

I think I should stop here. Enough is enough. I don’t think we, neither the reading public nor myself, can stomach any more balderdash. You can pretend to be erudite by regurgitating unconnected material of facts and jumble them up. You can even misread the history of England like not knowing the different period in history between the feudalism of the barons and a despotic king in Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement which came about after King James II fled the realm and the ascension of William and Mary to the throne of England. Unless you can connect the leap from thirteenth century England to the Act of Settlement in 1701 some four hundred years later, then everything that is said is nothing more than pretended erudition.

What is the Magna Carta?

I shall start with Magna Carta since she mentions it first. In order to understand the significance of Magna Carta in English history, it is necessary to know the difference between feudalism and despotism. The Charter marked the first step in the resistance by the barons to the despotism of King John in the thirteenth century. As Trevelyan wrote in his History of England, illustrated edition, p. 199:

For feudalism is the opposite of despotism… The barons and knights were protected from the king by feudal law and custom. When [the King] claimed service, aids or reliefs on a scale larger than the custom allowed, they resisted him on point of feudal law.

Trevelyan tells us:

The resistance to royal despotism in the thirteenth century was successful because the feudal class, unlike the squires of later times, was still to some extent a warrior class… they all had chain-armour and war-horses, some had gone on the Crusades, and many lived in a state of chronic skirmishing with their Welsh and Scottish neighbours. That is why the barons of Magna Carta… were able to put up a fight against the King.

I shall now let Lord Denning take up the story in The Family Story, Butterworth, 1981, p. 229:

On May 5, 1215, many of the Barons openly rebelled against the King. They renounced their fealty [loyalty in feudal times] to him. … On May 12 he [King John] ordered their estates to be seized. But the Barons marched towards London which, on May 17, opened its gates to them. This was decisive. The Barons, with the support of London, had the whip-hand. John had to sue for peace. … At length a truce was arranged from June 10 to June 15.

The first meeting at Runnymeade was on June 10, 1215. There were present King John, the Archbishop Stephen Langton, and some baronial envoys. At this meeting the Barons presented their demands and the King submitted to them.

At p. 230:

On June 15 the truce was due to expire. On that day the parties assembled in great numbers at Runnymede and agreement was reached on all points. The King and those present all solemnly swore to abide by the agreement. This day was regarded as so important that, when the Charter was afterwards drawn up, it was given the date, June 15.

At the bottom of p. 230 and at p. 231:

The peace did not last long. In a couple of months the parties were again at war. The King looked for aid to Rome. … August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III purported to annul the Charter. … he excommunicated the English Barons. … But John’s death on October 12, 1216, at Newark Castle, altered everything. Early in the reign of the young King Henry III the Great Charter was confirmed by his regents. In the years 1225 it was re-issued by the King himself under the Great Seal. Magna Carter then took its final form, word for word, as it stands today as the earliest enactment on the Statute Rolls of England.

The Great Charter dealt with grievances of the time in a practical way. It gave legal redress for the wrongs of a feudal age. But it was expressed in language which has had its impact on future generations. It put into words the spirit of individual liberty which has influenced our people ever since.

…

We find set down in the thirty-ninth clause the guarantee of freedom under the law [all the clauses of the Magna Carta were in Latin; the translation is by Lord Denning]: (No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized [deprived of feudal interest in land], outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land).

Immediately following, in the fortieth clause, is the guarantee of the impartial administration of justice [in Latin; Lord Denning gives the translation] (To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice).

At pp. 231, 232:

The constitutional significance of Magna Carta is immense. It was thus measured by Bryce: “The Charter of 1215 was the starting point of the constitutional history of the English race, the first link in a long chain of constitutional instruments which have moulded men’s minds and held together free governments not only in England, but whenever the English race has gone and the English tongue is spoken”. When the colonists crossed the seas from England to countries the world over, they took with them the principles set down in the Charter. Those who went to Virginia took its very words. When they renounced their allegiance in 1776, they stated in their Declaration of Rights that “no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers”. Thence the provisions of the Charter found their place in the Constitution of the United States. There it is revered as much as here.

The Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701

For this Lord Denning has put it succinctly in The Family Story, pp. 192, 193:

No member of the government, no member of Parliament, and no official of any government department, has any right whatever to direct or to influence or to interfere with the decisions of any of the judges. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in the judges. … The critical test which they must pass if they are to receive the confidence of the people is that they must be independent of the executive.

Why do the English people feel so strongly about this? It is because it is born in them. We know in our bones that it will not do for us to allow the executive to have any control over the judges: and we know it because our forefathers learnt it in their struggles with the kings of England - the kings who in the old days exercised the supreme executive power in the land. Ever since the Act of Settlement in 1701 it has been part of our constitution that a judge of the High Court cannot be removed except for misconduct. … Secure from any fear of removal, the judges of England do their duty fearlessly, holding the scales even, not only between man and man, but also between man and the State. Every judge on his appointment takes an oath that he “will do justice to all manner of people according to the laws and customs of England, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”. Never since 1701 has any judge failed to keep that oath.

…

The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: “What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law”. The Bill of Rights 1688, art. 9, s. 1, says:

“That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Now you know why I think she does not understand what she is saying. If she does understand what she wrote then she would not have decided the instant appeal in the way she did at the conclusion of her overlong judgment.

But what has all this got to do with the two clauses in Article 16?

But the most important point of all, after 114 pages of mumbo-jumbo that she wrote, is this: what has all this got to do with the two clauses of Article 16 of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak?

The United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution and in order to understand it fully one should be well acquainted with the history of England. Whereas Malaya and later Malaysia has a written Constitution which may be changed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. But, here in this appeal the lady judge is, and should be dealing with, the two points that really matter which are the two clauses of Article 16 of the Perak Constitution.

After having said that, I shall go straight to the points at issue. How did she answer them? It took her 114 pages of circuitous writing before she finally came to the wrong conclusion that “His Royal Highness had … rightly exercised his constitutional powers as provided for and under the Perak State Constitution solely for the best interests of his subjects”.

I am stunned by her naivety. I am at a loss for words.

We all know that there is no provision in the Constitution of Perak which provides constitutional powers to the Sultan to act “solely for the best interests of his subjects”. For this judge to say that there is such a power when there is no provision in the Constitution of Perak for the Ruler to have such power is to mislead the uninformed public. A judge who misleads cannot be trusted. She has disgraced herself on the seat of justice.

Professor Andrew Harding took up 4 pages and Professor Kevin Tan 5 pages to come to the correct conclusion. Sometimes I wonder where these recalcitrant judges read law. I have a theory. One way is to memorise all the lecture notes — when I was a student in London I heard that many of our students memorized the notes supplied by Gibson and Weldon and passed their examinations. They forget that LAW is a reading subject. Ever heard of the expression, we joined a university or the Inns of Court to read law? You study mathematics or science but you read law.

After meandering for 114 pages she concluded, p. 114:

Thus I share the view expressed by my learned brothers Raus Sharif JCA and Ahmad Maarop JCA that in the context of this appeal, His Royal Highness had in the critical situation rightly exercised his constitutional powers as provided for under the Perak State Constitution solely for the best interests of his subjects. This decision being unanimous, the orders are as comprehensively set out in the judgment of my learned brother Raus Sharif JCA.

What I have said in my severe critique of Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA in the first part of this article applies, mutatis mutandis (allowing for the appropriate changes), to Zainun Ali JCA. Need I say more.

I am as much disgusted as most of you are of judges of such inane quality. In the present context, “learned” is a funny word. I know some of you may say that the word is only a title applied in referring to a member of the legal profession. It has no meaning. I hope so, otherwise it will mislead the public further. — loyarburok.com

DAP lodges police report over High Chaparral - Malaysiakini

Penang DAP Socialist Youth (Dapsy) has lodged a police report against the sale of Kampung Buah Pala village land by the previous state government on a steeply discounted price.

Dapsy state secretary Ng Wei Aik, in his report, alleged that the village land had been sold to a civil servant cooperative society at 50 percent discounted land premium, or about RM10 per square foot.

“Dapsy wants the police to investigate all parties involved in the decision-making process to approve the village land alienation,” said Ng (right), the political secretary to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.

He lodged the report at Jalan Patani police station in Georgetown at 1.22pm today.

Ng, also the Komtar assemblyperson, argued that the village land - consider a prime land - was sold at a bargain to the Koperasi Pegawai Kanan Kerajaan Pulau Pinang

He also alleged that the village land in Bukit Gelugor was sold to the cooperative society in exchange for another plot of land next the Dewan Sri Pinang in Lebuh Light.

The Lebuh Light land had since been developed into a new court building.

Ng alleged that the previous state cabinet had approved the Kampung Buah Pala land alienation and sale to the cooperative society without referring to assessment reports on market value of both plots of land.

According to him, the assessment reports were important to ensure that both plots involved in the land-exchange deal must be of the same monetary value.

According to the chronology of events pertaining to the sales of Kampung Buah Pala land, he said the previous state government sold it to the cooperative society after it had rejected two earlier purchase offers from Pembinaan Baufort Sdn Bhd and Edaran Pelita Sdn Bhd.

In his press statement released after lodging the report, Ng raised suspicion on whether former chief minister Koh Tsu Koon and the previous Barisan Nasional state executive councillors had self-interest in alienating the land.

Nearby villagers show support

Meanwhile, some 30 residents from a village in Air Itam held a peaceful protest in support of the embattled Kampung Buah Pala residents.

The residents, predominantly Tamils from the Jalan Empat village, also commonly known as 'Karuppan Toddam', held the protest for about 10 minutes under the watchful eyes of some 20 police officers.

The protest was held along the Jalan Air Itam main road near a roundabout, a few hundred metres from Penang Hill's lower station.

The area comes under Lim's Air Putih state constituency,.

The residents carried banners and placards calling on the state government to preserve the Kampung Buah Pala as an Indian heritage village. They then dispersed peacefully.

The 200-year-old Kampung Buah Pala is also commonly addressed by locals as 'Tamil High Chaparral' because of its cowherds, cattles, goats, other livestocks and Tamil cultural features.

Hindraf hails revelation but questions remain - Malaysiakini

The Hindu Rights Action Force today welcomed the move by the Penang government to declassify certain documents pertaining to the 'Tamil High Chaparral' Kampung Buah Pala crisis.

However, the outlawed movement chairperson P Waythamoorthy said the state government's revelation had raised more questions than answers.

In releasing the documents, he said the DAP-led state government had accused the previous Gerakan government of alienating and selling the Indian traditional village land in a dubious manner.

“However, why then Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng endorsed its sale three weeks after he took over the state government? Why didn't Lim make an attempt to stop or delay the transaction?” he asked.

Waythamoorthy agreed that based on the documents provided by the state government, it was clear that the land was “robbed by the previous Barisan Nasional administration”.

But he could not understand why the new Pakatan Rakyat government had allowed the allegedly fraudulent transfer to take place after it came to power.

The transfer was executed on March 27, 2008 - 19 days after Pakatan captured Penang in last year's general election.

The London-based Hindraf leader also questioned why Lim had failed to revoke the transaction when he was informed about the matter by the villagers' previous lawyer, Cecil Rajendra.

Gerakan-led government to blame

Based on the declassified documents, Wathamoorthy said Hindraf was not in the slightest doubt that BN under its previous chief minister Koh should be held accountable for the sale of the land.

But Waythamoorthy (right) said there were many unanswered questions pertaining to the allegedly fraudulent land deals.

“How did the land given to the villagers and held on trust by the government was sold to a private landowner – Koperasi Pegawai Pegawai Kanan Kerajaan Pulau Pinang?

“How could a land sold at a discounted RM3.21 million suddenly rocket up to hundreds of millions after the land has been transferred to the cooperative society?

“Why is Lim dragging his feet in finding a permanent solution to the problem - that is to exercise his authority under the Land Acquisition Act?

“Indeed, Lim should erase the delusion that hundreds of millions were involved to acquire the land when the Act states only a reasonable sum of compensation.”

Village demolished if not for Hindraf

Waythamoorthy also urged Lim to stop accusing the villagers of “displaying aggression, hostility and arrogance” for refusing to meet him last Wednesday.

He said the residents had made it clear that they wanted to be represented by a lawyer of their choice at the meeting, not one handpicked by Lim.

He also ticked off Lim for insinuating that Hindraf was a BN collaborator.

Hindraf, said Waythamoorthy, was an apolitical movement that does not condone any wrongdoing by the government, whether BN or Pakatan.

He said if not for Hindraf's timely intervention, the village would have been flattened by now.

MIC youth claims ritual to join 'brotherhood' - Malaysiakini

An MIC Youth leader from Pahang has been accused of coaxing young boys to join the ruling component party and undergo a ritual to be part of a secret 'brotherhood'.

S Pravin Kumaran from Pahang had lodged a police report on Friday claiming that he was held against his will and coerced to join a shadowy group comprising young men.

However, after five days of being held captive, Pravin said he managed to escape two days ago from Pahang MIC Youth leader G Kumar Aamaan while they were in Kemaman, Terengganu.

The 22-year-old college student told reporters today that he got to know the MIC leader a week ago when he received a call from Kumar regarding a job offer.

"July 4 was the first time I heard from him. At that time, I did know anything about him except that he is a renowned MIC national-level leader," said Pravin.

"He offered me a job at a steel factory with a high salary and asked me to come down to Kuala Lumpur and on July 6, I met him in Puduraya (bus terminal) and from then on I was held like a captive," he recounted.

Pravin said from the time they met, he had to abide to everything he was instructed to do and that he felt as if he was being "hypnotized".

They bear similar tattoos

He added that he was forced to spend all the money he had brought with him to top up his prepaid mobile number.

"The five days I was with him, I was asked to arrange meetings with grassroots leaders, which I did, but things started getting fishy when I was not even allowed to speak privately on my mobile phone.

“All the calls I received was placed on loudspeaker mode so that others could hear my conversations as well," he said.

"I was being mentally tortured... they would not let me out of their sight. Although they were suppose to buy meals for me, they would get me only one meal and let me starve for the rest of the day," he said.

Moreover, during the five-day period, Pravin said that he was taken by Kumar to Manek Urai in Kelantan to meet with state-level leaders and to Terengganu, where he planned his escape.

"It was then that I was brainwashed to agree to become part of the brotherhood and I was asked to contribute RM30 for a special ritual where I would join 30 other boys from 16 to 24 to be members," said Pravin.

He said that he had met with several others from the 'brotherhood' and they all bore similar tattoos in the shape of 'Sanskrit Oum' (a Hindu religious symbol) on their body as well as wearing the same lockets around their necks.

However Pravin was unable to provide more details of the ritual as the event was to take place on Sunday.

Allegation meant to destroy reputation

When contacted, Kumar told Malaysiakini that the allegation was an attempt to damage his reputation ahead of the contest for MIC's central working committee in the upcoming party polls in September.

"The boy is a MIC member from Pahang and he called me wanting to meet so he came to KL.

"I had even spoke to his dad and they knew that he was with me... But suddenly yesterday morning, he went missing. We thought he went off with his relatives," said Kumar.

Kumar said he would wait for the police to contact him and expressed his willingness to assist with their investigation on the matter.

INQUEST FAILED TO HAUL IMPORTANT WITNESSES. - Mp Kapar

While, we eagerly awaiting verdict of Sujatha’s mysterious death we missed to hear from very important witnesses.

1. Former Sentul OCPD ACP Kumaran handles the case initially. He surely has his own findings that could be very much beneficial to the coroner. One noteable factor here is that ACP Kumaran involved into the investigation personally and they commenced investigation only after my initial police report. He was subsequently replaced after some accusation aroused on possible linkage within him and MIC leaders.

Why Deputy Public Prosecutor failed to summon him to the inquest further reinforce doubt of foul play?

2. Police says they found Diaries and photos of Maika CEO Vell and his Wife. The Inquest was told that Sujatha had visited Vell’s residence when his Wife around. Then, why his Wife wasn’t called upon to testify at the inquest? Don’t Police smell any possibilities’ of selfishness that could lead planned murder.

3. Paraquat Seller: as we know paraquat a controlled Weed killer, thus those purchase it need to record their particulars . Don’t the sellers have any record of it? How the paraquat liquid transfer itself from its original container to Cough Syrup bottle?

Why Sujatha’s brother purchase Paraquat when in fact they live in very manned Apartment? Does he conspire with someone to kill his own sister, if so with whom he conspired with?

Paraquat had very stint smell even a cow would turn away? How and why Sujatha could drink the weed killer? A question even IO cann’t answers as reported in local dailies. So, there is reasonable doubt to believe, might not consumed voluntarily?

4. Sujatha’s fellow artist : None of Sujatha’s fellow artist been called to testifies at the Inquest. Probably She could had discussed her personal matters with some close artist or she could contacted them prior consuming the weed killer

5. Security Guards : Security Guards where Sujatha live could have recorded whom visited her prior she consume (alleged) paraquat. They might have noticed some irregularities before and after the event.

6. Neighbours living next to her apartment too could have noticed some irregularities. Why, no one been called upon?

There are few more individuals which I believe could have assisted the Coroner in making his verdict that been neglected systematically by office of Deputy Public Prosecutor? Why? Is it because the main suspect related to then Cabinet Minister?

Who Killed Sujatha? ….

Kit Siang urges minister not to renew IGP’s contract

By Lee Wei Lian - The Malaysian Insider

PETALING JAYA, July 12 — The Inspector-General of Police (IGP)'s current contract ends in September and opposition strongman Lim Kit Siang is applying pressure on the government, specifically the home minister, not to renew it for allegedly failing to reduce crime rates.

According to statistics provided by the veteran parliamentarian, there were 150,000 cases of crime in 2004. This figure ballooned to over 200,000 in both 2007 and 2008 despite Parliament tripling funds allocated to the police under the Ninth Malaysia Plan to RM8 billion.

Lim said that this shows the failure of the IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan to stem the tide of rising crime cases despite an increase in resources, and called on minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein not to renew Musa’s contract.

"The police are losing the war against crime but the home minister appears to support the renewal of the IGP's contract even though he has failed as IGP and failed to implement the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission report ," he said in a keynote address at a DAP workshop today.

"The report had stated that even 150,000 crime cases was too high and will frighten investors and make Malaysia an unsafe place for citizens and suggested that crime be reduced by 20 per cent in 12 months. Instead the crime rates have gone up!"

Musa retired in 2007, but his contract was extended for another two years after he was cleared of corruption charges.

Many Malaysians have complained about the high incidence of crime in the country. The prime minister yesterday announced that fighting crime would be one of the focus areas of his administration and that concrete plans on reducing the crime rate will be revealed by the end of the month.

Under fire from Dr M, Round 2?

Dr Mahathir is increasingly becoming annoyed with Najib’s policies. — File pic

KUALA LUMPUR, July 12 — With more than 65,000 votes and counting, a poll uploaded on former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's blog is quickly becoming a headache for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's administration.

Dr Mahathir started the poll two days ago to gather public opinion to prove his point that Malaysians are against the government's move to scrap his policy to teach maths and science in English. More than 85 per cent supported him.

A day later, a still annoyed Dr Mahathir gave his assessment of Najib's performance during his first 100 days in office, saying it was “more negatives than positives”.

He also listed oil giant Petronas' revenues year by year, asking the government to explain how the money had been spent. As he must have known the answer, the intention was clearly to plant an idea that the revenues could be in jeopardy.

The needling was quite an irony as Najib had in the past been labelled a Mahathirite who took his cue from Malaysia's longest-serving prime minister. But Najib has gone his own way.

The PM has so far avoided comment, so clearly he is still hoping to avoid a collision course with his one-time mentor. Najib's supporters say the premier does not want open confrontation and that he believes the situation can still be managed.

The Sunday Times understands that Dr Mahathir has made known his disagreement personally to Najib. According to a top Umno leader who is close to Najib, the former premier was unhappy over the measures to liberalise the economy, including removing the quota on Malay corporate ownership, and the proposal to build a third bridge to Singapore.

Dr Mahathir was, of course, also unhappy over the scrapping of the policy on teaching maths and science in English.

As it has yet to develop into a clash, Umno leaders are hoping to avoid a second round of bruising attacks. The first took place about a year after Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became prime minister, when Dr Mahathir began sniping at him.

It shook Umno badly as Dr Mahathir relentlessly fanned the image of Abdullah as an incapable and hapless leader. Many blamed the attacks for creating a situation ripe for the Barisan Nasional's stunning losses in last year's general election.

Raja Ahmad Zainuddin, a Perak Umno leader, said the party needed to be united. But, he added, he was confident that Dr Mahathir was mindful of this, and believed his criticisms have been sincere.

“He has a right to criticise, but if it's a personal attack, that's a different story. I believe he won't,” he said.

Najib's aides have privately said the same thing — that the PM respects Dr Mahathir's views and is prepared to accept criticism of his policies, but hopes that it will not turn personal.

With Abdullah, Dr Mahathir's attacks had also begun with his policies. Later, however, he took personal potshots, poking fun at his hand-picked successor for allegedly sleeping on the job and attacking his family members.

Some Umno leaders think that Dr Mahathir will not go this far this time, partly because his son Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir is part of the government as deputy minister for international trade and industry.

A more pertinent reason, perhaps, is that Umno may begin to lose patience with a second battle between premier and predecessor. It may not take well to its president coming under fire yet again.

However, as political analyst Shamsul Amri Baharuddin said, even if Dr Mahathir took his attacks further, the severity of the damage may be contained if Najib continued to adopt the right measures.

He pointed out that Najib's approval rating has shot up to 65 per cent from 42 per cent when he started out as PM.

“Dr Mahathir is respected but the relevance of the attacks will be reduced and the sting minimised if Najib continues to perform well,” he said. — Straits Times

State Makes Police Report On Kampung Buah Pala Issue

PENANG, July 11 (Bernama) -- The Penang state government on Saturday made a police report regarding the ownership of the land in Kampung Buah Pala, Bukit Gelugor, here.

The report was made by Komtar state assemblyman Ng Wei Aik at the Timur Laut police district headquarters at 1.20pm today.

makkal osai

Speaking to reporters later, Ng, who is also the political secretary to Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, said he wanted the police to investigate in detail the sale of the land.

"This is a big question regarding whether there is anyone having self interest when approving the land sale," he said.

Earlier, the present Penang state government had charged that the previous Barisan Nasional (BN) state government had sold the land cheaply to the Penang Government Officers Cooperative.

"Although the award of the land (to the cooperative) was to replace the site next to Dewan Sri Pinang for an additional court building, we find that the approval was made without reference to the market value reports for both the sites," Ng said.

The Kampung Buah Pala issue arose when the villagers were asked to vacate the land after the Federal Court rejected their appeal to remain there as they had been doing for a long time.

Something has to change

My Sinchew

WHEN I WAS first approached to be a columnist in Sin Chew, I was thrilled! I know this would be a great opportunity for me to communicate my thoughts and views to thousands of Malaysian readers.

Yet at the same time, I was apprehensive of the fact that I may struggle jotting down my somewhat limited experience in public service. I do not believe I am a good writer. An honest writer- yes but not a natural writer.

Prior to winning the elections, I have never been involved in public service. At the age of 29, I had my ideals of how this nation should be, how my tax should be used by the government, how Malaysians ought to behave in order to be a truly civilised society etc. The issues I had to deal with as an assemblyman opened my eyes to the ugly side of our society – something I was not prepared to see.

Just last evening, I was having a casual chat with my Malay neighbour who happens to be a lecturer of a local college. He was telling me of his plans to migrate with his family. When asked why, he said Malaysia is in a sad state of affairs. The people here have stopped caring for each other. Just as we were standing outside our houses, in the midst of this conversation, a lavish car was speeding past us – in a housing area, in the evening, when there are many children playing outside. He said : “This is precisely why I’m thinking of leaving! This person driving this car is definitely well to do and should be able to understand how to be considerate and look out for others.”

As we continued our conversation, we spoke about illegal dumping. Few days ago, I noticed that someone had dumped his/her old furniture outside my house. My neighbour went on to tell me that he had seen who the person was and that this person too is a lecturer!

I drive around my neighbourhood very frequently, for one reason – to check on the performance of the Alam Flora contractors.

But this article is not about the contractors, I will explore this another time. When I drive around, I frequently notice the illegal dumping trend happening even in an urban constituency like Subang Jaya. Neighbours would throw furniture and rubbish by the side of the road, often times in front of another’s house and not their own. My husband calls this the “anywhere but my backyard” syndrome.

This is a very selfish mindset. I have seen people driving Mercedes and yet throw rubbish out of their posh car. I have seen motorcyclists littering too. I have seen with my own eyes Malays, Chinese and Indians littering too. It has nothing to do with race, status or whether you are educated or not. Something has to change.

Some examples of selfish behaviour I have encountered:

- “We want LRT, you can build it anywhere but not in front of my house.”

- “Futsal court is good for the children; you can build it in front of those neighbours’ houses but not in front of my house.”

- “Crime is rising and neighbours should patrol the streets; I will support you but count me out from walking.”

- “Composting bins should be promoted by MPSJ to educate our young but please place them somewhere else and not behind my house.”

This “anywhere but my backyard” syndrome has to go. We need to start thinking for others and not just for those in our households. We need to start thinking, acting and functioning as a society. Love your neighbour as you love yourself. Changing the government is not enough.

The people have to change their mindset as well. The "First World Infrastructure, Third World Mentality" Malaysian malaise has to go. Something has to change. Someone has to change. And only then will we truly be a developed nation. HONESTLY SPEAKING By HANNAH YEOH

(HANNAH YEOH is DAP Selangor assemblywoman for Subang Jaya)