We pay tribute to Dr.G.Sreenevasan for his contributions to the Malaysian Medical field. Our condolences to Dr G.Sreenevasan’s family.
(refer NST 4/2/2010 at page 4)
This is yet another classical example and the tip of the iceberg of how the Indians helped built this country Malaysia. In the year 1957, about 60% of the country’s doctors were Indians. The Indian doctors set up the Eye Department (Dr Keshminder Singh), Kidney Urology Department (Dr.G.Sreenevasan), Child Department (Dr. Abraham) and the other medical departments in Malaysia.
But as UMNOs’ reward, in 2004 only one place was given in the University of Malaya for the 1.8 Million Indians to compete. Thousands of Indian students using their parents hard earned savings, EPF, houses and land sold etc went overseas to study medicine in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Indonesia, India etc. But UMNO’s racist regime derecognized their degrees in these foreign Universities even though Malaysia is short of doctors by 50% (UM 8/10/09 at page 24). Why can’t this Indian students be made to do an extra six months of housemanship and absorbed into the Malaysian Medical service as doctors especially when we are 50% short of doctors. But UMNO would rather bring in doctors from muslim countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and even Africa to fill in the doctors’ shortage in Malaysia. Never mind the foreign exchange flowing out of the country but no chance for the local ethnic minority Indian medical students studying overseas.
This extent of UMNO’s racism, religious extremism and supremacy does not happen in any other part of the world the last having been in apartheid South Africa in 1989.
P.Uthayakumar
Date: 7/2/2010
Time: 5.30pm
Venue: Setiawan Recreation Club (SRC),
Setiawan, Perak.
For more information please contact:
Mr.Subra (Setiawan)- 012 482 6957
Mr.Siva (Taiping) - 016 534 7834
Mr.Ramesh (Perak Cheif)- 019 523 5528
Please forward this to friends.
Thank you,
S.JAYATHAS
HRP Information Cheif
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal - The Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s accuser told the High Court today that he once idolised the Opposition Leader, describing himself as an “Anwar fan”.
Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan was recounting in court today on the third day of Sodomy II his experience when he first met his idol Anwar in March 2008, soon after the general elections that year.
“In March, my friend Rahimi Osman called me to come to his office in Petaling Jaya, Section 16. He had called because he wanted to chat with me and catch up on things.
“While talking at the office, he asked me whether I was employed. When I said that I was not working, he then asked me whether I wanted to become an assistant in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s office,” said Saiful.
According to Saiful, Rahimi had told him that Anwar was short of office staff owing to the fact that staff members such as Nurul Izzah and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad were contesting in the elections at that point of time.
Saiful recounted how he was still divided over taking a job there when Rahimi took him to a meeting and introduced him to Anwar.
Saiful, not friends with Anwar anymore. - Picture by Choo Choy May
Saiful also told the court that he had always idolised Anwar because “Anwar is a charismatic leader.”
Earlier the court was taken through a tedious process of evidence introduction.
Among the items introduced were rectal swabs taken from Saiful and also his clothes worn during the alleged sodomy, including a white Levi’s underwear.
Other items introduced were clothes worn during the alleged sodomy which included a blue- white Ralph Lauren shirt, a pair of blue-black Levis underwear, and also black slacks/pants.
The crowd reacted strongly to Saiful’s testimony that the black pants were a “gift from Anwar”.
A tube of K-Y Jelly, a common lubricant, was also introduced as evidence.
When asked by the prosecution as to what he had initially told the medical doctor at Hospital Pusrawi during the check-up, Saiful replied that in the middle of the check-up he told the doctor that he had been “sodomised”.
“I did not pass motion for two days after the incident,” Saiful told the court.
Saiful also spoke of a meeting he had with Anwar on June 27, 2008 in which he told the Opposition Leader he wanted to quit his job as personal assistant.
This meeting took place after the alleged sodomy.
“I had sent an email to Anwar on Friday morning the 27th of June. A few hours later, he called me and asked me to come to his office.
“He then asked me why I wanted to quit.”
According to Saiful, the reasons he gave the PKR leader in his email was that he lacked discipline, was always late for work and not academically qualified for the post.
He alleged that he was “afraid” of being questioned because he was apparently given more privileges than other staff.
“But this was not the real reason. The real reason was because ‘tak ingin diperlakukan sedemikian lagi (do not wish to be treated like that anymore)’.”
Saiful then claimed Anwar tried to persuade him not to quit, and offered to sponsor Saiful’s studies with full pay and allowances. He said he was scared at the time and agreed to the offer.
“Anwar said that he felt sad and disappointed with my decision, and he had persuaded me not to quit.
“I was afraid to object at that time, so I accepted.”
Later on, lead counsel for Anwar’s defence team Karpal Singh raised an objection to Utusan Malaysian and Sinar Harian carrying a photo caption that was, according to Karpal “out of hand”.
The picture which showed Saiful, Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, defence and prosecution lawyers in the bedroom of the alleged incident was captioned “Mohd Saiful Bukhari menunjukkan katil di bilik tidur utama tempat beliau mendakwa diliwat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim kepada Hakim Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah” (Saiful showing the judge the bed in the master bedroom where he claims to have been sodomised by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim).
Karpal’s argument was that even during in-camera, the bed was never introduced as evidence, therefore the caption is misleading.
The judge, however, dismissed Karpal’s objection.
The court then stood down for a second visit to the condominium where the alleged sodomy took place.
Yesterday, Saiful had told the court he went for a medical check-up only two days after he was allegedly sodomised by the Opposition leader.
Earlier yesterday morning, the court also visited the condominium where Saiful explained how and where the alleged act of sodomy occurred two years ago.
Saiful, who Anwar said was just his “coffee-boy”, continues to be in the witness dock this morning on the third day of the trial.
Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden led the questioning on behalf of the prosecution before High Court judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah.
Anwar, the 62-year-old PKR de facto leader, is charged with sodomising Saiful at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
The former deputy prime minister has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power” when the charge was read out to him. He is charged under section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years’ jail and whipping upon conviction. The trial is taking place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008.
Anwar was charged with sodomy and corruption in 1998 after he was sacked from the Cabinet and was later convicted and jailed for both offences. He was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.
He had earlier led the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.
Hearing continues on Monday.
By Adib Zalkapli - The Malaysian Insider
PKR's de facto leaderm Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is facing an impending prison sentence following the latest sodomy trial. - Picture by Jack Ooi
At least one MP was under pressure to vacate his seat recently and another leader became a victim of a smear campaign to stop his rise in the party ranks. Anwar has not been able to address the issues due to the ongoing sodomy trial that began on Feb 2.
Late last month, Indera Mahkota MP Azan Ismail resigned as the Pahang PKR deputy chairman, a move which started speculation that the first term lawmaker was planning to defect to Barisan Nasional (BN).
State party officials opposed to Azan also began spreading rumours of an impending by-election in Indera Mahkota, a move seen as an attempt to replace Azan with Pahang PKR chairman Datuk Fauzi Abdul Rahman as MP.
Zahrain (middle) is becoming a major headache for the PKR leadership. - Picture by Choo Choy May
The PKR insider alleged that Fauzi had failed to deliver his promise to bring in more senior Umno leaders into the party after he joined PKR.
“He’s unable to strengthen the party and yet wants to ride on our past success,” he added.
Fauzi however dismissed the allegation that he is interested in taking over Indera Mahkota from Azan.
“Even if I am asked to I will not accept it, I don’t want, all the incumbents should be retained, I can go to other places, I can go to Pekan, Temerloh or even Raub,” said Fauzi.
PKR won two parliamentary seats in Pahang, Indera Mahkota and Kuantan, which represented by the party election chief Fuziah Salleh.
“I have nothing personal against him, I believe we should not let infighting in the party divert our attention,” Fauzi told The Malaysian Insider.
“I have been in politics for the past 30, 40 years, I can read his feelings, he is a first-timer, but I think he is handling his job well,” he added.
Azan has revealed attempts by Malaysian ambassador to the United States Datuk Seri Jamaluddin Jarjis and Parti Cinta Malaysia’s Huan Cheng Guan to get him to abandon PKR.
The PKR’s internal crisis has also made its disciplinary committee busier than ever.
Three lawmakers Zulkifli Nordin, Datuk Seri Zahrain Hashim and Tan Tee Beng have been referred to the disciplinary committee for their outburst against PKR’s partners in Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
Also ordered to face the disciplinary committee is former law minister and architect of PR’s common policy framework Datuk Zaid Ibrahim for criticising the party for not taking immediate action against Zulkifli – who had lodged a police report against PAS’s Khalid Samad over the “Allah” row.
Since joining the party in June last year, the Kelantanese political maverick has been seen as an ideal candidate to lead the party should Anwar go to prison for his second sodomy charge.
“His image, and his role in unifying Pakatan is seen as a threat by some leaders since this is election year, it has resulted in attacks from within the party,” said another PKR insider.
The Malaysian Insider understands that during the PR inaugural convention last December, efforts were made by some party officials to downplay Zaid’s contribution to the coalition policy framework.
The party is scheduled to hold its election by the end of this year, and intense contest is expected for PKR deputy presidency, as the incumbent Dr Syed Husin Ali will not defend the post. Anwar’s wife Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail remains president of the party founded in 1999.
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 — Nearly three in four voters, or 74 per cent, feel that fresh state elections remain the best way to resolve the political crisis in Perak, a new poll conducted on the eve of the first anniversary of Barisan Nasional’s controversial takeover of the government shows. The independent Merdeka Center survey of 805 registered voters also shows that Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and Pakatan Rakyat’s Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin, the man he replaced, are neck-and-neck in their respective approval ratings.
Zambry’s state-wide approval rating is 43 per cent and is drawn largely from the Malay, and one-half of the ethnic Indian electorate.
Nizar has an approval rating of 46 per cent which is drawn largely from a majority of Chinese, one-half of ethnic Indians and a little over one-third of the Malay electorate.
The Merdeka Center, which has been conducting regular polls since Election 2008, had recently polled the 805 voters who were drawn from large majorities of each ethnic group, and almost equally divided between rural and urban areas.
They were asked their views on the direction of the state, its current economic conditions, their views on government leaders, and the changes that they have seen since the Barisan Nasional takeover in February 2009.
The poll shows that the sentiment favouring fresh polls is detected in all ethnic groups.
“More importantly, 65 per cent of the respondents, comprising large majorities from each ethnic group feel that the Perak political issue remains relevant today, one year since the events took place,” Merdeka Center said in a summary of the poll results obtained by The Malaysian Insider.
Opposed to the latest opinion of Zambry, most Perak voters would like state-wide elections. - Picture by Choo Choy May
Notably, only 45 per cent of Malay voters agreed that the takeover had improved the political position of the community in the state as opposed to 15 per cent who felt that things remained unchanged, and 28 per cent who felt that things had worsened.
Asked to choose between giving the economy a priority or ensuring that the government was democratically elected, 60 per cent of the respondents — including 58 per cent of Malays — felt that democratic elections were more important.
The Merdeka Center poll appears to confirm anecdotal evidence given by political leaders in the state that Zambry and BN has regained some support from among Malays and Indians in the state but the large Chinese community are still largely backing PR and Nizar.
Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir had told The Malaysian Insider earlier this week that he was confident Umno could take 34 seats in the next elections.
The Pangkor assemblyman will know on Feb 9 if he remains Mentri Besar when the Federal Court decides the legality of his appointment after his BN toppled the PR government a year ago.
PR Mentri Besar Nizar’s government collapsed when two PKR state assemblymen joined a DAP lawmaker to turn independent to support the BN to control 31 seats in the 59-seat state assembly.
While Zambry appears to still have his work cut out in winning over Perak voters, he can, however, take heart in the poll results which showed that the number of people saying that the state was moving in the right direction has marginally increased from April 2009, from 31 per cent to 38 per cent.
However, a total of 44 per cent of voters surveyed still felt the state was moving in the wrong direction.
There was a marked difference in response along ethnic lines when voters were asked if they thought the state was moving in the right direction.
A total of 57 per cent of Malay respondents and 48 per cent of Indians but only 12 per cent of Chinese respondents believed that the state was headed in the right direction.
The Merdeka Center also noted that voter sentiments relating to the economy remains mixed and ethnically polarised.
Overall, only 42 per cent of Perak voters surveyed said that present economic conditions were favorable.
With respect to the future, voters are again split with 42 per cent optimistic about the economy while 43 per cent were not.
The survey found that while 60 per cent of Malay respondents were confident with the economic management of the state, only 19 per cent of ethnic Chinese respondents said that they were confident.
By Baradan Kuppusamy - The Malaysian Insider
Kannan Ramasamy, the “sacked” secretary general of the party told The Malaysian Insider that the suit will be filed at the Shah Alam High Court today and will name as defendants the Registrar of Societies, two ROS officials and Thanenthiran.
The allegation is that the defendants forged parts of the party’s constitution to give powers to the president to sack and appoint any official as he “deems fit.”
Using these powers, Thanenthiran had sacked 14 central committee members and replaced them with his supporters.
Vathemurthy on the other hand is claiming he is the rightful acting president of the party because Thanenthiran had already been sacked earlier by the original central committee.
The tussle for control of the party has also turned farcical with both factions taking turns in recent weeks to change the locks of its office.
The ongoing feud has put paid to a grand plan by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to give the Tamil underclass their own political vehicle.
Their feud has severely damaged their standing among the Tamil masses and turned the party into the laughing stock of the country.
Vathemurthy is now styling himself the party’s “acting president” until a president is found to head their faction.
His faction has been shopping around for candidates and Kannan says “several” individuals have shown interest to become president.
Klang businessman Omms Thiagarajan has announced he is not interested in politics but will only be “adviser.”
It is not clear which faction he will give advice to.
Meanwhile former Hindraf leader and ISA detainee P Gengadharan when contacted denied he was interested to head the Vathemurthy faction of the party.
“No I am not interested,” he said.
Other Hindraf leaders offered the party leadership are believed to include Vasantha Kumar, who has instead joined PKR, and Ganapathy Rao, who is believed to be leaning towards DAP.
Najib launched the party on Oct 10, 2009.
Forget all that you have read in the other blogs for here’s the absolute truth - Saiful is telling the truth.
His only problem is that the truth is too bizarre to be believed.
By WJS
Flashback to the month of June, 2008. What was the most significant incident in the Malaysian political scene? Yes, it was the revelation by one Saiful Bukhari Azlan that former DPM Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had sodomized him.
What, the same bullshit, again????
Needless to say, most people did not believe this story. Most blogs registered extremely negative views from the general public, with a majority of people believing that this claim is false and politically motivated, driven by the upper echelons of the Federal Government to dispose off their greatest political threat of this time - Anwar Ibrahim.
In August 2008, Saiful went to the National Mosque to swear on the Quran that he had been sodomized. His words were met with more scorn and ridicule.
Forget all that you have read in the other blogs for here’s the absolute truth - Saiful is telling the truth.
His only problem is that the truth is too bizarre to be believed.
Keep an open mind, for what is about to be revealed is too mind-blowing to be comprehensible by the average man-on-the-street. It defies common sense not because it defies logic, but only because it far surpasses the finitude of our tiny feeble minds.
Let’s keep it as simple as possible, I’ll lay it out in a linear format but it gets disjointed in between due to the actual non-linear sequence of events in reality.
June 26th, 2008. Saiful was with Anwar at the Desa Damansara Condominium on this hot, lazy afternoon. That's when he got sodomized by Anwar.
June 27th, 2008. A shaken and fearful Saiful does not know what to do. He contemplates suicide. He decides to visit his old pal Najib to get some advice.
June 28th, 2008. To help the poor young man, our Defense Minister did the most selfless thing in his capacity - he granted him access to the nation’s most precious "secret weapon" - the Chronosphere time machine.
June 29th, 2008. Saiful becomes the first Malaysian time traveler. This time, he’s a REAL chrononaut and not a "time tourist".
June 23rd 2008. Saiful ends up 7 days in the past. The time travel experiment was an absolute success.
June 24th 2008. Saiful visits Najib and tells Najib that Anwar had sodomized him. Najib scratches his head at Saiful’s story of time travel, denying all knowledge about a time travel project and a time machine. He tells Saiful to go ahead and do what he likes. Saiful shows Najib the evidence that he’s from the future - the time machine. Najib realizes the truth but he has to conceal it at all cost.
June 25th 2008. Najib brings Saiful’s story to the attention of the Brains of UMNO - Level 4. They decided that this is a good ammunition against their greatest political foe, Anwar Ibrahim, and urges Saiful to make a police report. However, Saiful is a time traveler and he can’t possibly lodge a police report BEFORE the incident had occurred in this timeline! Level 4 advises him to go through the ordeal again but this time, make a police report to implicate Anwar instead of going back in time.
June 26th 2008. Not heeding Level 4’s advice to get shafted by Anwar again, Saiful decided to go into hiding for today. Not being able to sodomize Saiful, Anwar decided to have a meeting with 4 Barisan MPs on the possibility of crossing over to Pakatan.
June 27th 2008. Saiful got slammed by Level 4 and Najib for not carrying out his part of the plan. However, he’s still traumatized by his experience in the previous timeline. Upon further urging and being offered an undisclosed sum of money, Saiful decided to lodge a police report.
June 28th 2008. Saiful abided by rape report procedures and admitted himself into PUSRAWI for a sodomy check-up. To his shock and confusion, the report turned up negative. His anal injuries of the previous timeline were reversed during his trip back in time, and since he didn’t get sodomized in this timeline, there were no signs of injury. Unperturbed, he decided to seek a second opinion at the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital. The result turned up negative as well!
Being a good Muslim and a poor victim of rape during the previous timeline, Saiful decided to lodge a police report anyway, purely out of his righteous stand that justice must be served. And of course, the incentive he got from Level 4 and Najib went a long way towards curing his indecisiveness.
June 29th 2008. The country is in a frenzy. Anwar Ibrahim got slapped with another sodomy allegation 10 years after the last time he was accused of the same thing.
And there you have it! The complete truth of the actual events!!
This actual sequence of events explains everything, namely:
1) Why Saiful insisted that Anwar sodomized him although his anus didn’t show any signs of sodomy.
2) Why Najib said that Saiful had met up personally with him to reveal that he was sodomized by Anwar, but that event took place a few days before the day Saiful claimed to be sodomized.
3) Why, despite the apparent implication that Saiful was sodomized more than once by Anwar (due to him informing Najib that he was sodomized before the 26th of June), Saiful indicated that he was only ever sodomized once.
4) Why Najib is so evasive about the whole issue.. which is, he wanted to cover-up the Malaysian Time Travel project more than anything else, being in the capacity of Minister of Defense.
5) Why Anwar is so confident of his innocence and is able to provide a solid alibi about his whereabouts on that very same day - it’s because he didn’t do it in this timeline, and he WAS indeed with other people at the material time and place.
6) Why the upper echelons in UMNO deployed every manner of state machinery into action to charge Anwar with sodomy - they are going all-out to ensure that justice is upheld and criminals can never escape the long arm of the law, no matter which timeline they’re on.
As I’ve said, the truth is far, far stranger than fiction. Applause and salutes to UMNO and PM Najib. For the interest of maintaining national secrets and national security, and in their capacity as the country’s leaders (and being flawless Muslims at that), they are selfless enough to subject themselves to ridicule; to be portrayed as clueless idiots by the masses; to bear the heavy cross of defending justice and the rule of law across the boundaries of time and space, never to be appreciated by the small-minded citizens; to risk their own reputations and careers for defending the nation and her people no matter how many or how few, right down to defending a single citizen and ensuring that he gets the justice he deserves.
Words can never encapsulate the magnitude of their contributions.
Amid speculation that Nasir Safar was the man Prime Minister Najib Razak entrusted to check up on murdered Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibu the night she went missing, concern is mounting that the PM may let his special officer off the hook despite allegedly making racist comments that contradict his 1Malaysia plan.
By Wong Choon Mei (Harakah
“If Najib wants to be taken seriously, then he should personally order the police to arrest Nasir for making seditious comments that threaten national security and may break the harmony of the different races in Malaysia,” PKR leader and Padang Serai MP N Gobalakrishnan told Harakahdaily.
Earlier this week, Nasir - who claims he never intended to offend anyone - tendered his resignation after allegedly saying that “Indians came to Malaysia as beggars and Chinese especially the women came to sell their bodies” at an official 1Malaysia forum. Since then, he has also made a public apology.
“I would like to again openly apologise to all Malaysians for the remarks that are seen as racist. I really did not intend it that way,” Nasir said in a statement on Thursday.
However, civil society groups and political leaders from both side of the divide say that is not enough. They have demanded that he be sacked and a police investigation be launched immediately.
Move to get Nasir off the hook begins
So far, 12 police reports have been lodged by various quarters throughout the country and according to the Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan, Nasir will be investigated under the Sedition Act.
However, Malay rights pressure group Perkasa – which is linked to Umno – has defended Nasir. “I understand why Nasir said that, I can symphatise with him, I want to say the same things but I have to control myself, I am more mature now,” said Ibrahim Ali, the president of Perkasa.
Indeed, even the 1Malaysia Youth Graduates Club has begun urging Najib to pardon him, with 20 members gathering at the front of the Prime Minister's Department in a show of support for Nasir on Wednesday.
“This issue was a result of provocation," said the club’s deputy chairman Najieb Mokhtar. "He has conducted 60 talks in 2009 and 22 talks so far this year. They were never misconstrued and misunderstood.”
The Altantuya link?
But despite the noise, the shadow play and the behind-the-scenes horse-trading, Malaysians fear that perhaps it is the alleged Altantuya link that will determine Nasir’s fate with his boss - rather than the survivability of Najib's 1Malaysia vision, a platform on which the PM had hoped to unite the races.
“The comments that Nasir allegedly made are a direct contradiction of 1Malaysia, which has already become a joke because it is not being powered by sincerity. Instead it is riddled with flip-flop decisions and hypocrisy,” Salahuddin Ayub, PAS vice-president, told Harakahdaily.
In 2008, private investigator P Balasubramaniam had revealed in an explosive statutory declaration that a Malay man in a blue Proton Saga had passed by the house of Razak Baginda - a close associate of Najib's - on the night of October 19, 2006, when Altantuya's murderers had intercepted her.
According to news portal Malaysia Today, Bala told the police the man in the blue Proton was Nasir Safar. But the police rubbished his claims. Bala was working for Baginda at that time and had witnessed the incidents that took place in front of Baginda's house.
In his statutory declaration, Bala had also alleged that Altantuya had been Najib’s mistress and that the PM had asked Baginda to look after Altantuya financially. Najib has repeatedly denied ever knowing Altantuya, while Harakahdaily is still trying to contact Nasir for his response.
(Harakahdaily appends below the statutory declaration Bala lodged in 2008. He has said he was forced to retract the declaration the very next day by Najib's minders and given money to flee the country)
STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at [deleted] do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.
2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.
3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.
4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.
5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.
6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.
7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.
8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.
9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.
10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.
11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.
12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.
13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.
14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.
15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.
16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.
17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.
18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.
19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.
20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.
21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.
22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.
23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.
24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.
25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-
25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that [deleted by nat out of respect to the family of the deceased].
25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.
25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.
26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.
27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.
28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-
28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.
28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.
28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.
30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.
31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.
32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.
33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.
34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.
35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.
36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.
37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.
38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.
39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.
40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.
41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.
42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.
43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.
44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.
45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.
46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.
47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.
48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.
49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.
50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.
53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.
54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-
54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.
54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.
54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.
55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.
SUBCRIBED and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]
this day of 2008 )
Before me,
………………………………….
Commissioner for Oath
Kuala Lumpur
By Tengku Razaleigh,
Certain features of the trial of Dato’ Sri Anwar Ibrahim pose a serious challenge to public confidence in the government. Public confidence is essential to the basic functioning of government.
1) The trial is being conducted in an overwhelmingly politicized environment. Part of its context is the earlier trial of Anwar on the same charge, a trial which was perceived worldwide as politically motivated. We do not longer live in an insulated world.
2) Pre-trial publicity by the local mainstream media has been so blatantly unbalanced as to convey the impression that the media are pursuing a political agenda. Since the local mainstream media is either government owned or tightly controlled, this translates into the impression that the government itself has an interest in its outcome.
3) Many Malaysians believe that sections of the executive and political establishment have an interest in this trial. There does not seem to have been any attempt to remove this suspicion.
In such circumstances the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done is breached. As in the case of the constitutional crisis in Perak and in the openly illegal denial of oil royalty payments to Terengganu and now to Kelantan, we as Malaysians suffer when our Government loses credibility domestically and internationally.
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
Member of Parliament, Gua Musang
Who is being detained under the Internal Security Act?
(Musa Hassan pic by Ridzuan Aziz | Wiki Commons)
IMAGINE this. What if Teoh Beng Hock had been taken into the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)'s custody for questioning and nobody had known? And then imagine this. What if A Kugan's arrest and detention was also a secret that nobody knew about?
Funeral procession for Kugan, 28 Jan 2009I wager it wouldn't take too much to imagine that their deaths in custody would have gone undocumented, never to be revealed. And nobody would be any the wiser that they had died while in the custody of enforcement agencies. No inquest would have been held into why a witness should fall out of a window of the MACC's building to his death. No police officer responsible for Kugan's beatings and death would have been held accountable. No justice would have been done.
But this is exactly what the Malaysian government is asking us to accept when it refuses to reveal the identity of the 10 who were detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in January 2010 for alleged links to terrorism. Under the guise of national security and the sensitivity of ongoing investigations, Malaysians and the international community are being asked to trust the secrecy of a system that is highly prone to abuse and yet obviously unaccountable.
Musa Hassan (pic by Ridzuan
Aziz | Wiki Commons)Evidence of violence
There is no doubt that ISA detainees are tortured. The stories of torture under detention without trial have been amply recorded, for example, in books by former ISA detainees such as Kua Kia Soong, and now Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy president and senator Dr Syed Husin Ali.
And there is enough evidence, as we already know from Kugan's death, that abuses and beatings do occur during incarceration in Malaysia. Indeed, by one account, Teoh's death in custody was just one out of 1,805 tragedies that have happened in police lock-ups, prisons, and detention camps since 2003. This translates into 23 deaths every month, or three custodial deaths every four days.
As yet, no police officer has been found guilty of causing Kugan's death a year ago. And since then, at least two other notable deaths in custody have occurred — R Gunasegaran in July 2009 in the Sentul police station and P Babu at the Jempol police station in late January 2010.
And so, when the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Home Minister refuse to name those who have been taken under ISA detention or provide any other information, we really need to worry for the detainees and their safety. After all, if abuses and death are already clearly happening when a person's arrest and detention are known, imagine what can happen when detentions are cloaked from public scrutiny.
Hishammuddin HusseinBy Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein's own admission, he would not have revealed a thing about the 10 who were arrested under the ISA in January if not for the media getting hold of the information. And for that, we would have to thank civil society and the tweet of human rights lawyer Edmund Bon.
Indeed, even before this, Hishammuddin himself declared that since taking over the home ministry, he has used the ISA to detain those he claims are involved in terrorism. "But no one knows this and I do not lose sleep over it as my action protects the people and the country," he was quoted in mid-January in no less than the New Straits Times.
It is incredible that Hishammuddin finds it unproblematic to make such a public declaration. Clearly, the home minister believes at least two things. One, that the state has the right to deny a person his or her rights by detaining them without trial, and likely torturing them. And two, that the state need not be held accountable for doing so.
The terrorist threat
Thus far, we've heard not just Hishammuddin justify these arrests under the ISA. Even Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has condoned the arrests and the withholding of information about who has been arrested and exactly why. Yes, this is the same prime minister who, upon first coming into office in April 2009, assured the rakyat that his administration would review the ISA because it was a "caring government".
And yet, the ISA hasn't just been used against 10 people for unknown and unproven crimes. Hishammuddin cited the ISA as one course of action the government would take against those who were responsible for the attacks on houses of worship.
Not only that, IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan has promised that more people would be nabbed under the ISA following the arrest of the 10.
Najib RazakThe justification for using the ISA? That these individuals are threats to national security. That they are linked to terrorist organisations. That the government has solid intelligence about their crimes or yet-to-be-committed crimes. That Malaysia "will not be used as a terrorist transit point".
But if the government really had evidence, where it is? Why should the government feel that it cannot provide the evidence in a court of law unless the evidence itself will not stand up to scrutiny?
Surely, denying somebody's right to a free trial and subjecting the person to indefinite detention, without any crime having been proven, and with torture most likely being part of the experience, is grave and despicable. And yet, the Malaysian government is asking all of us to accept that it has a right to do this. And that its minister will not lose any sleep over it because he is somehow "protecting the nation".
But really, one has to ask, just what is the government hiding that it needs to keep secret who it has detained without trial? And what is it hiding that it will not or cannot provide evidence of criminal wrongdoing in an open court?
Why should we trust the state, especially one that has consistently shown its capacity for violence against individuals, and its inability to be accountable and just? Which leads me to ask the following questions: Who is being tortured in detention now, whether under the ISA or otherwise? Would it be so violent that yet another death would be inevitable? And would we ever know about it if we didn't even know the person was detained to begin with?
Imagine this. If we trust the government about their allegations of unproven acts of terrorism, imagine just how much power we accord the state to continue denying people their human rights. Imagine the license we provide for abuses and deaths in detention to persist, all in the name of national security. And then imagine, what else the state could do to you or me.From Qantara.Com
Interview with Anwar Ibrahim by Rizki Nugraha
As leader of the opposition, Anwar Ibrahim is one of Malaysia’s most influential politicians. In this interview with Rizki Nugraha he speaks about Muslim-Christian relations, the influence of religion on politics and the outlook for democracy in his country.
Tension between religions in Malaysia has been rising since the court ruling that allows non-Muslims to use the word “Allah”.
Anwar Ibrahim: Certain groups feel that it is in their interest to ratchet up tension because it serves their ulterior motives, but I would not say that great damage has been inflicted on Muslim-Christian relations. The Christian community’s response to the arson attacks has been very positive and measured, and many Muslims have come out in support of the Christian community, for example, forming neighbourhood watch committees to protect Churches.
I have travelled far from the epicentre of the so-called “disturbances” and I find that people are generally unperturbed by the court ruling and are wary of being manipulated by the powers-that-be, whose steady decline in the popular ratings is the real reason for this artificially created crisis.
I’m happy to say that the broader population is not easily hoodwinked.
Why did the Malaysian government insist on appealing the court’s decision, despite the fact that in doing so, it risks widening the gap between Muslims and Christians?
Ibrahim: The government appealed because it is hostage to the demands of an incendiary few. This group insists on using this issue to drive a wedge between different parts of the electorate – hoping to score a few points with fringe elements. They are not very concerned that the consequences of their actions could broaden divisions in society and lead to strife.
Maznah Muhammad, the Singapore-based political expert, is concerned that the Malaysian government is increasingly mixing politics and religion. Do you think this concern is justified?
Ibrahim: The Federal Constitution of Malaysia clearly outlines the role of religion in Malaysian society. Islam is the religion of the state, but the freedom to practice other religions is guaranteed. We think it is wholly appropriate that religion be manifest in the political world in that the values that are greatly esteemed by religion – such as justice, mercy, love and compassion – inspire policies that lead to peace and prosperity.
However, the current government in Malaysia is notorious for mixing religion and politics to rather unscrupulous ends. Islam is being applied in ways that are deemed oppressive, contrary to the principles of the religion and in violation of some of our constitution’s basic provisions. This is an abuse of power that must be checked.
The government’s decision to appeal creates the impression that it is standing up for the interests of a certain group. Is there no future for secularism in Malaysia?
Ibrahim: The government’s bias in all matters judicial is clear. Since the new prime minister came to power in April 2008, the government has not lost a single court case that has gone to the Court of Appeals. There is hardly any doubt that politically charged cases will eventually be decided in favour of or at the discretion of UMNO (the United Malays National Organization, Malaysia’s largest political party – ed.)
The issue is, therefore, not secularism, or the demise of it per se; the real dilemma we face in Malaysia is a deficit of democracy. A corrupt judiciary, a shackled media and the lack of personal freedoms means that the ruling party can run roughshod over the provisions of the constitution. Right now, religion is being used by the ruling party to garner support from certain fringe elements and in doing so, it is overstepping some of the bounds that define the relationship between the state and religion.
But the ruling party’s willingness to overstep the bounds of the law to maintain its grip on power has been manifest in many forms including rampant corruption and incitement of racial sentiments. So our primary concern in the opposition coalition remains the safeguarding of the constitution in order to sow the seeds of democratic pluralism and greater accountability.
How did the minorities parties that are affiliated with the National Front (Barisan Nasional), such as the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress, react to Prime Minister Najib Razak’s policy?
Ibrahim: The contradiction of their affiliation with the increasingly parochial and racist UMNO is glaring, but their options at this point are limited. How can they not moot their grievances given their dependence on government largesse. These parties represent the old school of Malaysian politics, which has more or less seen its heyday and is now in its twilight years. It would be unrealistic to expect a sea-change in their outlook, no matter what the prevailing circumstances are.
Two political forces, the most influential parties in Malaysia, the Barisan Nasional and your party, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, PAS, have been branded as conservative Islamic forces. So what is the difference between your party and the government party, for instance concerning the importance of promoting religious dialogue?
Ibrahim: I don’t agree that PAS, which is a major player in the opposition coalition, is a conservative party. In the crisis over the “Allah” issue, they made their stance very clear, namely that Christians and Jews can use the term, upholding what is considered a mainstream position throughout the Muslim world. Therefore, to lump them together with UMNO as exponents of conservative Islam is to badly misperceive them. Both PAS and the rest of the opposition coalition are in favour of dialogue among all who want to talk about preserving and promoting religious harmony in our diverse population.
The ethnic groups in Malaysia are still fragmented, especially politically. They tend to defend the political interests of each group. Sometimes they also try to outdo or eliminate the interest of other groups. Do you see this phenomenon as a challenge or even an opportunity for democracy in Malaysia?
Ibrahim: It is true that the various ethnic communities in Malaysia continue to perceive their interests in a narrow and parochial manner. That is because the government, which has been in power without interruption for 52 years, has promoted and fostered this sort of mind-set as a divide-and-conquer strategy. As a consequence, the various ethnic groups often react to situations by falling into a zealous ethnic turf protection and demarcation mind-set that in time creates ethnic ghettoes.
Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition coalition I help to lead, vigorously rejects this approach. Through its recent collectively endorsed Common Policy Framework it has accelerated the process of dissolving these hardened strata and set in motion the transformation of Malaysian political society so that it is no longer in thrall to structures that engender ethnic hegemony, financial and judicial corruption, and overall decay.
So far, the people have responded positively to what we have to offer. We have been able to secure victories in elections in five of Malaysia’s key states and have become contenders for power at federal level in just a few years. I think the future is bright for the new agenda we are offering the people.
From Qantara.Com
Interview with Anwar Ibrahim by Rizki Nugraha
As leader of the opposition, Anwar Ibrahim is one of Malaysia’s most influential politicians. In this interview with Rizki Nugraha he speaks about Muslim-Christian relations, the influence of religion on politics and the outlook for democracy in his country.
Tension between religions in Malaysia has been rising since the court ruling that allows non-Muslims to use the word “Allah”.
Anwar Ibrahim: Certain groups feel that it is in their interest to ratchet up tension because it serves their ulterior motives, but I would not say that great damage has been inflicted on Muslim-Christian relations. The Christian community’s response to the arson attacks has been very positive and measured, and many Muslims have come out in support of the Christian community, for example, forming neighbourhood watch committees to protect Churches.
I have travelled far from the epicentre of the so-called “disturbances” and I find that people are generally unperturbed by the court ruling and are wary of being manipulated by the powers-that-be, whose steady decline in the popular ratings is the real reason for this artificially created crisis.
I’m happy to say that the broader population is not easily hoodwinked.
Why did the Malaysian government insist on appealing the court’s decision, despite the fact that in doing so, it risks widening the gap between Muslims and Christians?
Ibrahim: The government appealed because it is hostage to the demands of an incendiary few. This group insists on using this issue to drive a wedge between different parts of the electorate – hoping to score a few points with fringe elements. They are not very concerned that the consequences of their actions could broaden divisions in society and lead to strife.
Maznah Muhammad, the Singapore-based political expert, is concerned that the Malaysian government is increasingly mixing politics and religion. Do you think this concern is justified?
Ibrahim: The Federal Constitution of Malaysia clearly outlines the role of religion in Malaysian society. Islam is the religion of the state, but the freedom to practice other religions is guaranteed. We think it is wholly appropriate that religion be manifest in the political world in that the values that are greatly esteemed by religion – such as justice, mercy, love and compassion – inspire policies that lead to peace and prosperity.
However, the current government in Malaysia is notorious for mixing religion and politics to rather unscrupulous ends. Islam is being applied in ways that are deemed oppressive, contrary to the principles of the religion and in violation of some of our constitution’s basic provisions. This is an abuse of power that must be checked.
The government’s decision to appeal creates the impression that it is standing up for the interests of a certain group. Is there no future for secularism in Malaysia?
Ibrahim: The government’s bias in all matters judicial is clear. Since the new prime minister came to power in April 2008, the government has not lost a single court case that has gone to the Court of Appeals. There is hardly any doubt that politically charged cases will eventually be decided in favour of or at the discretion of UMNO (the United Malays National Organization, Malaysia’s largest political party – ed.)
The issue is, therefore, not secularism, or the demise of it per se; the real dilemma we face in Malaysia is a deficit of democracy. A corrupt judiciary, a shackled media and the lack of personal freedoms means that the ruling party can run roughshod over the provisions of the constitution. Right now, religion is being used by the ruling party to garner support from certain fringe elements and in doing so, it is overstepping some of the bounds that define the relationship between the state and religion.
But the ruling party’s willingness to overstep the bounds of the law to maintain its grip on power has been manifest in many forms including rampant corruption and incitement of racial sentiments. So our primary concern in the opposition coalition remains the safeguarding of the constitution in order to sow the seeds of democratic pluralism and greater accountability.
How did the minorities parties that are affiliated with the National Front (Barisan Nasional), such as the Malaysian Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress, react to Prime Minister Najib Razak’s policy?
Ibrahim: The contradiction of their affiliation with the increasingly parochial and racist UMNO is glaring, but their options at this point are limited. How can they not moot their grievances given their dependence on government largesse. These parties represent the old school of Malaysian politics, which has more or less seen its heyday and is now in its twilight years. It would be unrealistic to expect a sea-change in their outlook, no matter what the prevailing circumstances are.
Two political forces, the most influential parties in Malaysia, the Barisan Nasional and your party, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, PAS, have been branded as conservative Islamic forces. So what is the difference between your party and the government party, for instance concerning the importance of promoting religious dialogue?
Ibrahim: I don’t agree that PAS, which is a major player in the opposition coalition, is a conservative party. In the crisis over the “Allah” issue, they made their stance very clear, namely that Christians and Jews can use the term, upholding what is considered a mainstream position throughout the Muslim world. Therefore, to lump them together with UMNO as exponents of conservative Islam is to badly misperceive them. Both PAS and the rest of the opposition coalition are in favour of dialogue among all who want to talk about preserving and promoting religious harmony in our diverse population.
The ethnic groups in Malaysia are still fragmented, especially politically. They tend to defend the political interests of each group. Sometimes they also try to outdo or eliminate the interest of other groups. Do you see this phenomenon as a challenge or even an opportunity for democracy in Malaysia?
Ibrahim: It is true that the various ethnic communities in Malaysia continue to perceive their interests in a narrow and parochial manner. That is because the government, which has been in power without interruption for 52 years, has promoted and fostered this sort of mind-set as a divide-and-conquer strategy. As a consequence, the various ethnic groups often react to situations by falling into a zealous ethnic turf protection and demarcation mind-set that in time creates ethnic ghettoes.
Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition coalition I help to lead, vigorously rejects this approach. Through its recent collectively endorsed Common Policy Framework it has accelerated the process of dissolving these hardened strata and set in motion the transformation of Malaysian political society so that it is no longer in thrall to structures that engender ethnic hegemony, financial and judicial corruption, and overall decay.
So far, the people have responded positively to what we have to offer. We have been able to secure victories in elections in five of Malaysia’s key states and have become contenders for power at federal level in just a few years. I think the future is bright for the new agenda we are offering the people.
If so, it is a very big slip or Nasir has got a big tongue when he could in one gulp make so many offensive, insensitive and anti-1Malaysia utterances as:
Labelling Indians and Chinese in Malaysia as “pendatang”;
“Indians came to Malaysia as beggars and Chinese especially the women came to sell their bodies (jual tubuh)”;
Claimed that Umno was solely responsible in drafting the constitution sidelining the contribution of MCA and MIC;
Threat to revoke the citizenship of those vocal about the subject cap for SPM examination.
Clearly, it cannot be a madness of a moment, but madness for many moments!
Although the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had been very quick and prompt in damage-control, getting Nasir to resign within 12 hours of the outrage on Tuesday and declaring that the Nasir episode should be “a lesson to all” to be racially sensitive, Najib must admit that the greatest casualty is his 1Malaysia campaign.
As a result of the Nasir Safar outrage, and despite Nasir’s belated and qualified apology, there is a quantum jump in public skepticism whether Najib’s 1Malaysia campaign is no more than just a rebranding and public relations (P.R.) exercise without any meaningful change in nation-building policies – as in for instance, replacing the “ketuanan Melayu” concept with “ketuanan rakyat”.
It is clear that Nasir Safar is not an extinct species in Umno but represent a very powerful mainstream thinking in Umno, both in party and government, nurtured by a generation of racist brain-washing by the National Civics Centre (Biro Tata Negara) in the Prime Minister’s Department, which had a budget of RM600 million in the past decade to carry out such divisive indoctrination.
When the racist brain-washing BTN programme was exposed at the end of last year, Najib ended the public row when he met 30 high-ranking BTN officers in Parliament on Dec. 15 and asked them to ensure that the BTN Course is in line with the 1Malaysia concept.
That the BTN’s racist brain-washing courses have not changed is reflected by a letter to the editor in the News Straits Times of Dec. 29, 2009 complaining about a BTN session, viz:
MY nephew, who is a doctor, has just returned after attending an induction course held from Dec 19 to 24 at the Bayu Beach Resort in Port Dickson. He is very upset and extremely disappointed.
The first four days of the programme was conducted by officials from the Ministry of Health and they were very professional in their approach and methodology. However, the sessions during the next two days conducted by the National Civics Bureau (BTN) were so downright racist, sickening and was nothing more than an exercise to divide Malaysians, instil hatred and discord.
Although my son is a Muslim and a Malay, and was not the target of the BTN instructors, he and his other Muslim friends were upset that their non-Muslim brothers and sisters were constantly labelled as “pendatang” and the Malaysian Indians were hounded in regard to the actions of the now outlawed Hindraf movement.
One BTN instructor even had the temerity to say: “No need to attend BTN course if you think we are racists” and “We warn you not to report what happens here to the press or to anyone else.”
I am not proposing any McCarthyism – defined by Wikipedia as “the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence” – but firm action must be taken to disband the racist and divisive brain-washing by the BTN which had produced a generation of Nasir Safars and is the biggest enemy to Najib’s 1Malaysia campaign.
Will the Cabinet next Wednesday have the political will to disband the BTN for becoming the racist indoctrination machine and replace it with a 1Malaysia Civics Centre which operates in an open, transparent, non-partisan and truly 1Malaysia manner to promote Malaysian national consciousness and not racist attitudes and stereotypes?
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 (Bernama) -- The sodomy trial of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim enters its third day today with accuser Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan continuing his testimony at the High Court here.
KUALA LUMPUR: Police have launched investigations under the Sedition Act against Datuk Nasir Safar after police reports were lodged against him for allegedly making racist remarks at a 1Malaysia seminar in Malacca.
The 12 reports were lodged throughout the country and police have started investigations, Federal CID Director Comm Datuk Seri Mohd Bakri Zinin said.
Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said the case was being investigated under the Sedition Act.
He said it did not matter how many police reports were lodged nationwide, as police would conduct only one investigation.
“Since the words were uttered in Malacca, the police there would be responsible in conducting the investigations,” he said.
It is believed that several people who were present when Nasir made the remarks during a seminar in Malacca on Tuesday would be called up to assist in investigations.
Nasir, a special officer to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and a former assemblyman for Pulai Sebatang in Johor, caused a furore at the seminar on the 1Malaysia concept when he made derogatory remarks about Chinese and Indian immigrants coming to Malaysia.
The statements were supposedly made when he touched on issues relating to demands from the Indian and Chinese communities regarding certain government education policies.
A statement from the Prime Minister’s Office later said Nasir did not intend to offend anyone and apologised for what he had said. Nasir later tendered his resignation.
Confirming that Nasir was being investigated for sedition, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said police would investigate all reports that were made regardless of how closely related the person was to the country’s leaders.
“The national agenda goes beyond any personal relationship including blood relationship.
“The statement might have been the result of a slip of the tongue but the effects of the remark can be really bad,” he said in Putrajaya yesterday.
Hishammuddin said Nasir had known Najib for more than 30 years but would still be investigated.
Ya, lelaki di dalam Proton Saga biru itu adalah Nasir Safar. Namun pihak polis yang mengambil keterangan Bala menafikannya dan mengatakan bahawa lelaki berkenaan adalah penduduk kawasan itu dan bukannya Nasir Safar. Bagaimanakah polis tahu akan perkara ini tanpa melakukan siasatan lanjut dan tanpa mengambil keterangan daripada Nasir Safar?
 |
| Boa Sr was the last member of the Bo tribe. © Alok Das/Survival. |
