Diseksa dalam tahanan polis

Isaimani membuat laporan polis

KUALA LUMPUR, 7 Januari - Ditahan untuk kesalahan yang tidak dibuat, Isaimani (27 tahun) pemandu teksi limousin telah mengalami tekanan mental setelah dipukul dan diseksa semasa berada dalam tahanan polis. Menurut Isaimani pada 6hb Disember lalu selepas seorang gadis daripada pertalian saudara dengan sengaja telah membuat aduan palsu terhadapnya. Akibat menafikan aduan yang disabitkan ke atasnya dia telah menjadi mangsa penyeksaan polis. Malah dia berkata bahawa dia telah dilapor mencuri di rumah gadis tersebut. Walaupun Isaimani telah menafikan aduannya dia tetap dipukul dan yang lebih menyedihkan lagi adalah polis telah menangkap gambarnya secara bogel. Isaimani yang telah ditangkap pada waktu pagi telah dipukul secara berturusan sampai pukul 4 petang. Dan dia yang merana kelaparan tidak diberi makanan.

Selepas itu mereka telah membawanya ke Ibu Pejabat Seremban dan seorang anggota polis telah memukulnya di muka serta beberapa anggota lain yang bertugas di situ telah memukulnya. Dia telah dibawa ke mahkamah pada 7hb Disember dan telah diperintahkan supaya ditahan selama 4 hari. Lepas itu seorang anggota polis telah mengambil keterangan dan telah memberitahunya bahawa aduan yang dibuat ke atasnya adalah palsu. Jadi Isaimani dibawa ke mahkamah buat kali kedua pada 10hb dan diperintahkan supaya ditahan 6 hari lagi. Sebelum dibawa ke mahkamah polis telah memberi amaran supaya tidak beritahu apa-apa di depan Majistret.

Najib angrily denies Umno raising tension in ‘Allah’ issue

By Neville Spykerman - The Malaysian Insider

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 8 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak today strongly denied Umno should be blamed for raising the mercury in the “Allah” issue which climaxed with today’s attacks on three churches.

“Don’t point the fingers at Umno or anyone else. We have always been very responsible. Don’t say this attack is motivated by Umno,” said Najib, who was clearly unhappy when asked if politicians especially from Umno should be blamed for fanning the flames.

The Metro Tabernacle church in Kuala Lumpur was firebombed at midnight and Live Chapel in Section 17, Petaling Jaya was attacked with a Molotov cocktail, causing some damage.

Another Molotov cocktail failed to explode in the Church of Assumption in Petaling Jaya at 4am.

Police have tightened security at all churches nationwide while bracing for protests by Muslim groups against the Dec 31 High Court ruling allowing Catholic weekly Herald to use “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

Najib also disclosed that there have been two incidents and one threat reported thus far.

“I condemn the attacks and those responsible because this will destroy the harmony of the country,” the prime minister said.

He pointed out that the country's multiracial and multi-religious identity should not be threatened and the government will take all possible action to stop such attacks, adding he has directed Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to step up security around churches.

He urged the public not to take the law into their own hands and use the right channels to express their concerns.

Both Najib and Hishammuddin had over the past two days said that Muslims had a right to protest the “Allah” ruling within mosque compounds despite fears it might escalate tension in the country.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang said top political party leaders should take a common stand to condemn the spate of church attacks in the wake of the “Allah” controversy and ensure that there is no further escalation.

"What many Malaysians had feared would happen and which the Prime Minister and Home Minister had discounted with their far-from-responsible stances — the exploitation of the ‘Allah’ controversy by irresponsible and extremist elements — have unfortunately come to pass," the Ipoh Timur MP said in a statement.

He said Najib "should immediately impress on Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to take all urgent and necessary measures to protect the good name of the country or be held responsible for any undesirable consequences".

Got a great travel photo? Can it win this photo contest?

"In just nine months, Najib’s 1 Malaysia slogan is facing its most critical test as its very credibility is at stake.

"Malaysia also cannot afford further adverse international publicity over the 'Allah' controversy, which would only aggravate Malaysia’s declining international competitiveness if there is escalation of deplorable incidents by irresponsible and extremist elements like the spate of church attacks," Lim added.

PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang condemned the “terrorising” fire bombings against the Metro Tabernacle Church and Church of Assumption.

Saying Islam allowed for freedom of worship, he said the actions went against its teachings and were committed by those who don’t understand their own religion.

“PAS members and supporters throughout the country and the people must always remember to be calm and not be influenced by the provocative actions of certain quarters,” Abdul Hadi said in a statement.

IGP confirms three churches hit

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 8 — Police are urging for calm as they secure churches nationwide, after three were attacked with firebombs in separate pre-dawn incidents in the Klang Valley, which have been linked to protests against the recent “Allah” ruling.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan confirmed the attacks, saying the first attack was by motorcyclists who threw a helmet filled with flammable liquid at the Metro Tabernacle Church in Desa Melawati, causing a fire that burned books and chairs near here, at midnight. Its administrative office was gutted in the attack.

He confirmed that they have identified one suspect who was seen by a guard at the church, which is part of the Assemblies of God.

“This is not a well-planned, coordinated attack so people should not be scared,” he told reporters at Bukit Aman here.

The second attack was at about 4am at the Church of Assumption in Petaling Jaya, where a Molotov cocktail thrown by a motorcyclist failed to break and explode. There were several Catholics attending a prayer session at the time, police added.

The third incident took place at the Life Chapel Church in Section 17, Petaling Jaya at 9am, where two Molotov cocktails, also thrown by a motorcyclist, exploded to blacken the walls of the porch and upper-storey window of the two-storey church building.

Musa also confirmed that he has a received a phone call from an undisclosed church saying there have been threats against them.

The national police chief had directed his men to be alert nationwide and all patrol teams to monitor churches since 6pm yesterday.

“I advise all the churches to make police reports if they receive any threats or they can contact me directly at 019-282-3701,” Musa said.

Musa said that the motives of the attack are still unknown. Police forensic teams and fire investigators have swung into action searching for clues in the three attacks.

The top cop also warned the demonstrators that the police will take the necessary action and every means to ensure national security including using the Internal Security Act (ISA) to dampen rising tension in the country.

"I will do whatever is needed to ensure that the country is safe," he promised.

He reiterated that the demonstrations being planned after Friday prayers today were illegal as no permits have been issued.

"I have told all of my officers to monitor all the mosques in the country, especially those that will have the demonstrations," he said.

He said that every individual, including those writing blogs including updates in the social networking website Facebook, will be investigated for sedition if they flamed sentiments and encouraged people to break the law.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein also condemned the attacks.

"I am assuring not only minorities but all Malaysians that they are safe. The issue of race and religion is always sensitive and it is not something new to Malaysia.

"We saw the signs, signals, warning after the court made its decision. We have been monitoring the situation," he said.

He added that the government has always and will engage with religious leaders in the country which is in line with the prime minister's vision of 1 Malaysia.

Hishamuddin again denied he and the PM had condoned the planned demonstrations.

"We never said that the demonstration could go on, do not put words in my mouth," he said. Hishammuddin and Najib, who are cousins, have said over the past few days that Muslim groups have a right to express their feelings about the “Allah” ruling but they should not break the law.

Hishammauddin also laughed off allegations made by Pakatan Rakyat that the Umno-led government should take responsibility for the spate of church attacks.

"If they want to blame us for the attacks, then the Pakatan Selangor government should take responsibility (because all the attacks happened in the state)," he said.

Security tightened as politicians condemn church attacks

Police and firemen outside the gutted Metro Tabernacle church.

UPDATED

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 8 — Police said they have stepped up security at all churches nationwide after one was firebombed and a failed attack on another church in the early hours of today amid a row over the use of the word “Allah” for the Christian God. Authorities are also bracing for nationwide protests by angry Muslim groups after Friday prayers.

The attack on the Metro Tabernacle church, part of a Pentecostal group called The Assemblies of God, gutted its administrative office on the ground floor. A Catholic church in Petaling Jaya also came under attack but the homemade device failed to explode. Police have yet to confirm reports of other churches being attacked.

"Since last night, I have instructed all patrol cars to patrol all church areas. We are monitoring all churches," Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Inspector-General of Police, told Reuters.

Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the two attacks were very disappointing, adding the police and society must take joint responsibility to ensure the incidents do not recur and affect the stability and security of the country.

"As Malaysians, we have to protect and ensure the freedom of worship as enacted in the Federal Constitution. We must always ensure harmony and good relations between races and those of different faiths," he said in a statement.

Both Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub have condemned the attacks.

"Despicable and cowardly. This is not my Malaysia," Khairy tweeted in his Twitter account before visiting the firebombed church in the leafy Desa Melawati suburb.

In a statement issued later, Khairy said the Barisan Nasional Youth strongly condemned the arson at the Metro Tabernacle church.

"Whatever feelings anyone has over the issue of 'Allah' being used by the Herald, the act of destroying a house of worship like this one last night cannot be defended.

"If there are Muslims who are responsible for this incident, they should be ashamed and repent their action as Islam itself asks its followers to respect the freedom of religion of non-Muslims," Khairy said.

Speaking to reporters outside the Metro Tabernacle church, Khairy said the organised protest by Muslim groups will only worsen an already intense situation following the arson.

He said though he personally backs the groups' right to express themselves, last night's arson attack has altered and exacerbated the situation further and pushed the “climate to the edge”.

Khairy also denied that the Barisan Nasional government was to be blamed for the current tension between Christians and Muslims while shrugging off accusations that Umno Youth was involved in the attack.

"We strongly condemn this attack," Salahuddin told The Malaysian Insider.

The Kubang Kerian MP said Islam does not allow its faithful to destroy houses of worship belonging to non-Muslims. "Even during war, those who seek sanctuary in houses of worship cannot be killed or the buildings itself destroyed."

Datuk Marina Mahathir, daughter of former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, also condemned the attacks as unIslamic.

"I think what is most important on issues like this is the need for a leadership that is strong, unequivocal in telling how Malaysians particularly Muslims on how to behave," she said.

"The way we behave and what we say reflects our religion... we are supposed to behave kindly, speak gently as Muslims, that is what are called upon to," said a visibly upset Marina.

Albeit subtly, Marina seemed to point towards the Najib administration for the rising religious tension and questioned the absence of quality leadership in tackling the issue.

Marina, a social activist, said the attacks on the churches may be a result of anger caused by the court ruling but lambasted such sentiment as a contradiction to Islamic teachings of acceptance and peace.

A court ruling last week allowing Catholic newspaper the Herald to use "Allah" for the Christian God has been appealed by the government of the mainly Muslim nation of 28 million people.

The issue has threatened relations between the majority Malay Muslim population and the minority ethnic Chinese and Indian populations who practise a range of religions including Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. Christians — including about 800,000 Catholics — make up about 9 per cent of Malaysia's population. Malays, who account for around 60 per cent of the population, are by definition Muslims and are not allowed to convert.

Dominant Muslim groups are set to protest today against the ruling in the capital Kuala Lumpur and elsewhere in the country despite police warnings not to proceed.

"I have advised them to let this be handled by the court. I will take action against anyone who acts to jeopardise national security," said Musa.

Last night, the government's judiciary website was reportedly hacked amid growing anger over the court ruling.

Online news website The Malaysian Insider captured a screen shot of the defaced website which contained the warning "Allah only restricted to Muslim only".

Many churches in Malaysia are situated in residential or retail areas and often occupy a small lot.

"It is confirmed that Desa Melawati church was burnt, at about 12.25 in the morning. There were no fatalities. We are investigating the incident and suspect foul play," said Kuala Lumpur Chief Police Officer Mohammad Sabtu Osman.

According to 2007 statistics, there are 333 Assembly of God churches in Malaysia.

"There are witness reports two persons on a motorbike came near the entrance and hurled in something looking like a petrol bomb. Our church is 90 per cent gutted (on the first floor)," said church spokesman Kevin Ang from the Metro Tabernacle church.

It is illegal for non-Muslims to proselytise to Muslims although freedom of worship for the mainly Buddhist, Christian and Hindu religious minorities who make up 40 per cent of the population is guaranteed under the country's constitution.

Malaysia was rated as having "very high" government restrictions on religion in a recent survey by the Pew Forum, bracketing it with the likes of Iran and Egypt and it was the 9th most restrictive of 198 countries.

The use of "Allah" has been common among non-English-speaking Malaysian Christians in the Borneo island states of Sabah and Sarawak for decades and without any incident.

Meanwhile, some Catholic churches in the Klang Valley are reported to have cancelled masses today.

Pakatan wants Umno to take responsibility for church attacks

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani- The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 8 — Datuk Zaid Ibrahim today condemned Umno and urged the government to take full responsibility for the church attacks.

“It has to take full responsibility for the worsening of relations between people of different faiths in this country in its handling of the use of the word Allah.

"The irresponsible conduct of fanning the emotions by Umno leaders has brought about this dangerous situation. What we see today confirms that this country is being governed not by engagement consultation, sophistication or persuasion but by brute and mob force,” he said in a press statement.

Early this morning, a Protestant church was torched while homemade explosives were thrown at a Catholic church next to the Assunta Hospital.

“The Umno-led government has the penchant to use force or flexing of authority in dealing with delicate issues. Take the case of the ban imposed on the Herald. They could easily have engaged in consultation with the church in Sabah and Sarawak. They should try to understand why the need to use the word Allah without any preconceived notions or prejudice. After all, they have been using the word Allah for many years before BN government acted to ban the Herald.

"They could easily have also engaged in discussions with the various Muslim groups about their legitimate concerns on whether the church are surreptitiously converting Muslims and explore ways to address these concerns in spirit of dialogue and peaceful deliberations,” he said.

He explained that there are already laws against converting Muslims but Umno instead chose to politicise the sensitive issue.

“There is already a law against converting Muslims anyway. They could have done a lot more. But because of their lack of maturity and sophistication banning is the obvious choice.

“They want instant popularity so fanning the emotions of Muslims becomes legitimate... and when the court ruled otherwise they then fan the Muslims to oppose the ruling. The people of this country will not escape the scourge of Umno-led rule until they decide once and for all to dislodge this government in the next available opportunity.”

PAS has also reminded and warned its members not to engage in any demonstrations organised in the Kampung Baru Mosque, Shah Alam Mosque and the National Mosque after Friday prayers.

The protest is being orchestrated by several Muslim NGOs in retaliation against the High Court's ruling on Dec 31 allowing the Catholic Church to use the word "Allah" in its weekly publication the Herald.

PAS vice-president Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man had said that the demonstration on the use of the word “Allah” is Umno’s position and not the party’s.

"We call on all members of PAS in order not to be dragged in the same demonstration sponsored by Umno," he told party’s newspaper.

PAS backs the use of the word Allah by Catholics because it is consistent with the federal Constitution and Islamic principles.

Tuan Ibrahim instead asked the members to join the protest against the Egyptian government's unjust action that prevents entry of the Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza from the country.

The demonstration organised by PAS Youth and other NGOs are expected to protest in front of the Egyptian Embassy after Friday prayers.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has also defended his government’s decision to allow angry Muslim groups to hold a nationwide protest against the “Allah” ruling, saying they have every right to do so.

However, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan yesterday warned that action will taken against groups planning to stage protest rallies against the use of the word “Allah”.

Malaysians brace for “Allah” demo

KUALA LUMPUR: At least two churches were attacked and the judiciary website hacked as Malaysians brace for nationwide protests around noon today against a court ruling on the use of the term “Allah” by Catholic newspaper Herald.

Although police have issued warnings and several Umno leaders, who initially gave tacit approval for the protests organised by Muslim NGOs, have back tracked from their aggressive stand, many Malaysians fear the demonstrations could turn ugly.

Pakatan Rakyat leaders, including Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, have urged their supporters to stay away from the demonstrations compared to what Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein have been uttering.

Several church leaders have been calling up their media contacts to find out more details about Thursday’s attack the Metro Tabernacle Church in Desa Melawati as rumours swirled that several other churches were burned.

According to local and foreign media reports, the attack on the Tabernacle church in Kuala Lumpur and the Assumption Church in Petaling Jaya occurred this morning.

The first storey of the building housing the church was firebombed by a group of motorcyclists.

“It is confirmed that Desa Melawati church was burnt, at about 12.25 am in the morning. There were no fatalities. We are investigating the incident and suspect foul play,” said Kuala Lumpur Chief Police Officer Mohammad Sabtu Osman.

It was believed the group of youths on motorcycles rode up to the church, smashed the glass panels on the ground floor of the three-storey building and later threw some materials into the building that started a fire.

Church lay leader Rtd Major Peter Yeow, 62, said witnesses were not near enough to get a closer look at the youths who sped away after the act.

The security guard at the Tabernacle church, 65-year-old V Mariappan, said he had just walked away from the main entrance of the building to use the bathroom when the building erupted in flames.

“When I came back, there was a huge fire inside the church building. There was a few loud explosions like bombs exploding,” he said, adding he saw two motorcycle helmets lying on the road in flames.

The church that was burned was part of a group called “The Assembly of God”. Many churches in Malaysia are situated in residential or retail areas and often occupy a small lot.

The Herald editor Father Lawrence Andrew has warned of a campaign of intimidation including hacker attacks against the weekly’s website, protest plans and widespread criticism in the media over last week’s ruling.

“We believe these actions (are designed) to create a climate of fear and a perceived threat to national security so as to pressure the court in reversing its decision,” he said this week.

More than half of the Catholics in the country are from indigenous groups, most of whom live in Sabah and Sarawak and who mainly speak Bahasa Malaysia.

The hacking of the Malaysian Judiciary’s website was discovered on Thursday night and its homepage substituted with a threat to not pursue the issue of the Catholic weekly the Herald’s use of the word “Allah.”

The hacker, using the handle “Brainwash,” defaced the site with a bright-red headline saying “TakeDown by Brainwash!” and what can only be described as “creative” use of the English language.

Blazed across the page in huge letters was “Mess with the best, die like the rest.”

The hacker also wrote: “Allah only restricted to Muslim only. Dont touch us as we dont touch you. Unless ….”

It was followed by a threatening postscript at the bottom of the page “To the court, Brain know you postponed it but if you wise enough then you should drop it.”

The hacker also posted a picture of a woman, bent over suggestively, apparently “washing” a brain.

Bar Council committee member Edmund Bon has labelled the act as “unwarranted and unacceptable.”

He said hacking and defacing websites was a criminal offence under the Computer Crimes Act 1997.

The comments appear to put undue pressure on the judiciary to decide the case in a certain way and this should not be tolerated in a civil society.

“The Bar Council is all for allowing discussions and criticisms over court decisions so long as they are done in a civil manner. This threat intends to put pressure on the judiciary and it has overstepped the freedom of discussion boundaries,” he said when contacted.

The Herald website has also been hacked three times after the decision by High Court Justice Lau Bee Lan on allowing the word “Allah” to be used in the publication’s Malay-language edition.

Her decision has sparked anger and ire from various Muslim groups. Some groups have even threatened to stage gatherings on Friday to protest against the ruling.

The Home Ministry has appealed the decision and has been granted a stay of execution on Justice Lau’s ruling.

De facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz could not be reached for comment as at press time.

"NEP must end"

By Ding Jo-Ann
thenutgraph.com

PARTI Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)'s Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad has been very busy for a 27-year-old. At 26, he was the youngest candidate in the 2008 general election, defeating the Umno incumbent in the Seri Setia state seat in Selangor by almost 3,000 votes.

Nik Nazmi is now Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim's political secretary after being Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's political secretary from 2006 to 2008. Nik Nazmi's book Moving Forward: Malays for the 21st Century was recently published and released.

In this first of a two-part interview with The Nut Graph on 22 Dec 2009 in Petaling Jaya, Nik Nazmi shares his views on whether Malay Malaysians are ready to dismantle quotas under the New Economic Policy (NEP), and on how Malaysians can build trust.

TNG: Your book speaks of a gradual dismantling of the principles of the NEP. What would your response be to those who say that quotas for Malay Malaysians in education and business are part of Malay rights and Ketuanan Melayu?

Nik Nazmi: There is a difference between Malay privileges, as stated in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, and the NEP. Article 153 allows the Yang-di-Pertuan Agong to reserve spaces in education, employment and licences for bumiputera. This was part of the independence negotiations, and I personally don't have problems with that.

The NEP came about after the 13 May riots; it is unrelated to the constitution. It was necessary at the time and has contributed to the development of a Malay [Malaysian] middle class. But if we read history closely, it's clear it was meant to be a temporary compromise — from 1970 to 1990.

Quotas don't help in the long run. It's easy to achieve 30% equity — just put in a law, which they did — but it's not organic or sustainable. Some people get shares at a discounted rate, then just sell it off for a quick buck. How does that help? We need to focus on capacity building ... then there'll be no Ali Baba businesses and all that, because people actually have the capacity to hold on to these things.

What about the argument that people are not ready?

Readiness is always an issue, but we have to look at the challenges. It's a different world today than in 1970. Malaysia is different, there's a Malay [Malaysian] middle-class now. Malaysians can and should compete.

When there is affirmative action based on race as opposed to need, any Malay [Malaysian] can get that benefit. People whom the NEP architects wanted [the policy] to benefit, like farmers and fisher[folk], are not benefiting. Instead, urban Malay [Malaysians] who have the resources benefit. Those who speak English at home, who can afford tuition — they would generally get better grades than the rural Malay [Malaysians].

We need to move away from race-based to needs-based affirmative action, as well as meritocracy. Malay [Malaysians] still make up the bulk of the poor. They would still be the majority of the people who will receive benefits. So Malay [Malaysians] wouldn't lose out. If scholarships should be given to the best, regardless of economic standing, then it should be universal, it must be for all, not for Malay [Malaysians] only.

Do you think there is a fear among Malay Malaysians that they will lose out if the NEP is dismantled?

Yes, there is. If you read Utusan Malaysia and some blogs, they tell a familiar story — that we will become like the Malay Singaporeans. It's like a bogey used to scare small children.

I met with [several Malay and Muslim organisations] and Malay Singaporeans such as The Straits Times journalist Nur Dianah Suhaimi in Singapore [in 2008]. Yes, there are challenges and discrimination. If a Malay [Singaporean] is admitted into the National University of Singapore, people might say, "Oh, the government needs a Malay poster-[person], they're actually not good enough." They may have to work twice as hard to prove themselves but they wear it like a badge of honour. They look at the Malays in Malaysia and wonder, "Why are they still stuck in this discourse? Why are they not moving on?"

I think our world view has been largely shaped by [Tun Dr] Mahathir [Mohamad]'s Malay Dilemma ... [which suggests that] Malay [Malaysians'] genes are somehow inferior compared to non-Malay [Malaysians] who were poor and had to struggle.

There's no truth to that. I don't think Malay [Malaysians] are genetically inferior. There are so many Malays competing internationally, in Dubai, with expatriates from the West, from China. It's a question of opportunities and exposure, it's nothing genetic.

Looking at the statistics, it appears the majority of Malay [Malaysian] voters support the Barisan Nasional (BN), compared with the Pakatan Rakyat. Do you think Malay Malaysian voters would accept these ideas?

When [Datuk Seri] Anwar Ibrahim said in 2006 that we need to shift away from the NEP, even his Chinese [Malaysian] friends said it's a good idea, but bad politics.

Before this, people in Umno, especially, didn't have the courage or conviction to promote this. There are Umno people who say the idea is good, but Malay [Malaysians] won't buy it. I think they won't buy it because the leaders don't have the courage to tell them the truth. Never underestimate the wisdom of the people.

We should be debating [on] how to build better schools, hospitals and public transportation, and better ways to protect the environment, rather than which race benefits or loses out. [All] communities need to play their role. We need to build trust.

How would we go about building trust between different communities?

Take for example, vernacular schools. Yes, it's constitutionally legitimate, but you can't deny there are issues and challenges.

I have advocated for a unity stream school where schoolchildren can learn their own culture, mother tongue and about each other. If these schools can produce better students and provide a space for all Malaysians to intermingle, then these [optional] schools would be attractive [and provide competition for national and vernacular schools].

We could have an anti-discrimination law. But it has to be mutual. Malay [Malaysians] shouldn't be discriminated against in small- and medium-sized industries. Similarly, there should be no discrimination against non-Malay [Malaysians] in government-linked companies and the public sector.

If you could summarise a message from your book for Malay and non-Malay Malaysians, what would it be?

We must know our history, how the NEP provided room to develop, which Malay and non-Malay [Malaysians] benefited from. As the NEP architects implemented a policy for their time, we must also have courage to [implement a new useful, equitable framework within the context of our constitution]. The NEP is not a sacred cow, it's not a divine revelation; it was meant for 20 years [only].

Meritocracy is not bad for Malay [Malaysians]. I'm asking Malay [Malaysians] to be fair ... we have to be consistent.

Non-Malay [Malaysians] need to build goodwill to allow the Malay [Malaysian] community to move on. Issues like vernacular schools, discrimination in the private sector, speaking the national language — these have to be dealt with.

Do you think race is still as big an issue as before?

Our racial identity is still very important to a lot of us. However, I think race is less of a priority now compared to other issues like having a job, staying safe, growing the economy.

People still think racially, but what politicians need to do is to have the courage of conviction and tell the truth. Let's be honest with people, let's not delude them to talk about splitting the pie when it's a shrinking pie. We should instead grow the pie.

Lebur RM 2 Juta Untuk Program ‘UMNO Juara Rakyat’

Dari Erapakatan

Oleh Roziyah Mahamad

Program ‘Umno Juara Rakyat’ menelan lebih RM2 juta bagi meyempurnakan hasrat kerajaan untuk memastikan Umno digelar sebagai juara di mata rakyat. Ini merupakan satu pembaziran yang besar dan merugikan ketika rakyat kini dibebani dengan pelbagai bebanan akibat kenaikan harga barang dan perkhidmatan.

“Dalam keadaan ekonomi yang tidak menentu kerajaan seharusnya berjimat cermat. Program ini dikatakan bersifat nasional, namun perbelanjaan yang besar dikeluarkan untuk menjamin program ini berjaya,” tegas Ketua Cabang PKR Hulu Selangor, Mohd Nashruddin Abdul Aziz.

Menurut Nashruddin lagi, Perdana Menteri dan Timbalannya mewakili program ini bukanlah sebagai pemimpin negara tetapi sebagai pemimpin parti sahaja kerana program ini hanya untuk parti Umno sahaja. Umno menyajikan program yang berbentuk pembaziran dilancarkan ke seluruh negara.

“Hakikatnya rakyat yang berhak menjadi juara sebenar, kerana rakyat merupakan pembayar cukai dan pemangkin kepada ekonomi negara. Tanpa rakyat negara tidak akan ke mana-mana,” jelas Nashuddin.

Tambah Nashruddin , Umno melancarkan program di bulan yang sama ketika isi rumah dibebani dengan kos perbelanjaan anak-anak untuk memulakan sesi persekolahan. Selain itu rakyat juga dibebani dengan kenaikan harga gula sebanyak 20 sen.

Esok, Umno akan melancarkan program Umno Juara Rakyat yang akan dimulakan di Hulu Selangor. Terdahulu, Umno dikatakan mengadakan progam ini pada hari yang sama denagn PAS mengadakan program ‘Umno Pengkianat Rakyat’. Namun program itu telah diawalkan dan diadakan pada 8 Januari ini.

In just 9 months, Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan facing most critical test – all top political party leaders must condemn the spate of church attacks in the

What many Malaysians had feared would happen and which the Prime Minister and Home Minister had discounted with their far-from-responsible stances – the exploitation of the “Allah” controversy by irresponsible and extremist elements – have unfortunately come to pass.

All top political party leaders should take a common stand to condemn in the strongest possible terms the spate of church attacks in the wake of the “Allah” controversy and ensure that there is no further escalation.

As Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should immediately impress on the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to take all urgent and necessary measures to protect the good name of the country or be held responsible for any undesirable consequences.

In just nine months, Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan is facing its most critical test as its very credibility is at stake.

Malaysia also cannot afford further adverse international publicity over the “Allah” controversy, which would only aggravate Malaysia’s declining international competitiveness if there is escalation of deplorable incidents by irresponsible and extremist elements like the spate of church attacks.

Bar Council Confident "Allah" Issue Can Be Resolved

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 7 (Bernama) -- The Bar Council is confident that the issue over the use of the term "Allah" by a Catholic weekly publication, Herald, can be resolved.

Its president Ragunath Kesavan said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, at their meeting on Thursday, had given the assurance that the issue would be resolved.

"He understands the problem from both sides," he told reporters after the 30-minute meeting at the Finance Ministry here.

Among council leaders present were vice-president Lim Chee Wee and secretary George Varughese.

Meanwhile, he said, the council had also proposed the setting up of the National Legal Aid Foundation to help the needy get access to lawyers.

"Those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, can seek assistance from the foundation. Based on statistics, about 80 per cent of those who were brought to the court had no lawyers to represent them. This is a high figure," he said.

Ragunath said the prime minister had given assurance that he would look into the matter.

He also said that the first phase of the project, "Perlembagaanku" (My Constitution), was launched two months ago to enhance the understanding among the people on the country's constitution.

Ragunath said they also discussed about the judiciary which, he said, had begun to win confidence among the people.

"I think it is a good start," he said, adding that the council also suggested ways to promote Malaysia as an arbitration and investment centre.

Najib Condemns Those Behind Two InciNajib Condemns Those Behind Two Incidents of Church Arsondents of Church Arson

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 8 (Bernama) -- Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak here on Friday condemns those behind the irresponsible acts of two incidents of church arson and orders police to step up checks on all places of worship.

DETAILS OF THE STORY WILL FOLLOW

No true Muslim would firebomb any place of worship; Don’t fall for trap, read Nabi Muhammad’s (saw) Charter

by Nathaniel Tan

Malaysiakini:

A church has been fire-bombed in an attack that gutted its ground floor, church officials said, escalating a dispute over the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims.

Al least four other churches are also believed to have been attacked in the last 12 hours in the Klang Valley, including the Assumption Church in Petaling Jaya.

A fire department official said all stations were on alert for more blazes at religious buildings, ahead of planned nationwide protests today by Muslim groups angry over the use of the word as a translation for ‘God’ by Christians.

Truly this is the work of hate and evil.

Once again, the issue has long departed from being one of religious differences.

This has clearly transitioned into an issue of select parties or individuals who are bent on creating chaos in the country.

No true Muslim, or any religious person, would attempt to defend his faith by such cowardly acts of violence – striking without daring to show their face.

I refuse, and I humbly feel you should too, to see this as some Muslim vs Christian or Muslim vs others conflict. To do so would be to fall for exactly the trap that they are laying out for us.

The fundamental conflict here is between peace and hate.

Who then is behind it all? I really don’t know. If Najib and gang are not responsible, then they damn well better do their part in putting an end to it.

Under such circumstances, are they still willing to give their tacit approval to today’s protest?

If so, then I believe the death knell for Najib’s 1Malaysia gimmick will have sounded.

I consider it an utter failure of BN to truly address this issue – the same way they have failed for most almost all of Malaysia’s history to wisely negotiate differences in Malaysia society, while truly recognising, celebrating and building on Malaysia’s diversity.

Want to see how Pakatan compares? See Pakatan’s Common Platform, especially sections 3A and 3B.

Hate is never the answer. Nabi Muhammad (saw) understood this so well, and I end with two quotes demonstrating his immense wisdom and statesmanship (quotes courtesy of Malaysians Unplugged and Marina Mahathir).

A) The Promise of Prophet Muhammad (pbh) to the Monastery of St. Catherine and to All Christians

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

(B) A Letter from the Prophet Muhammad To The Assyrian Christians

“God has told me in a vision what to do, and I confirm His command by giving my solemn promise to keep this agreement.

To the followers of the Islam I say:

Carry out my command, protect and help the Nazarene nation in this country of ours in their own land.

Leave their places of worship in peace; help and assist their chief and their priests when in need of help, be it in the mountains, in the desert, on the sea, or at home.

Leave all their possessions alone, be it houses or other property, do not destroy anything of their belongings, the followers of Islam shall not harm or molest any of this nation, because the Nazarenes are my subjects, pay tribute to me and will help the Muslims.

No tribute, but what is agreed upon, shall be collected from them, their church buildings shall be left as they are, they shall not be altered, their priests shall be permitted to teach and worship in their own way-the Nazarenes have full liberty of worship in their churches and homes.

None of their churches shall be torn down, or altered into a mosque, except by the consent and free will of the Nazarenes.

If any one disobeys this command, the anger of God and His Prophet shall be upon him.

The tribute paid the Nazarenes shall be used to promote the teachings of Islam and shall be deposited at the treasury of Beth Almal.

A common man shall pay one denar (piece of money), but the merchants and people who own mines of gold and silver and are rich shall pay twelve denars. Strangers and people who have no houses or other settled property shall not have taxes levied upon them.

If a man inherits property he shall pay a settled sum to the Baitulmal treasury.

The Christians are not obliged to make war on the enemies of Islam, but if an enemy attacks the Christians, the Muslims shall not deny their help, but give them horses and weapons, if they need them, and protect them from evils from outside and keep the peace with them.

The Christians are not obliged to turn Muslims, until God’s will makes them believers.

The Muslims shall not force Christian women to accept Islam, but if they themselves wish to embrace it, the Muslims shall be kind to them.

If a Christian woman is married to a Muslim and does not want to embrace Islam, she has liberty to worship at her own church according to her own religious belief, and her husband must not treat her unkindly on account of her religion.

If any one disobeys this command, he disobeys God and his prophet and will be guilty of a great offense.

If the Nazarenes wish to build a church, their Muslim neighbors shall help them. This shall be done, because the Christians have obeyed us and have come to us and pleaded for peace and mercy.

If there be among the Christians a great and learned man the Muslims shall honor him and not be envious of his greatness.

If any one is unjust and unkind to the Christians he will be guilty of disobeying the Prophet of God.

The Christians should not shelter an enemy of Islam or give him horse, weapon or any other help.

If a Muslim is in need the Christian shall for three days and nights be his host and shelter him from his enemies.

The Christians shall, furthermore, protect the Mohammedan women and children and not deliver them up to the enemy or expose them to view.

If the Nazarenes fail to fulfil these conditions, they have forfeited their right to protection, and the agreement is null and void.

This document shall be entrusted to the Christian chief and head of their church for safe keeping.”

The peace of God be over them all!

This agreement is written by Moavijah Ben Sofian, according to the dictates of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, in the 4th year of the Hegira in the city of Medina.

Past war offers Afghanistan lessons. And it's not Vietnam (CNN)

The war ignited protests at home. American soldiers battled elusive fighters in remote jungles. The enemy used hit-and-run tactics to drain America’s will.

As President Obama begins to send more of the 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in the new year, some critics are invoking those snapshots from history to argue that the United States can’t afford to get bogged down in another Vietnam.

But those snapshots actually come from another war: The Philippine-American War, which lasted from 1899 to 1902. The war is largely forgotten today, but it was a bloody preview of the type of warfare that the U.S. military faced in Asia and now in Afghanistan, historians say.

“It was the 19th century version of Vietnam,” said Edward Sheehy, a professor of military history at La Salle University in Pennsylvania.

There was, however, one big difference: The U.S. won. How did a far weaker U.S. military prevail in the Philippines and what lessons can Obama apply from that victory to Afghanistan today?

Historian: ‘It was a very savage war’
Obama faces the same challenge that American leaders faced at the start of the war in the Philippines: How to mobilize public support. A recent poll shows that Obama is already losing support for the war in Afghanistan.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released December 23, 2009, found that the majority of the U.S. public opposes the war, with 55 percent of respondents opposed and 43 percent in support of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

The war in the Philippines provoked skepticism among some Americans as well. For one, victory seemed implausible, said Paul Kramer, author of “The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, the United States and the Philippines.”

Kramer said the U.S. military was small at the time. Filipino forces knew the terrain and had local support. The U.S. military had also never fought a guerilla war outside the mainland. (The 19th century wars against American Indians are considered guerilla war by some military historians.)

When they first started fighting, American soldiers struggled to adjust, Kramer said. Filipino guerillas attacked them and then blended in with the civilian population.

“American soldiers really found it disturbing and traumatizing. They didn’t know who was an enemy and who was an ally,” Kramer said.

Origins of the Philippine-American War
The Philippine-American War grew out another war, the 1898 Spanish-American War. The U.S. defeated Spain, which then ceded the Philippines to America. But Filipino forces that had been fighting for self-rule against Spain didn’t want to live under another occupier.

Filipino nationalists declared their independence, ratified a constitution, and elected a president. But the United States claimed the land, seized the Philippines in February of 1899 and war erupted.

All war is brutal, but several historians and military experts say the war in the Philippines was barbaric, even by military standards.

Yet the United States won, in part, because it was willing to be brutal, some military historians say. According to an official State Department account of the war, at least 4,200 American soldiers, 20,000 Filipino combatants and as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence and famine during the war.

Filipino fighters deliberately sought to drag the war on with hit-and-run tactics that would turn the American public against the war, historians say. It was the classic guerilla strategy: Win by avoiding big, pitched battles and melt into the civilian population.

But the U.S. military responded to the guerilla strategy with a simple strategy of their own, some historians say: Kill them all.

Civilian casualties were not accidental, but intentional, says Lt. Col. Michael E. Silverman, an Iraq war veteran and a counterinsurgency training consultant for the U.S. Army.

“Victory there was achieved by a brutal strategy of near genocide. … Many of the officers and sergeants who fought the war were veterans of the Indian Wars and brought with them the idea from Gen. Philip Sheridan: ‘The only good Indians I’ve seen were dead.’’’

The U.S. military forced Filipino villagers outside of their villages into population centers where they could be separated from guerillas. They killed villagers’ livestock and torched crops, says John Hinshaw, a history professor at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania.

“They were the same tactics that worked against the Plains Indians in the 1870s and 1880s,” he says

“We killed hundreds of thousands of people in the process. A lot of it was due to disease and starvation. It was a very savage war.”

How the U.S. overcame its internal divisions
The war ignited debate in America. Critics said America was behaving as a colonial power and denying Filipinos the right to self-government.

An Anti-Imperialist League was founded to lead protests against the war. Public figures such as Mark Twain, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie and three-time Democratic Party presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan spoke out against the war.

“People like Mark Twain were pointing out the Philippines was a country that had set up a republic modeled on the American Constitution, and we were basically saying you’re not ready for it,” says Hinshaw.

After three years, part of the American public began to grow disenchanted with the war. “The Forbidden Book,” a book that explored the racial and commercial justifications for the war, cited a 1901 New York Times editorial that declared: “The American people are plainly tired of the Philippine War. … Is it the lack of troops, supplies, transportation, ammunition and artillery? Is it the lack of a competent commander? How long is this Philippine War going to last?”

Despite the protests, political leaders in the United States were able to maintain support from most of the American public by employing several strategies, historians say. They told Americans they were in the Philippines to civilize and Christianize its inhabitants, historians say.

“They ignored the fact that most of them [Filipinos] were already Roman Catholic,” says Sheehy, professor from La Salle University.

Supporters of the war also squelched the voices of opponents by dismissing them as unpatriotic and effeminate “aunties,” historians say.

America’s political leaders also correctly read the mood of the country, historians say. Ordinary Americans wanted to flex their newfound military muscle and business leaders wanted to make money in Asia. Many Americans were aware that several European countries were also trying to gain control of the Philippines, according to Sheehy.

“There was this sense that we had to take our place in the world. If we don’t, someone else might.”

The United States also won because it didn’t just rely on military might. They found strong, local allies, historians say. They did so through a tactic called the “policy of attraction,” according to a State Department account of the war. Under the policy, the United States introduced social reforms, economic development and permitted some forms of self-government. The policy won over key elites and other Filipinos, the State Department says.

The United States also found local allies on the battlefield. It created an auxiliary Filipino military force called the Philippine Scouts to take on Filipino guerilla fighters, historians say.

The Scouts allowed the United States to reduce troop levels after the war was declared over in 1902. Armed resistance by the Filipinos continued after the war was declared over but the United States simply described that résistance as “crime,” says author Kramer.

“It [the Scouts] allowed the American forces to declare war over long before the resistance was over,” Kramer says. “It frees American troops to come home. It got the war out of the American papers.”

The crucial question Americans face
History can teach but it also can mislead. Scholars and military experts concede that there are crucial differences between the Philippines and Afghanistan.

The Philippines had already been colonized by Spain before its war with the United States, while Afghanistan has resisted conquest by various nations for centuries.

The Philippines was, and still is, a majority Roman Catholic country, while Afghanistan is predominately Muslim. And the U.S. military was able to isolate the Filipino guerillas on several islands, while it’s more difficult to isolate the Taliban since Afghanistan shares a porous border with Pakistan, experts say.

Yet the U.S. still can learn several lessons from its war in the Philippines, scholars and military historians say.

One is what not to do. The U.S. military can’t employ the brutal tactics it once did against Filipinos in a world where there is a 24-hour news cycle, historians say.

“I don’t think we’re willing to do what it took back then and that’s a good thing,” says historian Hinshaw.

“Modern counterinsurgency is focused on winning the support of the population,” says Silverman, the Iraq war veteran and counterinsurgency expert. “The Philippine counterinsurgency strategy was to ‘kill them all.’ ’’

Perhaps the primary lesson from the war in the Philippines is that the United States must be willing to settle in for the long haul, said Dan Roberts, a Vietnam veteran and host of the public radio history program, “A Moment in Time.”

Though the war was declared over in 1902, American soldiers continued to die in the Philippines for 46 years - up to the onset of Word War II, Roberts says. The United States granted independence to the Philippines in 1946.

“I don’t think the U.S. wants to stay in Afghanistan for 46 years,” Roberts says. ”But that’s the way you do these things. You have to be willing to stay there and shed blood decade after decade.”

Ousted Perak MB injured in car accident - Malaysiakini

Ousted Perak Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin was slightly injured today when his car turned turtle while trying to avoid a car coming out of a road junction in Ipoh.

State traffic police chief Wan Abdullah Ishak said Mohammad Nizar was on his way from his home in Sungai Rokam to a dental clinic in Jalan Sultan Idris Shah when the incident happened at about 9.30am.

He lost control of his Toyota Camry while trying to avoid the other car.

Mohammad Nizar, who is also Bukit Gantang member of parliament, received treatment at the Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital for his minor injury.

Estate workers homes: PKR S’gor mandore pushes buck to NUPW (refer MN 9/12/09 page 18).

Only the “Tuan” Selangor Menteri Besar of Selangor has the powers further to Section 76 of the National Land Code to acquire and allocate land for the housing needs of the poor and not the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW). Another of this PKR Indian Exco Mandore’s wayang kulit politics through the Tamil media. This mandore has become so gross maybe even having surpassed the previous Selangor State MIC Exco Mandore by even pushing the buck to NUPW which has no powers at all to grant land for estate workers.

Editor.

Beban perbelanjaan persekolahan pada awal tahun

Para ibu tunggal dilanda kerisauan

KLANG, 6, Januari - Bagi ibu bapa yang berpendapatan rendah, perbelanjaaan persekolahan anak-anak mereka menjadi beban pada setiap permulaan tahun. Terutamanya para ibu tunggal yang berpendapatan amat rendah menghadapi kesukaran sebab tidak mampu membiayai perbelanjaan persekolahan anak-anak mereka. M. Janaki, 49 tahun, yang tinggal di Jalan Tepi Sungai telah mendedahkan kepada Persatuan Pengguna Klang tentang kesusahannya yang tidak mampu membiaya perbelanjaan persekolahan tiga orang anaknya.

Akibat didera oleh suami, Janaki telah berpisah dengan suaminya yang ketagih minuman keras empat tahun lalu. Kini dia bekerja sebagai pembersih (cleaner) dengan pendapatan RM600 sebulan. “Namun duit tersebut hanya bertahan selama 10 hari selepas membayar sewa rumah, bil air dan elektrik, tambang bas sekolah, perbelanjaan harian, duit saku anak- anak serta kos pangangkutan”, kata Janaki yang hanya mempunyai kad pengenalan merah sambil mengesat air matanya.

Beliau tidak pernah mendapat sebarang pekerjaan yang tetap kerana kad pengenalan berwarna merah. Beliau amat bimbang akan masa depan anak-anaknya S.Rajendran (13 tahun), S.Selvi (11 tahun) dan S. Yogisha (9 tahun). Pendapatannya tidak cukup untuk makan dan minum dan terpaksa berhutang untuk menampung perbelanjaan asas.

PPP Mandore’s Hampers and School Bags

PPP Indian mandore’s hamper and school bag paper politics for 200 poor Indians as reported in UM 22/12/09 at page 22). Indians need land allocations for schools, temples, cemeteries and crematoriums as well as permits, licenses and business loans and opportunities, and not hampers. These hampers are an eyewash to hamper the communities real problems.

Why is UMNO and BN parties not getting to the point and granting licenses, small business opportunities loans and other upward mobility opportunities for the long term welfare of these 200 poor Indians in this case?

P. Uthayakumar

Malaysian Indian Minority & Human Rights Violations Annual Report 2009

This is the second report issued at the Pravasi Conference in New Delhi.
The first was issued last year. This is an annual report. Please read it, you will find that this is a tremendous piece of work on the problems of the Indian poor in Malaysia and all the Human and Minority Rights abuses faced by them in particular and by Indians in general, arranged in 15 categories of abuse..
Malaysian Indians Annual Human Rights Report 2009

Ku Li says an intolerant Umno is fanning racial sentiments

Tengku Razaleigh says Umno’s response to the ‘Allah’ controversy is ‘short of leadership and moral fibre’. — File pic

By Leslie Lau - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 7 — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah lashed out at Umno today over its strident position on the “Allah” controversy, pointing out that the party was bent on fanning communal sentiment and digging itself into an intolerant hardline position with no parallel in the Muslim world.

He also suggested that racially-based parties should no longer be allowed to contest elections in multiracial Malaysia.

Speaking in Singapore today at the ISEAS regional outlook forum, his scathing remarks comes as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak shored up Umno and the government’s position over the Allah controversy by backing the right of Muslim groups to hold a public demonstration tomorrow.

Umno and a number of Muslim NGOs have been in an uproar over the recent High Court ruling allowing the Catholic church’s Herald newspaper to use the word “Allah” to refer to God in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

The government has filed an appeal against the ruling and yesterday it won a stay of execution.

The Islamist PAS, however, has backed the court’s ruling by pointing out that the word “Allah” can be used by those of the Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Tengku Razaleigh suggested today that the rejection of Umno and the Barisan Nasional (BN) communal politics model by large swathes of voters in Election 2008 had led the Malay nationalist party to pursue racial issues more stridently.

“They think this will shore up their ’base’. They are mistaken about the nature of that base. As they do so, they become more extreme and out of touch with ordinary voters of every race and religion whose major concerns are not racial or religious identity but matters such as corruption, security, the economy and education.”

He cited as an example the “Allah” controversy.

“In a milestone moment, PAS, the Islamic party, is holding onto the more plural and moderate position while Umno is digging itself into an intolerant hard-line position that has no parallel that I know of in the Muslim world.

“Umno is fanning communal sentiment, and the government it leads is taking up policy lines based on ‘sensitivities’ rather than principle. The issue appears to be more about racial sentiment than religious, let alone constitutional principles,” he said in his luncheon address.

He said Umno’s response to the “Allah” controversy was “short of leadership and moral fibre.”

Tengku Razaleigh’s latest attack on Umno and the government is not likely to go down well with the hardline conservatives in his party.

But the Umno veteran has been unrelenting in his call for reforms in Umno. Recently, he also slammed the BN government’s position in refusing to give oil royalties to Kelantan, which is ruled by PAS.

On the “Allah” issue, the former Finance Minister is particularly scathing in his remarks.

“Sensitivities is the favoured resort of the gutter politician. With it he raises a mob, fans its resentment and helps it discover a growing list of other sensitivities. This is a road to ruin. A nation is made up of citizens bound by a shared conception of justice and not of mobs extracting satisfaction for politicised emotional states,” he said.

Tengku Razaleigh said that when the government began speaking the language of sensitivities, it was a mark of the country’s decline.

He said the controversy over the use of “Allah” should not be about managing sensitivities but about doing what was right.

“This is what government sounds like when a political system and its leadership have come unstuck from the rule of law. It goes from issue to issue, hostage to the brinksmanship of sensitivities. Small matters threaten to erupt into racial conflict.

“The government of a multiracial society that cannot rise above sentiment is clearly too weak or too self-interested to hold the country together. It has lost credibility and legitimacy. The regime is in crisis.”

Tengku Razaleigh said that while the prime minister had made what he called “helpful gestures” towards freeing up the economy and pursuing multiracial policies, Malaysia was still in need of fundamental reform.

He urged an overhaul of the political system to rule out racially exclusive parties from directly contesting elections; a restoration of the independence of the judiciary and the media; and an all-out war against graft.

The transcript of Rosli’s trial runs into almost 30 pages. I initially thought of cutting it down but it is so interesting and makes the MACC look like complete fools, and blatant liars on top of that, I thought maybe I should leave it in its entirety for your reading pleasure. Have fun!

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Continuation of Cross Examination of Anthony Kevin Morais (PW2) by Dato’ K Kumaraendran

1. Yesterday, you disputed that Messrs Nordin Adenan acted for BC in the S&P of the Phileo property. Are you aware that Encik Adenan gave evidence in DRY’s trial?

K: Yes.



2. Are you aware that En Adenan said that he is the solicitor for BC in the Phileo transaction and that he got instructions from DRY?

K: Tidak tahu.



3. In fact, he was never impeached in his evidence?

K: Tidak tahu.



4. Okay, let us move to another topic. Kevin, you told us yesterday to the Learned Judge, that you had looked at the cheque butts of Shuttle Eight before issuing the notice?

K: Saya tak katakan bagitu. Apa yang saya katakan ialah saya hanya merujuk kepada cheque butts……….. cheque butts adalah di antara DRY dan RD.

[Public at gallery, lawyers including Bar Counsel Representative Mr Ragu gave various exclamations. RD appeared upset. Various remarks and murmurs. A big stir. Public heard to say –“ We heard him clearly…”. DPP raised objections. Scene became chaotic.]

5. Only yesterday, you said in no uncertain terms that you had looked at the cheque butts of Shuttle Eight to see whether the sum of RM25k was paid or not to DRY.

K: Saya tak kata bagitu. Saya kata saya merujuk kepada penyata bank MSC.



6. You are changing your story again! In my cross on this part, I was referring to the alleged payment of RM25k paid monthly by Shuttle Eight. In other words, you never looked at the cheque butts?

K: Tidak.



7. Can I refresh your memory, I asked you, ‘where is it in the bank statement stated that it was cash cheques’, and you said you looked at the cheque butts.

K: (quiet, mumbled, pouted his lips and kept rummaging his hair and pinching his lips).



DPP: Saya bantah. Soalan2 yang menghina saksi tidak boleh dibenarkan, as per s152 Evidence Act. Here he is misusing the privilege, because the lawyer is insulting the witness.



8. You deny saying this? You said, correct me if I’m wrong, ‘Semua cheque itu ialah cash cheque’. I then asked you, ‘Where does the account say it was a cheque cash?’ Did I not ask you that?

K: Yes you asked that question.



9. Your answer was – It wasn’t from the accounts, but you looked at the cheque butts. Did you say that or not?

K: Saya tidak boleh jawab. I don’t know if I said it in that context or not. I only said cheque butts, I did not say it was Shuttle Eight’s cheque butts…



Dato’ K: What is he saying? (Frustrated). Let me remind you, though you may be a DPP, you can be cited for Perjury!



DPP: Bantah. Peguam menghina saksi.



Dato’ K: I am reminding this witness that if my client lodges a report, he can be cited for perjury.



Judge: Stand down

Break at 11.10am

10. I asked you yesterday, about the cheque butts….



DPP: The witness should be given time to answer.



Dato’ K: Do not interrupt me in my cross…..

[From hereon, DPP objected to practically every other question posed by Dato’ K. This became very disruptive]

11. When saying bout cheque butts, who’s cheque butts are you referring to?

K: Bayaran kepada RD dan DRY. Payments made by DRY to RD and butts from BC to AG. Also, BC kepada RD.



12.Can you remember what you said yesterday?

K: Yes.



13 You said you can produce the cheque butts of Shuttle Eight, did I ask you that question yesterday?

K: I can’t remember if I was asked that question.



14. Your answer was that you can produce the cheque butts if directed to. That was why I reserved questioning further on that for you to produce the cheque butts.



DPP: The ruling has been made, Dato’ should stop questioning about the cheque butts.



15. So, now you are saying you never saw the cheque butts of Shuttle Eight?

K: Tidak Yang Arif.



16. When you said cash cheque, where did you get the info?



DPP: Bantahan. Enough la. He should move on to Danga Bay, enough about cheque butts.



17. So now, I put it to you: You are lying, you are fabricating a lie to the hilt, when you said you never saw the cheque butts.

K: I said saya tak nampak cheque butts untuk Shuttle Eight.



18. So, Kevin, am I correct that you now say you only issued the Notice, right, based on MSC’s statement?

K: And the bank statements.



19. Kevin, do you remember you also told the court yesterday that RD was also the solicitor for the purchase of Danga Bay from BC

K: If I had said it that way, I accept it.



20. Do you have the SPA of between Danga Bay and BC?

K: Yes I do have.



21. The SPA?

K: Yes.



22. This is the SPA. Who are the solicitors?

K: Messrs Yap & Yong.



23. They are Solicitors for BC?

K: Solicitors for the S&P agreement.



DPP: Are they the same agreement? Is Dato’ referring to the same agreement that Kevin is holding?



Dato’ K: What’s wrong with you? I got this agreement from the Prosecution. You tell me if it is the same agreement.

[Laughter from the public gallery as well as the Judge]

DPP: I was just making sure it is the same agreement.



24. Who is the solicitor?

K: Messrs Yap & Yong.



25. They are the solicitors for BC?

K: There is no solicitor for BC mentioned in this agreement. There is just a signature for BC, and another signature. It doesn’t say they are the solicitors for BC.



26. How do you say that RD is the lawyer for BC?

K: I referred to the letter dated 2nd May, yang dikepilkan bersama-sama. Based on this letter, firm of A&G where RD is a partner, adalah terlibat dalam transaksi tersebut.



27. Read the letter.

(Kevin reads the letter dated 2nd May) “In view of your instructions above, we return herewith the original SPA dated 1 June 2000 made between Danga Bay and BC for your safekeeping.”



28 Does it say A&G is acting for BC. Does the letter state it?

K: No it doesn’t state it.



29. Do you know what the meaning of the ‘facility’ is?

K: The OD facility in respect of the property Danga Bay.



30. Did it proceed?

K: It did not.



31. Yesterday, I showed you the SPA between Phileo (PA) and BC.



Court: Mark this agreement.



Dato’/Court : Would this SPA be marked separately, (the Danga Bay S&P) is marked D23. The letter is marked D24.



32. Look at D19, the loan agreement. Remember I referred it to you, you said that virtue of the name A&G there, you said A&G acted for BC.

K: Yes, looking at the other documents as well.



33. Taking your approach yesterday, do you now say Messrs Yap & Yong acted for BC?

K: I think Y&Y drew up this agreement.



34. Do you think A&G acted for BC in this loan agreement? Yes or no?

K: No.



35. Did you take a statement from Y&Y?

K: No.



36. If you had taken a statement from Y&Y, you would know who they were acting for?



DPP: Bantahan!

37. Would you agree with me, that had you taken a statement from Y&Y, you would know who would have acted for BC?



DPP: This is a speculative questions and it can’t be asked.



Dato’ K: I’m saying that this question is important.



Court: He says he didn’t take a statement, so biarkanlah.



38. From your answers Y&Y drew up the agreement?

K: Yes.



39. They would be in the best position to say who they are acting for?

K: Tidak semestinya.



Dato’ K: This is a joke! You are being evasively difficult. Ok, we can go that route .



41. Now, these cheque butts, did you have a view of them, the cheque butts, can you mark it? Cheque Butt 471853, let’s look at it. Did you have a view of these butts?

K: There were in the IP. Yes, I had sight of them.



42. Did you have a look at the corresponding cheques?

K: Only for cheque No. 471900.



43. Did you see the cheque for 471853?

K: I can’t remember.



Dato’ K : Now you can’t remember. Look here, you are here, Mr Kevin, as a witness. You should come prepared. You are here to give evidence.



DPP: Bantahan Saksi dah jawab. Ini menghina saksi



Judge: Teruskan.



44. Did you see the butts?

K: I can’t remember, whether he showed these cheques to me. The IO would be in the best position to answer.



45. Cheque No .471866?

K: That too, I’m not sure.



46. The first cheque was in 1999 and 2nd one is 2000. Can you remember if they were addressed to AG?

K: I can’t remember.



48. Cheque No. 471900, when was it dated?

K: 12th March 2002.



49. You never saw the cheque?

K: That one I saw.



50. You didn’t know what this payment was for?

K: No.



Court: Are you going to mark it?

Dato’ K: Yes.

Court: D25 (a-c) cheques marked.



51. You didn’t know what payments they are for at the time when you sent the notice?

K: No.



52. Are you aware that the agreement between Danga Bay and Bonus Circle was revoked?

K: Yes, based on a letter dated 23 May 2002. The letter marked P24. When it was brought to me, it was attached to the agreement.



53. Do you have the document with you?

K: No, I don’t have the document.



54. How do you know it was revoked?

K : Based on the letter, P24.



55. Do you know who acted for revocation?

K: No.



56. You were aware of P24. Doesn’t it seem fit for you, as a learned DPP to find out who acted for revocation?

K: Tidak Yang Ariff.



DPP: Bantahan, saksi dah jawab.



57. Do you agree with me the date of revocation was 20 March 2003?

K: Yes.



DPP: I object. If the witness has not seen the document, then this is hearsay.



Dato: I think the forgetfulness of the witness has rubbed off on the DPP. This document was given to me by the DPP!

[Tsunami of laughter from the public gallery. Judge also laughed. DPP looked embarrassed]

DPP: Saya cuma nak pastikan dokumen ini betul. Tanayalah dulu ada namapak ini dokumen….



Dato’ K: Do not tech me how to cross-examine!



Judge: Teruskan .



58. Have you seen this document?



DPP: Bantah, saksi dah kata dia tak tahu.



Dato K: The learned DPP is giving cues to the witness. As a matter of courtesy, I would want him to sit down and don’t disturb me in my cross-examination. Yang Arif tolong nasihatkan dia.



DPP: I’m not giving cues, tapi….…



Judge: Teruskan.



59. You said by P24, the agreement was revoked.

K: Yes.



60. Is this the Deed of revocation?

K: Yes.



61. Of the same property?

K: Yes.



62. Same property as Danga Bay?

K: (rummaging) That I can’t say. What I can see is the date of the principal agreement, as P23, but I’m sorry, I can’t find the particulars of the property.



63. What is wrong with you? The properties are the same in the SPA as well as the revocation agreement?



DPP: Bantah. Peguam mengasak saksi. Hormat sikit saksi



Dato' K: Ok, you want to take long route, we can take long route.



DPP: Bantah….



Dato’ K: Apa semua you mahu bantah, saya boleh bantu saksi.



64. Now look carefully at the 1st schedule. I am just assisting the witness. The Schedule refers to the S&P Agreement?

K: Yes.



64 The revocation was in respect of the same property in the SPA, between BC and DB ?

K: Benar.



65. Have you seen this agreement?

K: No.



66. Can this letter be marked as IDD27. Cheque butts would be marked as IDD(a,b,c)



67. Would you confirm with me Kevin, in the documents by Y&Y, in the SPA in respect of the Danga Bay property, as well as the revocation, A&G’s name doesn’t appear at all on these 2 documents?

K: No.



68. The only document in which A&G’s name appears is in IDD24, the OD in respect of the property?

K: Yes.



69 Did you find out in your investigations which bank were they acting for?

K: No.



70. Do you agree with me that the letter says they do not act for BC?

K: No, it doesn’t say here on the letter.



Dato’ K: Let’s move to another topic.



71. Lets come to reference with DRY proceedings in Shariah court. Would you agree that RD acted as a solicitor for DRY?

K: So, I was informed.



72. Can you look as s.2 of the Act? The definition of ‘associate’. Would you agree that a friend or someone with a longstanding relationship doesn’t fall within of associate within s.2 of the act?

K: What relationship is it?



73. Does the definition of “friend” appear in s2?

K: No.



74. Does “long standing” appear in s2?

K: No.



75. Would you agree with me that long standing friendship or relationship doesn’t appear in s2?

K: Benar Yang Arif.



76. Would you agree with me that just because RD knows DRY since IIU days, it doesn’t make RD an associate?

K: Saya setuju.



77. Just because RD has known DRY and they have known each other from IIU, it doesn’t make him an associate?

K: Yes.



78. Would you agree Kevin that the proceeding that RD represented DRY in the Syariah Court was in respect of divorce proceeding?

K: I was informed.



79. Would you agree divorce is personal in nature?

K: Yes.



80. Would you agree in such a situation, it is only natural for someone to appoint someone known to the client?

K: Yes, benar.



81. Kevin, you said in your evidence that there was an interview with the company secretary (Co-Sec). Did you interview the Co-Sec of BC?

K: No.



82. Any of your officers or IO interviewed BC’s Co-Sec?

K: I am not sure.



83. You do not know whether the Co-Sec was interviewed?

K: No, I didn’t know if she was interviewed.



84. Now, did you make a search of A&G?

K: No.



85. You had sent a notice to RD whose, tell me if you agree with me, name appears in A&G?

K: Yes.



86. You didn’t investigate what position he was in?

K: Saya tidak, tapi ada pengawai penyisat telah buat.



87. At the time you issued the notice, you didn’t know his position?

K: Maklumat ada mengenai dia.



88. What was his position there?

K: From info received, he was a partner



89. Did you investigate the firm?

K: No.



90. Did you know the firm carries on a company secretarial practice?

K: Maklumat telah mengatakan demikian.



91. The company secretarial practice is separate from the legal practice. Are you aware of that?

K: Yes.



92. Did you find out which are the lawyers in charge of the company secretarial practice?

K: No.



92. Did you know RD was never in charge of the company secretarial practice?

K: Saya tidak tahu.



93. Do yu know that the persons in charge was one Rebecca Lai and later it was Ooi Bee Hong. Are you aware?

K: Tidak tahu.



94. Did you or your IOs take any statement under the Act, any witness statements from any partners in A&G?

K: Saya tidak begitu ingat jika ia ada diambil.



95. I put it to you, at the time of issuing the notice, that no statement was taken from A&G?

K: Saya tidak tahu.



DPP: Saksi dah jawab tak tahu, jadi dia tak tahu sebelum atau sesudah .



Mr Ragu (holding a watching brief for the Bar Council): From my observation, every time the DPP objects, he also provides an answer. I find the DPP is leading the witness to a particular answer.



DPP: Watching brief tak boleh campur…



Judge: Teruskan.



96. So, I already put it to you, that the statement was recorded after RD was charged?

K: Saya tidak tahu.



97. Would you agree with me, had a statement been recorded from A&G, you would be in a better position to say who was in charge of the secretarial work?

K: Tidak semestinya.



DPP: Bantah, saksi dah jawab dia tak tahu.



98. So you would not know since the statement wasn’t recorded, whether RD was ever involved in the Co-Sec work?

K: Saya tidak tahu.



Dato’ K : Yes, tidak tahu.



99. Are you aware that A&G provides company secretarial services to almost 600 companies?



DPP: Bantah, saksi dah kata tak tahu, jadi juga tak tahu jumlah syarikat.



Dato’ K: Boleh jawab?

K: I don’t know the number of companies involved.



100. Look at s.2 Akta again. The word “relative” is also defined under the Act?

K: Yes.



101. And, under s32(1)b the words “relative” and “associate” is in connection to a suspect referred to in s.32(1)(a) ?

K: Yes, benar.



102 In this particular case, the suspect is DRY

K: Yes.



103. If you look again at s.32, the word ‘or any other person’. This is a 3rd category, do you agree?

K: “Any other person”, yes.



104. Now can I show you the exhibits, you issued a notice to RD on the 17 July 2007, I think it is P5. And when was it served?

K: From the back page here, it was on the 19th of July. It says RD ‘tidak mahu terima’.



Dato K: I did not yet ask you to read the whole thing, just answer the question.



DPP: That is his answer, let him answer. Jangan potong cakap saksi…



Dato’ K: I am getting a bit irritated with your interjections. Do not teach me how to cross-examine. At this stage I am in charge not you



DPP: The court is in charge, not you!



Judge: We will take a quick break now for 10 minutes.

Break at 12.15pm. Resume at 12.25pm

107. Now, Kevin, would you agree with me, it is wrong to say he refused to accept the Notice. En Rosli accepted the notice but that he didn’t acknowledge receipt?

K: Yes he accepted it, but tidak mengakui terima.



108. Subsequently another notice was sent on 16 August 2007, marked P1. You sent the notice and it was received by him on the 21st of August.

K: Diserahkan kepadanya, yes.



109. Would you agree with me, the 2nd notice, was issued before the expiry of the 1st notice? The 1st notice was on 17july 2007 and had 30 days to comply with it. You then gave another notice on 16.8.2007.

K: It was issued on the day the 1st notice expired.



110. s.32 (1)(b) says about “relative or associate of the suspect, or any other person who is able to assist in the investigation”. But it doesn’t say of an “associate who is able to assist in the investigation”.

K: Yes, it’s the same



111. Don’t insult our intelligence. It is disjunctive. There is a comma there. Did you send the notice to “an associate” or to “a person who is able to assist in the investigation”?

K: I sent it to an “associate who can assist in the investigation”. I read it together.



112, And so according to your reading, you read it as “an associate whom the PP believe can assist in the investigation”?

K: Yes



113. I put it to you, you are wrong.

K: No.



DPP: Bantah, saksi dah jawab. Janganlah asak saksi.



Dato’ K: I can put whatever I want to this witness, you don’t tell me what I can or cannot do and do not interrupt!



114. I put it to you Kevin - the notice sent to RD is bad in law.

K: Saya tidak setuju.



115: Now, you also stated that RD acted as an Advocate & Solicitor (A&S) for DRY, and that is one of the reasons that you consider he is an “associate”

K: I read it with other factors.



116: Yes, another reason is RD acted as a solicitor for BC, and therefore he is an associate?

K: Yes, amongst the other factors.



117: Were you practicing as a lawyer before joining the service?

K: No.



118: Are you aware of A&S-client relationship?

K: Dari segi undang-undang ada.



119: Are you aware that, or do you appreciate that, RD could be in possession of certain privileged info?

K: We have provisions that deal with this matter.



120: Yes, but did you CONSIDER that RD could be in possession of privileged info?

K: Yes I considered that and also I considered s.27 of the Act.



121: Did you also consider that RD could be in possession of privileged info of other clients, other than DRY?

K: No.



122: You said you considered s.27 of the ACA Act.

K: Yes, and also something in the Evidence Act.



123: Do you agree with me that s.27 provides a specific method for securing privileged info, how to seek privileged info from A&S?

K: Yes.



124: To invoke it, you must make an application to a Judge of the High Court to secure the information from an Advocate?



DPP: Bantah Yang Arif, this is a question of law.



Dato’ K: I want to establish that there is mala fide from a group of people, which conspired to send bad notice to RD.



DPP: Tapi ini ada lah isu undang undang….



Court: Go on Dato’.



125: You could have gone to a judge to get the info?

K: Not necessarily. Only when a property is liable to be seized.



126: Do you know the rule of construction? Do you agree that they are two separate sections?

K: I don’t agree, in my interpretation….



Dato’ K: I am not interested in your interpretation.



DPP: Bantah, kita mesti tunjuk hormat pada saksi.



127: Alright, lets take your route. The RM 25k entered into DRY’s account, is it liable for seizure?

K: Eventually, if the court says so.



Dato’ K: Just answer the question, it specific Yes or No?



DPP: Bantah…



Judge: Teruskan.



129: Could you go under this section?

K: Not necessarily.



DPP: The fact that the notice is issued under s.32 and not s.27 is not relevant here. I object.



Judge: Maybe you can submit on it later on, let him continue.



130: I put it to you, you could have gone under this section?

K: Not necessarily.



Dato’ K: What is not necessary, either you can or you can’t. Please answer the question.



DPP: Bantah, this is not relevant.



Dato’ K : The issue of mala fide is relevant.



DPP: There is no evidence to show that there is mala fide. There is nothing to show it .



Dato' K : He said he referred to s.27. He considered s27. I asked him about s27. You could have gone under that?

K: I considered both. I considered s.27 when I issued the notice.



131: My question is, you could have invoked s.27?

K: I considered s.27 to invoke the s.32 Notice, that is I read s.27 in conjunction with s.32.



132: You thought s. 27 wasn’t appropriate and so you went under s.32?

K: Yes.



133: I put it to you- the reason you didn’t move the court under s.27 is because you know couldn’t convince the court to go under s.27!

K: Tidak benar Yang Arif.



134: In fact you went under s.32 because you couldn’t satisfy 27.



DPP: Bantah, saksi dah jawab kenapa asak dan hina?



Dato’ K: Sila jawab.

K: Tidak benar.



135. I put it to you, the notice under s.32 is unlawful.

K: Saya tidak setuju Yang Arif.



136. When you gave evidence in EIC here in this court, you said RD was a potential witness who could assist in the investigation. You stand by it?

K: Yes.



137: He is an important witness as far as you are concerned?

K: Yes.



Judge: How long would you take to finish this cross Dato’?

Dato’ K : Insya allah, I should finish by today if the DPP doesn’t object.

Break for lunch. Resume at 2.55pm.

138. The last question before lunch, was did you consider RD as an important witness, and you said yes?

K: Yes.



139. Did you instruct IO to take statement from RD before issuing the notice?

K: No.



140. Having considered him as an important witness, you still didn’t record his statement? Can you read s.22 ACA? What does it say?

K: It is for power of ACA Officer to examine persons (Kevin reads s.22 aloud).



141. It goes on to show all the powers that the IO has to investigate witness?

K: Yes.



142. If the IO had taken a statement from RD, he would have got all the info he needed?

K: I cannot answer the question, I am not IO.



143. As a DPP, didn’t you think it was fit to ask the IO to take a statement from RD?

K: I didn’t think it was necessary.



DPP: Bantah. The fact in issue in this case, is whether RD had complied with the notice. All this is not necessary. If you want to put all the provisions here, it is not relevant. If you are going to use all this, you are abusing your privilege. You are abusing the witness.

[DPP went on a long submission of the law on relevancy]



Dato’ K: My point is this witness has taken a course of action to issue a notice under s.32. My submission is that he could have taken a course of action under s.22, to get the information. We are saying that by him invoking s.32, there is mala fide on his part. Therefore I want to ask him why he didn’t invoke the powers under s.22. That is the relevancy of this. All this while we are saying that it is mala fide. As my questioning goes along, it will unfold and will show that there is mala fide. My learned friend the DPP is curbing my intention to show the mala fide intention, and he cannot restrain me from asking all this.

As the witness admitted, he could have invoked s22. This section says he can get all the info in that manner from a witness. That is the normal thing to do. Investigate first. Why then did he go under s.32 which resulted in RD being charged? This is how we are going to show he has mala fide.



DPP: there is nothing in s.32 that says bona fide or mala fide. If there is mala fide or bona fide written in the section, then only it would be relevant. It only says that a notice should be issued, no question of bona fide or mala fide.

Secondly, Defense wants to talk about mala fide motive. He talks about conspiracy. But there isn’t one iota of evidence to show that there is a mala fide intention. There is no evidence to show that there has been a fight between RD, or business transaction gone badly or anything of that sort.



Dato’ K: My learned junior will address Yang Arif in Malay.



Chetan: Sekarang, kami ingin menujukan soalan kenapa saksi ini tidak menggunakan kuasa2 yang lain yang terdapat di bawah ACA. Dan sebelum ini, Yang Ariff sudah memberi keputusan bahawa isu mala fide dan kesahihan notis tersebut adalah satu isu untuk di bentangkan dalam perbicaraaan ini.

Jika kita lihat s.32, frasa “reasonable grounds to believe”, that phrase shows penilaian objektif kepada pembuat keputusan tersebut. Sesiapa yang membuat keputusan tersebut hendaklah membuat keputusan dengan ujian objektif tersebut.

Persoalan mala fide di disini ialah adakah seorang yang munasabah ( a reasonable DPP) akan mengeluarkan notis tersebut , faced with all the evidence in front of him. Oleh itu, adalah perlu saksi ini jawab mengapa kuasa2 lain yang sedia ada tidak digunakan iaitu kuasa yang kurang intrusive, atau less impactful as s.32.

Oleh yang demikian, memang relevant, dan saksi sepatutnya berikan jawapan. Pernyataan DPP bahawa tiada sebarang bukti mengenai mala fide, adalah tidak betul, kerana kita kini di tahap pendakwaaan, ini baru saksi kedua.

Bukti dari semalam sampai ke hari ini, soalan seperti adakah RD sekutu, sama ada dia sebagai seorang lawyer, semua ini terpaksa dibuat secara berperingkat.



DPP: What was the reason of Your Honor’s earlier ruling? It was about MSC. You never gave a ruling, to allow mala fide questions. You didn’t say specifically the ruling about mala fide questions were allowed.



Yes, it was relevant to ask about mala fide when MSC was in the picture, but now it is not.

Now, the other issue about Kevin being only the prosecution’s second witness. But this is the only STAR WITNESS that we have here, he issued all the notices, hence he is the Star here!



Chetan: What about the IO? Do you agree he is important?



DPP: Saya pohon Yang Arif, I bantah about any questions about ss.22 or 32 etc. Saya pohon ruling, yang semua question ini tidak relevant.



Judge : This is my ruling. DPP’s request to disallow the questions is not granted. Defence may proceed to ask.



144: At the point of issuing the notice, you only considered s.27 and s. 32, and you did not consider s.22?

K: Yes.



145. s22 is an integral part of the investigation process of an offence under the ACA, would you agree with me?

K: In my opinion, both 32 and 22 are important.



146. Now, s32 of the Act. Would you agree with me that before you issue the notice under s.32, the investigation should have been completed. If you look at s.32 clearly (reads aloud) would you agree with me, that investigation has to be completed before notice can be issued?

K: In respect of whom? Investigation for the principal offender, yes.



147. In respect of not only principal offender, but also any other person in that section, the investigation must be completed.

K: Let me explain…



Dato’ K: I did not ask for your explanation. Just answer my question - yes or no?



DPP: This is a question of interpretation. Let the witness reply.



Dato’ K: He can explain in your re-examination re-later. Now I am cross-examining. Please answer.

K: In my opinion, the principal offender is the suspect. The investigation has been completed to show an offence has been committed.



149. Thank you for your interpretation, but I’m not interested in that. Would you agree an investigation must be completed?

K: The relationship , there must be evidence that there is a relationship between the suspect and the associate/relative or anyone else.



150. Let me the put it this way. Would you send a notice to the “associate” if the investigation is not completed?



DPP: Could Dato’ please let Kevin explain the meaning of being completed first. Let him finish explaining what is an investigation being completed. Don’t stop him.



Dato K: This is very strange. Why is the DPP speaking on behalf of the witness? If the witness is not sure, he is intelligent enough to ask me to explain!



Judge: Please rephrase and ask the question again.



151. Would you send a notice when investigation is still on-going as to ascertain whether a person is an associate or a relative of the suspect?

K: If the evidence is there, if the core is there, if it is just a question of tying up the loose ends, if the core is there, yes we can issue a notice.



152. If the investigation is incomplete, there is a possibility that what you say is the core of the evidence may not be true, right?

K: (no answer).



153. Is the investigation complete when you sent the notice?

K: The core evidence was there, but we had to tie up the loose ends to complete the investigations.



154. Good! So to tie up the loose ends of the evidence means the investigation is not complete?

K: Core evidence is there, to tie loose ends up, to complete it.



155. Hence it is not complete!

K: Yes, not complete.



156. Let me put it this way to you, when you issue a notice under s.32, against the principal offender, and against the associate, does the investigation need to be completed?

K: It needs to be completed, it is completed when the core evidence must be there to show the relationship.



157. At the time of sending of the notices to RD and to the DRY, I put it to you, the investigation was not complete.

K: Tidak benar Yang Arif.



158. Can we show exhibit P6. Right, read the letter loudly

K: The whole thing? (reads aloud). “para 2: First and foremost I take this opportunity to thank you…. Please be assured that that I am as interested to resolve this matter as quickly as I believe you too must be.”



159. Would I be correct in saying, RD has written to you a very polite letter, thanking you for the extension of time, and assured you he is interested to solve this matter?

K: Yes.



160. Would you agree he is co-operative?

K: From the letter, yes (continuing to read the letter).

“para 3 : Towards that end, I request you to please inform me of the following:

(d) what are the facts on which you deem that I am his associate?;

(e) in what capacity did you deem me to be his associate (bearing in mind that s.2 has several categories of persons defined as “associate”.



161: Can you hold that for a while. Can you agree with me paragraph D and E is RD crying to you to tell him what are the facts that you find him, what is his capacity as an associate?

K: I don’t think it is crying out Yang Arif.



Dato’ K: Figuratively speaking, let’s not split hairs there

[Kevin continues to read aloud] “para 4. In addition to the above, I would respectfully ask you to clarify whether the statement which I am required to furnish extends to my own property which has nothing to do with DRY or only to those which he is alleged to have some interest (as stated in s. 32(1)(b) of the Act
Para 7. While we are on the subject, please permit me to present my grave concerns that there are what I believe to be breaches of s. 21(4) of the Act. Needles to say, I am alarmed at the disclosures in the press about this case.”



162. Yes, now stop at that. What is s.21(4) of the Act?

K: Disclosure (reads out s.21(4) of the Act).



DPP: If I may, based on this letter…



Judge: Put it in your submission.



163. Was there a prompt reply from you?

K: I can’t remember.



164. You replied 21days later, betul?

K: Kalau ikut surat, memang bagitu.



165. Tengok P7, he wrote to you again on 4th Sept which is 10 days later asking you for a reply for his letter dated 24th August. Can you read the 2nd para?

K: (reads aloud) “Para 2: In respect of my request for you to investigate the breach of s. 21(4) of the Act, please advise what has been done to date.”



166. 10 days later he sent you a reminder. When did you reply? On the 14th of September.

K: Yes, 14th of September.



167. That was 3 weeks later, was that a prompt reply?

K: To me yes, I replied it promptly.



Dato’ K: So that is how the MACC works!



167. Please read out your reply letter to RD.

K: (reads out his letter) “Para 2: I am not at liberty to respond to certain requests of yours in the said letters as they concern issues that are currently being investigated.”



Dato K: Would I be correct to say that at that point, the investigation was not complete?



DPP: Complete as to what?



Dato’ K: I don’t know. This is your letter!



168. Do you agree, from your own letter, that investigation wasn’t complete?

K: Incomplete against whom?



169. Look, this is your letter, you should know. You tell me what you mean by investigation not completed.

K: It is a response to Para 3 of 1st letter of RD dated 24 Aug 2007.



170. Investigation is not completed. Okay. So you said you were not prepared to respond to matters as they are under investigation. My next question is, you never said you can’t reply because it was confidential, you only said it was still under investigation?

K: Yes .



171. Without you replying to the queries RD has raised, would you agree that he would be hampered in replying to you?

K: Not necessarily.



172. Do you agree with me, he needs to know all these factors as a basis to reply to the notice you issued to him?

K: Tidak semestinya.



173. Mr. Kevin, you could have replied because it was your Notice addressed to him and he wrote to you to ask you.

K: I could not have replied it, because I am divulging info of investigation.



174. You can’t reply to your own witness?

K: I would be divulging information.



175. So you now say you couldn’t divulge this info because it is confidential?

K: To an extent, yes.



176. In RD’s letter, he asked you in what capacity was he considered an “associate”, bearing in mind s.2 has several categories of “associate”. Is even this confidential? You could have answered him what category he is in?

K: It is not necessary to tell him that.



177. Kevin, here you have deemed him to be a “witness”. He wants to assist you in investigation against DRY. Now you have sent him a notice asking certain info, he has asked you in what capacity. There are 3 categories, alright 4. My question is, is the question he asked, confidential or not?

K: It would be to a certain extent.



178. To say he is a relative, is that confidential?

K: The notice will say in itself.



Dato’ K: My question is, to inform him that he is a relative, is it confidential or not?! (Frustrated)

K: (adamant look).



Dato’ K: The public has a very negative perception of MACC. It is because of officers like you. You are a disgrace to the MACC. You behaved in a cavalier manner to so many things. You call him a witness, yet you never interviewed him. You don’t bother to reply to him and when you do, it is late and evasive. You arrest him and run off for a holiday. You charge him and you come to court without documents. It is no wonder the public is so repulsed with MACC. It is not my perception. It is the public’s!



DPP: Bantah!!!



Judge: Okay, don’t go there. Please proceed.



Dato’ K: I apologise Yang Arif, but the DPP should also advise his witness and not encourage him to be disrespectful to this Court.



179. Could you have mentioned to him what category he was in?

K: I don’t think it was necessary.



180. In your letter, would I be correct in saying, the queries he asked you, you never addressed your mind to his queries. You never answered the questions?

K: I answered to para 7.



181. Para 3 and 4, you didn’t answer?

K: Yes.



182. Now, I put it to you, the notice which you sent under s.32(1)b is a reproduction of s.32(1)(b). Almost word for word?

K: In pari materia, yes, it’s a format .



183. So you just followed the format of s.32(1)(b)

K: To an extent, yes I read and follow the format.



184. He also wrote to you, after you served on him, the first notice.

K: Is that the letter of 24th August?



185. No, it’s the letter dated 10th August. You served the 1st notice. After receiving the first notice on 17th July, he wrote to you. You received the letter?

K: Yes.



186.Could this be marked (P28)? He was travelling overseas and would like an extension of time. Did you reply to that letter?

K: I didn’t reply the letter, but I granted an extension of time.



187. Hang on, you didn’t reply the letter, but issued another notice to extend time?

K: Yes.



188. Now, in the letter dated 24th Aug (P6), he sought clarification on specific issues?

K: Yes.



189. In that letter of the 24th August, he also asked you to clarify whether what he is required to furnish, whether it extends to his own property or not. You didn’t reply to him did you?

K: I did.



Dato’ K: You see Kevin, he asked for specific information as per…



DPP: That is his answer!



Dato’ K: That was not an answer



190. My question was, he asked you to clarify whether does it extend to his property or property that DRY had an interest in. You didn’t reply to him?

K: My reply was to refer him to the notice of the 17th July.



191. But not to the notice of dated of 16th August. It doesn’t refer to the 2nd notice?

K: No.



192. You didn’t specifically reply to his letter?

K: No, not in that way.



193. I’m sorry to put this to you. Your attitude, in not replying to the witness’s letter, showed your arrogant and cavalier attitude.

K: Tidak benar.



194. Had you specifically replied to his queries in his letter, he would have conformed with your Notice?



DPP: Bantah! This is speculative.



195. You agree with me what he posed to you is the subject matter of the charge.

K: The subject matter of the charge is the Notice and failure to comply.



196. The info that he required from you is …

K: The info that he is seeking here is actually what is required from him from the notice. It is all in the notice.



197. Its part of the notice?

K: Yes part of the notice.



198. Look at his the statement, RD’s Statement Under Oath, look at the last paragraph. Can you read the last paragraph?

K (reads aloud). Para 10: I verily believe that I have, to the best of my ability and obligations as required by law, met all the requirements of the Notices and I am ready, able and willing to provide such further details as are in my possession if lawfully required to do so.



199. He has told you again, that he has complied with the notice to the best of his ability. Did you write to him and tell him that he has not fully complied with it?

K: No.



200. And as far as in the said Statement under Oath, can you read paragraph 4 onwards?

K: (reads aloud).



201. The complaint was made public, look at the newspaper clips of the RM 27 million Cop and quoted ACA sources. He is concerned that all subject matter be kept confidential? Therefore, it is clear that an ACA officer has leaked it out?

K: (no answer).



201. Read para 7

K: (reads aloud) “I wish to categorically state that I have never been an associate, and I am complying to the notice under protest. My compliance to the notice should not be seen as an acceptance…



Dato’ K: Could this be marked as D4 (RD’s Statement Under Oath).



202. Eventually, were you shown the cautioned statement of RD?

K: I was not responsible after that.



203. Do you know, RD gave a cautioned statement?

K: I was not aware.



204. Both the notices, can you tell the court, the period in which he supposed to disclose?

K: 2000-2007.



205. When was the alleged payment by MSC to DRY. Was in 1999. Correct?

K: Yes.



206. The Notice doesn’t cover the period right?

K: Yes. The notice is general. Only for the stated properties, they are for a period of 2000-2007



207. I put it to you that the notice sent to RD is too vague and too broad.

K: Tidak benar.



208. I put it to you that it is impossible for him to comply with the terms of the notice as drafted by you.

K: Tidak benar.



209. I also put it to you that there is no willful default by RD in not complying with the notice.

K: Saya tidak setuju.



210. Would you agree, matters complained to the ACA as per s.21 are confidential?

K: It’s the report, the report is confidential.



211. Are you saying that the report is confidential, and everything else is not confidential?

K: s.24(1) only speaks of the report. Yes, things that from part of the report is confidential.



212. If the reports were confidential, how can they be reported to the press?

K: (keeps quiet)



213. Can the ACA release it to press? You are the DPP there you know.

K: I don’t know, it’s not in my area.



DPP: Bantah. This is not. Whether it is confidential is not relevant



Chetan: The accused wrote to the DPP that there has been breach of confidentiality. One of the questions that was asked is that if I give you this info, how do I know that it will remain confidential? He was concerned about leakages to the Press which was already happening even as he wrote to you and he gave you ample examples of the newspapers. All this is necessary to show mala fide, and hence all these questions are relevant.



Dato’ K: He is a DPP and the Head of the Prosecution there. He has access to the IP. Just to round it up, would you agree with me that one of the letters that he wrote to you, he was concerned in the letter, that certain info of the investigation has been leaked to the press?



DPP: The ruling has been made, you are not to ask these questions.



215. I am reiterating what my learned friend has written in the letter. I am not going against the ruling. It has already been tendered.

K: Yes, he did mention it, about concern for confidentiality.



216. And he also sent you a lot of newspaper cuttings. Can I show D4/ID4, can I just confirm, there is a letter dated 24th August 2007 is together attached with D4. Also attached letter 14th Sept and also attached were newspaper cuttings and the last one, ; “The ACA Probes Cop With RM27Million Assets”; all these were not released to the press by your department?

K: In possible breach of s.21(4), I have done my investigation and make a finding, there is no breach (fumbles around).I do not speak for the ACA, my concern was whether there was a breach to s. 21(4). In my view, there was none.



217. Kevin, when you were talking about MSC, you didn’t investigate this part about his delay coming forward to give a statement to the ACA?

K: No, I did not investigate that.



218. No reasons given for the delay?

K: No.



219. You did not consider the delay?

K : No, I did not.



220. This Danga Bay documents, when did you first have sight of it?

K : When the report was brought to me, when I was briefed. As to when I saw them, I can’t remember.



221. Was it before the notice?

K: I can’t remember.



222. You told us, before you issued the notice, you relied on Danga Bay and Phileo Allied , and you saw the papers. Could I safely say you had seen the documents before the notice was sent?

K: I am not sure, I can’t exactly remember the date I saw it.



223. Did you say in Chief and in Cross that you saw the documents before you issued the notice?

K: I may have seen the documents.



224. I am asking you, did you say in this trial, that you saw these 2 docs before you sent the notice to RD?

K: If in evidence it is recorded that I said it, then I said it. It may have been.



225. Could you have sent the notice before seeing at the S&P Agreement of Danga Bay and Phileo?

K: I did see documents, and there was information.



226. My question is, which documents did you see before sending the notice?

K: May I look at the documents.



Dato’ K: You are very quick now, you are thinking twice .



227. SPA with BC, loan documents with DB. Look at SPA between PA and BC.

K: IDD18 I saw, yes the SPA between PA and BC.



228. You saw this document before sending the notice?

K: If I remember, yes I saw documents.



229. What about Hock Hua Bank docs?

K: If I remember, I saw this too.



230. The HHB letter, D20?

K: If I remember, I saw this too.



231. The Danga Bay one?

K: If I remember, I saw the agreement together with this letter. If I remember, I saw this document.



Dato’ K: You saw all this documents before you issued the notice?



232. I put it to you, the 2 notices, did not put a time frame of the properties to be declared.

K: The only reference to period of time was properties that left the country between 2000-2007.



233. The notice by you only refers to present assets?

K: Could you repeat the question?



234. The notice only refers to present assets?

K: Paragraph 1 talks about present assets. Paragraph 4 talks about assets that have been disposed.



235. Yes assets that have been disposed, which he has replied. Look at para 4 of your notice (reads it), it talks about present assets doesn’t it?

K: Yes, present assets, but….



Dato’ K: Doesn’t matter, we’ll submit on that.



236. You have been sued by RD in a civil suit, together with 14 others for conspiracy?

K: Yes.



237. You have yet to file your defence?

K: I have filed it already.



238. Would you confirm, from the time I have crossed you, these factors that you considered to be reasonable factors, I questioned you on that line, would you agree?

K: Yes.



239. When you were cross-examined in DRY’s trial, the issue of MSC was only raised in cross-examination?

K : I can’t remember.



240. Would you also remember, whilst you were on the stand, initially the prosecution refused to disclose MSC’s statement in the DRY trial?

K: I don’t think so Yang Arif.



241. Would you agree with me, it was only in cross-examination that the issue of transfer of funds came about?

K: Yes.



242. Would you agree with me that your answers in the examination in chief in this trial was a product of the cross examination in DRY’s trial?

K: No.



DPP: there has been a lot of confrontation in this case, which has resulted in me not being able to record down. Hence, I cannot re examine the witness until I have received the notes of evidence from Yang Arif



Dato’ K: Can we call other witnesses then? To not delay the process of the trial, I have taken down Mr Gunalan’s Note of evidence from the DRY trial.