Thursday, 20 December 2012
INDIAN HINDU ROOTS RELIGION IS THE OLDEST & LARGEST RELIGION OF THE WORLD. THEN WHY INDIA IS NOT DECLARED AS A HINDU COUNTRY?
Hinduism third largest religion of world: Pew research.
But ‘Indian-Hindu root religion’ is still the largest religion of world if you consider Hindus (15%) + Buddhist (7%) + Other Religions (nearly 1% most of them are Sikhs, Jains etc) + Religiously Unaffiliated (16% most of them are in China and hide their practising Buddhist culture due a oppressive Communist Govt)……… SO THERE IS AT LEAST 35% INDIA ROOTS RELIGIONISTS IN THIS WORLD LARGER THAN 32% CHRISTIANS AND 23% MUSLIMS SO FAR.
India, which accounts for majority of world’s Hindus, is also home to almost all the major religions of the world, a Pew research said Tuesday.
Pew demographic study ’based on analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers’ finds 2.2 billion Christians (32 per cent of the world’s population), 1.6 billion Muslims (23 per cent), 1 billion Hindus (15 per cent), nearly 500 million Buddhists (7 per cent) and 14 million Jews (0.2 per cent) around the world as of 2010.
In addition, more than 400 million people (six per cent) practice various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions.
An estimated 58 million people ‘ slightly less than one per cent of the global population’ belong to other religions, including the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism, to mention just a few, it said.
Pew said overwhelmingly, Hindus and Christians tend to live in countries where they are in the majority.
Ninety seven per cent of all Hindus live in the world’s three Hindu-majority countries (India, Mauritius and Nepal), and nearly nine-in-ten Christians (87 per cent) are found in the world’s 157 Christian majority countries.
The median age of two major groups ‘Muslims (23 years) and Hindus (26)’ is younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (28), it said adding that all the other groups are older than the global median.
Read Original PEW Reports: The Global Religious Landscape | Global Hinduism | Global Buddhism | Religiously Unaffiliated | Global Christianity | Global Muslim | Folk Religionists | Other Religions
Post Script:
Why the 1 (one) billion Hindus of the world have not a single Hindu Country for their own?
If the 32% stake holders Christian has about 30 declared Christian Countries (157 Christian-majority nations) in this world….
The 23% stake holders Muslims have 57 declared Muslim Countries….
The 7% stake holders Buddhists have 8 Buddhist Countries….
The 0.2% stake holders Jews have 1 Jews Country….
Actually, ’India root religion’ is still the largest religion of world if you consider Hindus (15%) + Buddhist (7%) + Other Religions (nearly 1% most of them are Sikhs, Jains etc) + Religiously Unaffiliated (16% most of them are in China and hide their practising Buddhist culture due a oppressive Communist Govt)……… SO THERE IS AT LEAST 35% INDIAN-HINDU ROOTS RELIGIONISTS IN THIS WORLD LARGER THAN 32% CHRISTIANS AND 23% MUSLIMS SO FAR. As Pew is a Christian affiliated organisation, it addresses the crisis and problems before the Christianity in order to propagate the Christianity in a top place. Within this theoretical module the ‘Indian Roots Religions’ are shown in an easy fragmentation quite unopposed.
The existence Aryavarta-Bharat-Hindusthan-India solely depends upon the Hindu Majority and an establishment of a Hindu Rashtra in Bharat. We have to encounter forceful conversion of Hindus into Islam and Christianity. Until and unless a meaningful Dhramarashtra on the basis of Hindu principles is established here the entity of Hindusthan will be always challenged by the Islam, Christianity, Communism, Consumerism and Corruption. We should compete our vision to make a Hindu Rashtra in Bharat within 2025. Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rashtram.
Then why 15% Hindus of global population have no rights to have their own Hindu Country? Why the delay of declaring Bharat as a Hindu Rashtra? WHY???
Turkey Gives Christians Land to Build a Church: A Cemetery
 |
| Main gate, Mor Gabriel Monastery |
Istanbul, December 18 (World Watch Monitor) — Three years after a Syrian Orthodox foundation applied to build a church in Istanbul, the Greater Istanbul Municipality has granted them a large plot of land and a building permit.
Banner headlines in the Turkish media praised the early-December decision as “a first in the history of the Republic,” declaring that never before had Turkey allowed a non-Muslim minority to build an official new house of worship.
Still, Syriac Christians were far from pleased.
For one thing, the land they were “granted” by the municipality is, in fact, a Latin Catholic cemetery.
“We don’t want a Syriac church on top of a cemetery!” the website suryaniler.com stated. “This is a big scandal.”
In fact, the graveyard had been donated back in 1868 to the Italian Catholic Church in what is now Istanbul’s Yesilkoy district. It was then officially registered as Catholic property in 1936, although later confiscated in 1951 by the city.
The Council of Europe’s 2011 progress report noted that Turkey was not fully implementing Law No. 3998, which states that cemeteries belonging to minority communities can no longer be taken over by local municipalities.
According to lawyer Nail Karakas, the Latin Catholic foundation had applied to the city last summer, in accordance with the government’s August 2011 pledge to restore expropriated minority properties, to regain possession of their property and resume Christian burials in the graveyard.
So Syriac leaders are insisting that the cemetery land newly designated for their church be returned instead to its rightful owners. “It is clear that (the authorities) want to cause conflict between the minority communities,” commented Syriac layman Sabo Boyaci.
Boyaci also faulted the government for trying to exploit the Syriac community politically. “I don’t believe the government’s sincerity. They delivered this land to us in order to silence us on the matter of Mor Gabriel Monastery. The government simply aims to make a good impression on the European and Turkish public,” he told Hurriyet Daily News.
Monastery lands under threat
European Union officials have expressed “serious concerns” since the final Nov. 15 verdict by the Turkish Supreme Court of Appeals against the 4th century Mor Gabriel Monastery. The court ordered the confiscation of some 680 acres belonging to the monastery built more than 1,600 years ago near Mardin, in eastern Turkey’s Tur Abdin region. The decision was termed an “unlawful appropriation” by the Council of Europe.
Five disputes over the ownership of the ancient monastery’s lands have bounced back and forth in the courts since 2008, when Muslim villagers in the vicinity of the monastery protested to the state Treasury and Forestry Administration, claiming that the monastery was illegally occupying their lands.
Litigation was then instigated by state institutions, which had redrawn local boundaries earlier that year to update the national land registry, and passed new laws authorizing the transfer of “uncultivated or forested lands” to state ownership.
“I know from my experience very well that if some ‘citizens’ bring an organized action against non-Muslims in Turkey, it is almost certain that the state somehow has a hand in it,” columnist Orhan Kemal Cengiz wrote Dec. 7 regarding the case in Today’s Zaman.
The lawsuit was openly supported by Mardin parliamentarian Suleyman Celebi, a member of the ruling Justice and Development Party. Celebi claimed that although the monastery’s legal boundaries were established in Ottoman times, the Syriac Christians had failed to observe them properly.
According to a deputy chairman of the monastery foundation, if an individual appeal to the Constitutional Court does not overturn the Nov. 15 decision, the monastery will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate had once resided in Midyat, until it was forced in 1930 to move to Damascus, where it still remains.
The oldest surviving Syriac Orthodox monastery in the world, Mor Gabriel still keeps alive the ancient Aramaic language closest to that spoken by Jesus.
Some 2,000 Syriac Christians still reside in their traditional homelands in and around Mardin. More than 15,000 others have immigrated to Istanbul in recent decades. Without any official church of their own, the Istanbul parishes worship in rented Catholic Church buildings located throughout the city.
The Syriac Church of the Virgin Mary Foundation says their proposed new church needs to be large enough for 1,000 worshippers.
Mother of Jihad bomb T-shirt boy in court
THE mother and uncle of a three-year old named Jihad, who was born on September 11, are due in a French court for sending him to school in a top with "I am a bomb" written on it.
The sweatshirt also had the words "Jihad, born on September 11" emblazoned on the back when he turned up at his nursery school in the southern town of Sorgues on September 25.
The pair are charged with condoning a crime over the alleged reference to the 9/11 attacks on New York's twin towers in 2001. The uncle bought the top and the mother dressed her son in it when she sent him to school that day.
Jihad's teacher alerted the authorities and a few days later the town mayor, Thierry Lagneau of the conservative UMP party, asked prosecutors to investigate.
"I condemn the attitude of the parents who shamefully took advantage of the person and the age of this child to convey a political message," Lagneau said.
The mother and uncle of the boy, who official records show was born on September 11, 2009 and was given Jihad as his first name, were not known Islamists, prosecutors said.
The mother was astonished at the reaction to her son's top and at the proportions the affair had taken on, they added.
She and her brother were due in court in Avignon, southern France, on Tuesday afternoon.
The sweatshirt also had the words "Jihad, born on September 11" emblazoned on the back when he turned up at his nursery school in the southern town of Sorgues on September 25.
The pair are charged with condoning a crime over the alleged reference to the 9/11 attacks on New York's twin towers in 2001. The uncle bought the top and the mother dressed her son in it when she sent him to school that day.
Jihad's teacher alerted the authorities and a few days later the town mayor, Thierry Lagneau of the conservative UMP party, asked prosecutors to investigate.
"I condemn the attitude of the parents who shamefully took advantage of the person and the age of this child to convey a political message," Lagneau said.
The mother and uncle of the boy, who official records show was born on September 11, 2009 and was given Jihad as his first name, were not known Islamists, prosecutors said.
The mother was astonished at the reaction to her son's top and at the proportions the affair had taken on, they added.
She and her brother were due in court in Avignon, southern France, on Tuesday afternoon.
No aid: PTAs shell MIC
Several Parent Teachers' Associations of partially-aided Tamil schools deprived of government aid vent their frustration on MIC.
PETALING JAYA: Several partially-aided Tamil schools’ Parent Teachers’ Associations (PTA) in Selangor and Perak have decried MIC’s decision to drop their schools from receiving government aid.
Ladang West Country (Timur) Tamil school PTA chairman M Vinayagamurthy said it was not right for the largest Indian political party to strike out his school from the list.
“What did we do wrong? Our student number is increasing and there is lack of space for them to study. This is not right,” he told FMT.
The school has about 400 students and was supposed to receive RM500,000 for maintenance works.
On Monday, SS2 Tengah MIC branch chairman S Padnmanagan accused party president G Palanivel of depriving allocations to 145 partially-aided Tamil schools in the country.
“In the original list presented to the Cabinet in February, it was stated that RM100 million allocation would be channelled to 369 partially-aided Tamil schools nationwide for three categories, namely maintenance and upgrade, building additional blocks and building new schools.
“But in a revision done by MIC in May, the party leadership reduced the number of schools to 224. What happened to the rest?” asked Padnmanagan.
However, MIC Youth chief T Mohan defended his boss, saying the funds were handled by the Education Ministry and the party merely prepared the list of schools in need of aid.
Vinayagamurthy said the school’s administration and the PTA did a lot of work to get the funding.
“We want to know why this happened. If the government had allocated the sum for us, why was it not given? Give us a reason,” he said.
MIC should not handle funds
Ladang Rinching Tamil School PTA chairman R Chandran was more vocal, saying that MIC should not handle funds for Tamil schools from now on.
“If the government has decided to help us, who is MIC to stop it?’” he asked.
His school has about 500 students and was supposed to receive RM140,000 for roof repairs, upgrading its classrooms and plumbing works for its toilets.
Chandran urged the government to allocate the funds straight to the PTAs in future.
“We are prepared to be audited on a regular basis but do allocate the aid to us. Come and visit my school and see for yourself how badly we are in need of government aid,” he said.
Similar sentiments were echoed by a St Philomena Convent Tamil School PTA official.
“I’m not surprised. We were promised RM85,000 earlier and it was also announced by newspapers that we have received it but till now, we have seen nothing,” said the official who wished to remain anonymous.
He added that so far only MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek had fulfilled his promise, when he allocated RM20,000 for the school for some repair works.
“As for this case, I don’t understand why MIC needs to drop our school if the government has approved funds for us,” he said.
The school has about 400 students and was supposed to receive RM15,000 for maintenance works.
However, Ladang Changkat Salak Tamil School PTA chairman M Sathiaseelan defended MIC, saying that the party and the government had helped procure funds for the school annually.
“We received RM8,000 grant for our school and another additional RM5,000 just recently. Probably they withdrew the funds to help other schools which are in dire need,” he said.
Sathiaseelan’s school has about 50 students and was supposed to receive RM15,000 for maintenance works.
Palanivel is also the MIC chairman for both Selangor and Perak.
PETALING JAYA: Several partially-aided Tamil schools’ Parent Teachers’ Associations (PTA) in Selangor and Perak have decried MIC’s decision to drop their schools from receiving government aid.Ladang West Country (Timur) Tamil school PTA chairman M Vinayagamurthy said it was not right for the largest Indian political party to strike out his school from the list.
“What did we do wrong? Our student number is increasing and there is lack of space for them to study. This is not right,” he told FMT.
The school has about 400 students and was supposed to receive RM500,000 for maintenance works.
On Monday, SS2 Tengah MIC branch chairman S Padnmanagan accused party president G Palanivel of depriving allocations to 145 partially-aided Tamil schools in the country.
“In the original list presented to the Cabinet in February, it was stated that RM100 million allocation would be channelled to 369 partially-aided Tamil schools nationwide for three categories, namely maintenance and upgrade, building additional blocks and building new schools.
“But in a revision done by MIC in May, the party leadership reduced the number of schools to 224. What happened to the rest?” asked Padnmanagan.
However, MIC Youth chief T Mohan defended his boss, saying the funds were handled by the Education Ministry and the party merely prepared the list of schools in need of aid.
Vinayagamurthy said the school’s administration and the PTA did a lot of work to get the funding.
“We want to know why this happened. If the government had allocated the sum for us, why was it not given? Give us a reason,” he said.
MIC should not handle funds
Ladang Rinching Tamil School PTA chairman R Chandran was more vocal, saying that MIC should not handle funds for Tamil schools from now on.
“If the government has decided to help us, who is MIC to stop it?’” he asked.
His school has about 500 students and was supposed to receive RM140,000 for roof repairs, upgrading its classrooms and plumbing works for its toilets.
Chandran urged the government to allocate the funds straight to the PTAs in future.
“We are prepared to be audited on a regular basis but do allocate the aid to us. Come and visit my school and see for yourself how badly we are in need of government aid,” he said.
Similar sentiments were echoed by a St Philomena Convent Tamil School PTA official.
“I’m not surprised. We were promised RM85,000 earlier and it was also announced by newspapers that we have received it but till now, we have seen nothing,” said the official who wished to remain anonymous.
He added that so far only MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek had fulfilled his promise, when he allocated RM20,000 for the school for some repair works.
“As for this case, I don’t understand why MIC needs to drop our school if the government has approved funds for us,” he said.
The school has about 400 students and was supposed to receive RM15,000 for maintenance works.
However, Ladang Changkat Salak Tamil School PTA chairman M Sathiaseelan defended MIC, saying that the party and the government had helped procure funds for the school annually.
“We received RM8,000 grant for our school and another additional RM5,000 just recently. Probably they withdrew the funds to help other schools which are in dire need,” he said.
Sathiaseelan’s school has about 50 students and was supposed to receive RM15,000 for maintenance works.
Palanivel is also the MIC chairman for both Selangor and Perak.
A melodrama of sex, bribery, murder
Najib Tun Razak has yet to fight an election as PM, but his future is mired in fresh troubles.
COMMENT
By Jonathan Manthorpe
Najib (Tun) Razak has been Malaysia’s Prime Minister since early in 2009, but he has yet to fight an election and speculation is now rife among the country’s chattering classes that he may not survive at the helm until the next national vote is due in April.
What is powering the rumour mill is yet more twists and turns in the melodrama of sex, bribery and murder stemming from when Najib was defence minister a decade ago.
The latest revelations place Najib far more into the centre of events that led to the murder by two of his bodyguards of the Mongolian fashion model, translator and mistress of his chief policy adviser, (Abdul) Razak Baginda.
Equally compelling is that the new allegations are coming from Deepak Jaikishan, a former confidante of Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, and a man well-connected to the upper echelons of the ruling United Malays National Organization (Umno).
Local media in Malaysia is full of suggestions by unnamed Umno officials that perhaps Deepak has been put up to his revelations by Najib’s main political rival, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.
Other candidates for the political assassination of Najib are the bitter former prime minister (Dr) Mahathir Mohamad, and the prime minister and Umno leader Najib ousted in 2009, Abdullah (Ahmad) Badawi.
But the reality of Malaysian politics is the limited impact of the still-unresolved story of Najib’s $2-billion purchase of two Scorpene submarines from France, the $200-million facilitation fee paid to a company controlled by his aide Baginda, and the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu after she demanded a $500,000 cut.
While it resonates with some social strata among urban voters, in heartland rural Malaysia, where elections are won and lost, tales of bribery, mistresses and murder among the political classes do not excite much interest.
And, as Najib’s political career defied the logic that one plus one make two ever since the murder of Altantuya in 2006, there is no particular reason to think it cannot survive the latest allegations.
Loose ends
Even the trial and conviction of two of Najib’s bodyguards for the murder was deftly stage managed without repercussions. The trial had not properly started when the judge dismissed the charges against Baginda, who now lives in exile in Britain. Questions about who ordered the men to kill Altantuya were never asked.
What might yet join all the loose ends of this story together is that French magistrates are investigating whether bribery was involved in the 2002 agreement to sell the submarines to Malaysia.
The latest story from Deepak story centres on a private detective named Perumal Balasubramanian, who was hired by Baginda to keep Altantuya away from his house after he jilted her and she demanded a cut of the $200-million facilitation fee.
Altantuya, who had worked as a model in Paris, acted as translator for Baginda in the negotiations with the French for the submarines.
In a sworn statement made soon after the discovery of the murdered Altantuya, whose body was blown up with military explosive after she was shot twice in the head, Balasubramanian said Baginda told him she had been Najib’s mistress first. But Najib had passed her on to Baginda because he was expecting to become prime minister and having a mistress might affect his chances.
Najib has on several occasions denied ever meeting Altantuya.
After making this statement, Balasubramanian was hauled into a police station where he was persuaded to make another statement recanting. He then swiftly left the country and is now believed to be living in Chennai, India.
However, in a number of interviews in the past few weeks, Deepak has substantiated the private detective’s original statement and also said he gave several cheques to Balasubramanian worth the equivalent of over $240,000 in all to finance his flight from the country and exile.
And, says Deepak, the source of the money to keep Balasubramanian quiet and out of the country was Najib’s younger brother Nazim Abdul Razak. – Vancouver Sun
COMMENT
By Jonathan ManthorpeNajib (Tun) Razak has been Malaysia’s Prime Minister since early in 2009, but he has yet to fight an election and speculation is now rife among the country’s chattering classes that he may not survive at the helm until the next national vote is due in April.
What is powering the rumour mill is yet more twists and turns in the melodrama of sex, bribery and murder stemming from when Najib was defence minister a decade ago.
The latest revelations place Najib far more into the centre of events that led to the murder by two of his bodyguards of the Mongolian fashion model, translator and mistress of his chief policy adviser, (Abdul) Razak Baginda.
Equally compelling is that the new allegations are coming from Deepak Jaikishan, a former confidante of Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, and a man well-connected to the upper echelons of the ruling United Malays National Organization (Umno).
Local media in Malaysia is full of suggestions by unnamed Umno officials that perhaps Deepak has been put up to his revelations by Najib’s main political rival, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.
Other candidates for the political assassination of Najib are the bitter former prime minister (Dr) Mahathir Mohamad, and the prime minister and Umno leader Najib ousted in 2009, Abdullah (Ahmad) Badawi.
But the reality of Malaysian politics is the limited impact of the still-unresolved story of Najib’s $2-billion purchase of two Scorpene submarines from France, the $200-million facilitation fee paid to a company controlled by his aide Baginda, and the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu after she demanded a $500,000 cut.
While it resonates with some social strata among urban voters, in heartland rural Malaysia, where elections are won and lost, tales of bribery, mistresses and murder among the political classes do not excite much interest.
And, as Najib’s political career defied the logic that one plus one make two ever since the murder of Altantuya in 2006, there is no particular reason to think it cannot survive the latest allegations.
Loose ends
Even the trial and conviction of two of Najib’s bodyguards for the murder was deftly stage managed without repercussions. The trial had not properly started when the judge dismissed the charges against Baginda, who now lives in exile in Britain. Questions about who ordered the men to kill Altantuya were never asked.
What might yet join all the loose ends of this story together is that French magistrates are investigating whether bribery was involved in the 2002 agreement to sell the submarines to Malaysia.
The latest story from Deepak story centres on a private detective named Perumal Balasubramanian, who was hired by Baginda to keep Altantuya away from his house after he jilted her and she demanded a cut of the $200-million facilitation fee.
Altantuya, who had worked as a model in Paris, acted as translator for Baginda in the negotiations with the French for the submarines.
In a sworn statement made soon after the discovery of the murdered Altantuya, whose body was blown up with military explosive after she was shot twice in the head, Balasubramanian said Baginda told him she had been Najib’s mistress first. But Najib had passed her on to Baginda because he was expecting to become prime minister and having a mistress might affect his chances.
Najib has on several occasions denied ever meeting Altantuya.
After making this statement, Balasubramanian was hauled into a police station where he was persuaded to make another statement recanting. He then swiftly left the country and is now believed to be living in Chennai, India.
However, in a number of interviews in the past few weeks, Deepak has substantiated the private detective’s original statement and also said he gave several cheques to Balasubramanian worth the equivalent of over $240,000 in all to finance his flight from the country and exile.
And, says Deepak, the source of the money to keep Balasubramanian quiet and out of the country was Najib’s younger brother Nazim Abdul Razak. – Vancouver Sun
‘New book on Kampung Medan not a reproduction’
The new book by Suaram chairman K Arumugam has nothing to do with the book on Kampung Medan written in Tamil.
KUALA LUMPUR: Suaram chairman K Arumugam denied that his new book “Violence Against An Ethnic Minority In Malaysia: Kampung Medan”, is a reproduction of his earler book written in Tamil, “March 8”.
“March 8” was published in 2006. A total of 3,000 copies were sold before it was banned in 2007 by the Home Ministry on grounds that it was prejudicial to national security.
When the ban was challenged in court, the High Court and Appeals Court judges maintained that the book is seditious. The case is awaiting trial at the Federal Court.
“This book is different. New information has been added,” said Arumugam.
It is largely based on a PhD thesis by (co-author, Wawasan Open University senior lecturer) S Nagarajan and court documents,” said Arumugam during the launch of the book at the Kuala Lumpur Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH) last night.
He added that the new book does not contain commentaries that were deemed as detrimental to public order as was the case in his previous book.
“Violence Against An Ethnic Minority In Malaysia” is a 147-page book published by human rights NGO, Suaram.
It looks into the Kampung Medan racial violence on March 8, 2001 from the perspective of the people who were victimised and lived there.
Suaram director Kua Kia Soong who edited the book also concurred with Arumugam.
“It’s a completely different book. This one is in English,” said Kua.
‘Perpetrators were outsiders’
Meanwhile, Arumugam told the audience of about 40 people of his hope that justice will be served to the people.
“We want to know the truth. The government should admit if there were wrongs and if there was a need to reform institutions,” he said.
After the launch, a forum was held. The panellists were Hindraf adviser N Ganesan, anti-ISA pressure group GMI chief, Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh, and Kua.
Syed Ibrahim said that contrary to the official version, the Kampung Medan incident was not a racial clash between the Malays and the Indians.
“It is not an ethnic clash. This book provides an analysis [to show] that there were no group clashes…
“People there lived harmoniously despite it being a squatter area. The perpetrators were outsiders, not locals,” Syed Ibrahim said.
He pointed out that contrary to the official version, the Kampung Medan incident was supposed to be a catalyst to overthrow former menteri besar, Dr Khir Toyo.
Khir was the Selangor menteri besar from 2000 to 2008.
“The clash was the result of people within Umno who were unhappy with the appointment of Khir as Selangor menteri besar,” Syed Ibrahim said.
Ganesan, meanwhile, accused the police of working hands in glove with the assailants.
“There were 2,053 policemen against 100 mobsters. The police are pulling a wool their eayes,” he said.
Kua in his analysis pointed out that there was a similarity in the May 13, 1969 clashes with the Kampung Medan incident.
“Kampung Medan and May 13 are not racial clashes. Both were allowed to drag on by the security forces,” he said, adding that the May 13 incident was allowed to drag on for two months whereas the Kampung Medan clash was allowed to continue for 15 days.
KUALA LUMPUR: Suaram chairman K Arumugam denied that his new book “Violence Against An Ethnic Minority In Malaysia: Kampung Medan”, is a reproduction of his earler book written in Tamil, “March 8”.“March 8” was published in 2006. A total of 3,000 copies were sold before it was banned in 2007 by the Home Ministry on grounds that it was prejudicial to national security.
When the ban was challenged in court, the High Court and Appeals Court judges maintained that the book is seditious. The case is awaiting trial at the Federal Court.
“This book is different. New information has been added,” said Arumugam.
It is largely based on a PhD thesis by (co-author, Wawasan Open University senior lecturer) S Nagarajan and court documents,” said Arumugam during the launch of the book at the Kuala Lumpur Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH) last night.
He added that the new book does not contain commentaries that were deemed as detrimental to public order as was the case in his previous book.
“Violence Against An Ethnic Minority In Malaysia” is a 147-page book published by human rights NGO, Suaram.
It looks into the Kampung Medan racial violence on March 8, 2001 from the perspective of the people who were victimised and lived there.
Suaram director Kua Kia Soong who edited the book also concurred with Arumugam.
“It’s a completely different book. This one is in English,” said Kua.‘Perpetrators were outsiders’
Meanwhile, Arumugam told the audience of about 40 people of his hope that justice will be served to the people.
“We want to know the truth. The government should admit if there were wrongs and if there was a need to reform institutions,” he said.
After the launch, a forum was held. The panellists were Hindraf adviser N Ganesan, anti-ISA pressure group GMI chief, Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh, and Kua.
Syed Ibrahim said that contrary to the official version, the Kampung Medan incident was not a racial clash between the Malays and the Indians.
“It is not an ethnic clash. This book provides an analysis [to show] that there were no group clashes…
“People there lived harmoniously despite it being a squatter area. The perpetrators were outsiders, not locals,” Syed Ibrahim said.He pointed out that contrary to the official version, the Kampung Medan incident was supposed to be a catalyst to overthrow former menteri besar, Dr Khir Toyo.
Khir was the Selangor menteri besar from 2000 to 2008.
“The clash was the result of people within Umno who were unhappy with the appointment of Khir as Selangor menteri besar,” Syed Ibrahim said.
Ganesan, meanwhile, accused the police of working hands in glove with the assailants.
“There were 2,053 policemen against 100 mobsters. The police are pulling a wool their eayes,” he said.
Kua in his analysis pointed out that there was a similarity in the May 13, 1969 clashes with the Kampung Medan incident.
“Kampung Medan and May 13 are not racial clashes. Both were allowed to drag on by the security forces,” he said, adding that the May 13 incident was allowed to drag on for two months whereas the Kampung Medan clash was allowed to continue for 15 days.
May 13, Kg Medan – Never again!
Even though biologically, there is no such basis for a category known as “race”, the social construction of race is ever present in this country.
COMMENT
By Kua Kia Soong
The launch of “Violence against an Ethnic Minority in Malaysia: Kampung Medan 2001” by S Nagarajan and K Arumugam yesterday is a wake-up call for Malaysians to get wise to the Malaysian state’s attempts to portray racist/fascist pogroms against ethnic minorities in Malaysia as so-called “racial riots” that came about “naturally” because of social conditions and dissatisfaction.
This is the first book written to put the record straight on the racial violence against ethnic Indian Malaysians at Kampung Medan in 2001. For this racial violence to happen more than 30 years after “May 13” is a scandal and an indictment of Malaysia’s modern day institutions which are still steeped in racism and racial discrimination.
My 2007 title, “May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969” challenged the official version that the violence (in which the victims were mainly ethnic Chinese) was the result of “riots” between “Malays” and “Chinese” who had been provoked by irresponsible opposition politicians. The official version of the Kampung Medan violence in 2001 was that the “riots” had been sparked by incidents which ignited “naturally” in a neglected urban ghetto.
The facts on May 13 point to an orchestrated pogrom in which a complicit state allowed the violence to drag on until July 1969, before the security forces demonstrated their full capacity to restore order. As documented in Nagarajan and Arumugam’s new book, the Kampung Medan violence, which started on March 8, 2001, was allowed to continue over a number of days in a relatively small enclave of Petaling Jaya – with the last tragic incident occurring on March 23.
This delay in taking action reveals a serious credibility problem surrounding our law enforcement and security forces. How is it that these forces failed in their duty to apprehend the thugs who unleashed the racial violence and also failed to investigate those who had organised the violence?
Eyewitness accounts show that in some of the racial attacks there, the police just stood by without stopping and apprehending the thugs. This was the same observation noted during the “May 13” pogrom, namely, the security forces did not play the professional role expected of them.
Just as in 1969, these incidents were not “racial clashes” between ordinary Malays and non-Malays. In this record of Kampung Medan, it is clear that the people within this community were of diverse ethnicity and that between them there was the sort of camaraderie evident in Kampung Baru in May 1969.
The culprits who were responsible for the violence were fascist thugs from outside these communities who had been brought there by “hidden hands”. It is the duty and responsibility of the police and security forces to apprehend the thugs and to unmask the hidden hands and reveal their agenda.
After all, our Malaysian Police Force pride themselves on being one of the best in this part of the world, having been trained by the British colonial power to handle the Emergency during the fifties. Note the speed with which they execute ISA operations and their alacrity in breaking up civil demonstrations of thousands!
Racism against ethnic Indians
The purposeful stereotyping of the Chinese and Indian Malaysians as the “immigrants who should know their place” as distinct from those defined as “bumiputeras” (princes of the soil) by the state and the Malay far-right is intended to justify “Malay dominance”. Thus the “May 13 incident” has been frequently used as a deterrent to any challenge to the status quo, whether during a general election or simply a challenge to an unjust Umno policy.
In recent years, a pattern has emerged in which ethnic Indians, who are a minority community in this country (of less than 10% of the total population) finding themselves the majority in official statistics on deaths in police custody and victims of police shootings.
These shocking facts reflect the racist portrayal of the marginalised Indian community in the state institutions. Through the years, we have also witnessed many cases of racial slurs against ethnic Indians in the mainstream media and school textbooks.
Even though biologically, there is no such basis for a category known as “race”, the social construction of race is ever present in this country. Racism and racialisation came about during the period when the different communities were under the dominance of British colonialism.
In the circumstances of that time, it suited the dominant group to legitimise dominance by a divide and rule strategy that viewed minorities as “non-indigenous” who required assimilation.
This legacy of racism, which has been further institutionalised since independence, is not only evident in school textbooks but also in media discourse and everyday conversation.
My writings on press coverage of ethnic affairs since the Eighties (eg. “Media Watch: The Use and Abuse of the Malaysian Press”, SCAH 1990) have shown that ethnic minority groups tend to be reproduced in the Malay-language press in stereotypical, blatantly racist terms.
Thus, minorities are associated with problems and conflict and then portrayed as a threat to the dominant Malay population. Topics tend to focus on “aliens”, “them versus us”, crime and cultural differences are interpreted negatively. The message is clear: “Immigrants must adapt or else…”, “Indians must behave…”
Today, this blatant racism has become second-nature to the Malay-language press and media watching is no longer an art in Malaysia!
’1Malaysia’ forces Umno to outsource racism
State complicity is evident not only in the negligent role of the security forces but also in its tolerance of the far-right and their racist taunts. Fascism has a knack for appearing in capitalist crises.
At the time when the racial violence happened at Kampung Medan in 2001, the so-called “Malay Action Front” provocatively waved the keris and pledged to defend “Malay ethnic supremacy”. Such racist provocation and Umno’s manipulation of Malay sentiments serve to ensure Umno’s monopoly of political power and their ability to reap the fruits of Malay-centrism.
In the process, such racist propaganda serves to divert the attention of the Malay poor from their real problems and the ruling elite responsible for them.
Since the 2008 political tsunami and Umno’s attempts to win back non-Malay support through such ploys as the “1Malaysia” slogan, it appears that Umno Youth’s traditional role of racial breast-beating has been outsourced to the far-right groups.
Umno soon learnt that the spectacle of “Kerishamudin” playing the Malay warrior at the 2006 Umno general assembly had cost them too many non-Malay votes in the 2008 general election.
The Umnoputras, in their pursuit of political and economic power, are not interested in solving the social problems that have resulted from the neo-liberal and discriminatory policies which they have put in place.
The far-right is there to ensure that the Malay working class and middle class are wooed by the “Malay-centrist” ideology in an effort to prevent them from joining the growing movement against the present unjust system. As has happened in the history of capitalism, fascists only offer racism and violence as a solution to people’s desperation.
Outlaw racism, racial discrimination and hate crimes
“Hate crimes” are criminal acts committed as intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, murder or such other criminal offence. The negative impact of hate crimes on the greater community cannot be emphasised enough.
In order to nip this tendency in the bud, “Incitement to racial hatred” needs to be made a criminal offence.
Under the British Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for example, publication of materials that incite racial hatred is an arrestable offence.
These include deliberately provoking hatred against a racial group; distributing racist material to the public; making inflammatory public speeches; creating racist websites on the internet; inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or ethnic group, in order to spread racial discontent.
The UK Public Order Act 1986 defines racial hatred as “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic origins”. Section 21 of the Act makes “incitement to racial hatred” an offence to publish or distribute material which is threatening or abusive or insulting if intended to stir up racial hatred…”
In Malaysia, the proposed Equality Act and Equality and Human Rights Commission (see below) should likewise specifically deal with hate crimes and incitement to racial hatred.
Never too late for truth and justice
Although this is more than 10 years after the Kampung Medan incident, it is never too late for the truth to be spoken and justice to be despatched to the victims of organised racial violence. There is simply no cut-off point in the struggle for truth and justice.
The British government is currently being forced to carry out a judicial review of the Batang Kali massacre that happened in 1948.
When my book on “May 13” was published in 2007, I called for the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission so that the nation can know the truth about the pogrom of 1969 when hundreds of ethnic Chinese Malaysians were killed.
Forty three years have passed, and we still do not know the identity of the victims and the “hidden hands” who orchestrated that “May 13 Incident”.
But all these efforts will be in vain if the rest of the Malaysian society does not learn the lessons of this episode. We have to redress the human rights issues that have still not been resolved in this country and reform the institutions to ensure that “Kampung Medan” and “May 13” never ever happen again.
Such steps include:
Forming and swiftly deploying a Special Multi-Ethnic Peace-Keeping Force to keep order if such incidents occur in future;
Establishing, with urgency, a neutral Commission of Inquiry into any such incidents and charging the culprits responsible for murder.
Implementing the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Committee;
Ensuring that recruitment into the police and armed forces and career advancement are based on merit;
Enacting an Equality Act to promote equality and non-discrimination irrespective of race, creed, religion, gender or disability with provision for an Equality & Human Rights Commission;
Institutionalising equality and human rights education at all decision-making levels, including state and non-state actors/institutions;
Ratifying the Convention on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD).No platform for racists and fascists
Clearly, far right racial supremacists who rail about the dominance of their “race” would be reined in by an Equality and Human Rights Commission and dealt with under an Equality Act.
Any government that has credibility must implement a policy of “Zero Tolerance for Racists” and “No Platform for Fascists”.
Freedom of expression does not extend to the right to violence, incitement of racial or religious hatred. Indeed, it is the freedom of expression for the majority of humanity that fascists threaten.
Fascism must not be allowed to infect the democratic space built by our fore fathers. The publication of this book is another positive contribution to the peoples’ history, the struggle against racism and fascism in Malaysia and a further advancement of the ever growing civil society movement in this country.
The writer is the adviser for human rights organisation Suaram
COMMENTBy Kua Kia Soong
The launch of “Violence against an Ethnic Minority in Malaysia: Kampung Medan 2001” by S Nagarajan and K Arumugam yesterday is a wake-up call for Malaysians to get wise to the Malaysian state’s attempts to portray racist/fascist pogroms against ethnic minorities in Malaysia as so-called “racial riots” that came about “naturally” because of social conditions and dissatisfaction.
This is the first book written to put the record straight on the racial violence against ethnic Indian Malaysians at Kampung Medan in 2001. For this racial violence to happen more than 30 years after “May 13” is a scandal and an indictment of Malaysia’s modern day institutions which are still steeped in racism and racial discrimination.
My 2007 title, “May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969” challenged the official version that the violence (in which the victims were mainly ethnic Chinese) was the result of “riots” between “Malays” and “Chinese” who had been provoked by irresponsible opposition politicians. The official version of the Kampung Medan violence in 2001 was that the “riots” had been sparked by incidents which ignited “naturally” in a neglected urban ghetto.
The facts on May 13 point to an orchestrated pogrom in which a complicit state allowed the violence to drag on until July 1969, before the security forces demonstrated their full capacity to restore order. As documented in Nagarajan and Arumugam’s new book, the Kampung Medan violence, which started on March 8, 2001, was allowed to continue over a number of days in a relatively small enclave of Petaling Jaya – with the last tragic incident occurring on March 23.
This delay in taking action reveals a serious credibility problem surrounding our law enforcement and security forces. How is it that these forces failed in their duty to apprehend the thugs who unleashed the racial violence and also failed to investigate those who had organised the violence?
Eyewitness accounts show that in some of the racial attacks there, the police just stood by without stopping and apprehending the thugs. This was the same observation noted during the “May 13” pogrom, namely, the security forces did not play the professional role expected of them.
Just as in 1969, these incidents were not “racial clashes” between ordinary Malays and non-Malays. In this record of Kampung Medan, it is clear that the people within this community were of diverse ethnicity and that between them there was the sort of camaraderie evident in Kampung Baru in May 1969.
The culprits who were responsible for the violence were fascist thugs from outside these communities who had been brought there by “hidden hands”. It is the duty and responsibility of the police and security forces to apprehend the thugs and to unmask the hidden hands and reveal their agenda.
After all, our Malaysian Police Force pride themselves on being one of the best in this part of the world, having been trained by the British colonial power to handle the Emergency during the fifties. Note the speed with which they execute ISA operations and their alacrity in breaking up civil demonstrations of thousands!
Racism against ethnic Indians
The purposeful stereotyping of the Chinese and Indian Malaysians as the “immigrants who should know their place” as distinct from those defined as “bumiputeras” (princes of the soil) by the state and the Malay far-right is intended to justify “Malay dominance”. Thus the “May 13 incident” has been frequently used as a deterrent to any challenge to the status quo, whether during a general election or simply a challenge to an unjust Umno policy.
In recent years, a pattern has emerged in which ethnic Indians, who are a minority community in this country (of less than 10% of the total population) finding themselves the majority in official statistics on deaths in police custody and victims of police shootings.
These shocking facts reflect the racist portrayal of the marginalised Indian community in the state institutions. Through the years, we have also witnessed many cases of racial slurs against ethnic Indians in the mainstream media and school textbooks.
Even though biologically, there is no such basis for a category known as “race”, the social construction of race is ever present in this country. Racism and racialisation came about during the period when the different communities were under the dominance of British colonialism.
In the circumstances of that time, it suited the dominant group to legitimise dominance by a divide and rule strategy that viewed minorities as “non-indigenous” who required assimilation.
This legacy of racism, which has been further institutionalised since independence, is not only evident in school textbooks but also in media discourse and everyday conversation.
My writings on press coverage of ethnic affairs since the Eighties (eg. “Media Watch: The Use and Abuse of the Malaysian Press”, SCAH 1990) have shown that ethnic minority groups tend to be reproduced in the Malay-language press in stereotypical, blatantly racist terms.
Thus, minorities are associated with problems and conflict and then portrayed as a threat to the dominant Malay population. Topics tend to focus on “aliens”, “them versus us”, crime and cultural differences are interpreted negatively. The message is clear: “Immigrants must adapt or else…”, “Indians must behave…”
Today, this blatant racism has become second-nature to the Malay-language press and media watching is no longer an art in Malaysia!
’1Malaysia’ forces Umno to outsource racism
State complicity is evident not only in the negligent role of the security forces but also in its tolerance of the far-right and their racist taunts. Fascism has a knack for appearing in capitalist crises.
At the time when the racial violence happened at Kampung Medan in 2001, the so-called “Malay Action Front” provocatively waved the keris and pledged to defend “Malay ethnic supremacy”. Such racist provocation and Umno’s manipulation of Malay sentiments serve to ensure Umno’s monopoly of political power and their ability to reap the fruits of Malay-centrism.
In the process, such racist propaganda serves to divert the attention of the Malay poor from their real problems and the ruling elite responsible for them.
Since the 2008 political tsunami and Umno’s attempts to win back non-Malay support through such ploys as the “1Malaysia” slogan, it appears that Umno Youth’s traditional role of racial breast-beating has been outsourced to the far-right groups.
Umno soon learnt that the spectacle of “Kerishamudin” playing the Malay warrior at the 2006 Umno general assembly had cost them too many non-Malay votes in the 2008 general election.
The Umnoputras, in their pursuit of political and economic power, are not interested in solving the social problems that have resulted from the neo-liberal and discriminatory policies which they have put in place.
The far-right is there to ensure that the Malay working class and middle class are wooed by the “Malay-centrist” ideology in an effort to prevent them from joining the growing movement against the present unjust system. As has happened in the history of capitalism, fascists only offer racism and violence as a solution to people’s desperation.
Outlaw racism, racial discrimination and hate crimes
“Hate crimes” are criminal acts committed as intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, murder or such other criminal offence. The negative impact of hate crimes on the greater community cannot be emphasised enough.
In order to nip this tendency in the bud, “Incitement to racial hatred” needs to be made a criminal offence.
Under the British Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for example, publication of materials that incite racial hatred is an arrestable offence.
These include deliberately provoking hatred against a racial group; distributing racist material to the public; making inflammatory public speeches; creating racist websites on the internet; inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or ethnic group, in order to spread racial discontent.
The UK Public Order Act 1986 defines racial hatred as “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic origins”. Section 21 of the Act makes “incitement to racial hatred” an offence to publish or distribute material which is threatening or abusive or insulting if intended to stir up racial hatred…”
In Malaysia, the proposed Equality Act and Equality and Human Rights Commission (see below) should likewise specifically deal with hate crimes and incitement to racial hatred.
Never too late for truth and justice
Although this is more than 10 years after the Kampung Medan incident, it is never too late for the truth to be spoken and justice to be despatched to the victims of organised racial violence. There is simply no cut-off point in the struggle for truth and justice.
The British government is currently being forced to carry out a judicial review of the Batang Kali massacre that happened in 1948.
When my book on “May 13” was published in 2007, I called for the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission so that the nation can know the truth about the pogrom of 1969 when hundreds of ethnic Chinese Malaysians were killed.
Forty three years have passed, and we still do not know the identity of the victims and the “hidden hands” who orchestrated that “May 13 Incident”.
But all these efforts will be in vain if the rest of the Malaysian society does not learn the lessons of this episode. We have to redress the human rights issues that have still not been resolved in this country and reform the institutions to ensure that “Kampung Medan” and “May 13” never ever happen again.
Such steps include:
Forming and swiftly deploying a Special Multi-Ethnic Peace-Keeping Force to keep order if such incidents occur in future;
Establishing, with urgency, a neutral Commission of Inquiry into any such incidents and charging the culprits responsible for murder.
Implementing the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Committee;
Ensuring that recruitment into the police and armed forces and career advancement are based on merit;
Enacting an Equality Act to promote equality and non-discrimination irrespective of race, creed, religion, gender or disability with provision for an Equality & Human Rights Commission;
Institutionalising equality and human rights education at all decision-making levels, including state and non-state actors/institutions;
Ratifying the Convention on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD).No platform for racists and fascists
Clearly, far right racial supremacists who rail about the dominance of their “race” would be reined in by an Equality and Human Rights Commission and dealt with under an Equality Act.
Any government that has credibility must implement a policy of “Zero Tolerance for Racists” and “No Platform for Fascists”.
Freedom of expression does not extend to the right to violence, incitement of racial or religious hatred. Indeed, it is the freedom of expression for the majority of humanity that fascists threaten.
Fascism must not be allowed to infect the democratic space built by our fore fathers. The publication of this book is another positive contribution to the peoples’ history, the struggle against racism and fascism in Malaysia and a further advancement of the ever growing civil society movement in this country.
The writer is the adviser for human rights organisation Suaram
Revisiting PI Bala’s statutory declarations
Here are the two statutory declarations affirmed by private eye Balasubramaniam on July 2008 on the murder of Mongolian Altantuya.
PETALING JAYA: Private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s first statutory declaration linked Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.
He retracted this in his second SD which came a day later.
FMT is reproducing the two statutory declarations for those who could have missed, or had forgotten, the contents of the two SDs which remain relevant even today.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: xxxxxx-xx-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at xxxxx, Selangor 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 8am to 5pm 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 am 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 :-
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 :-
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 drivers 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 pm to 8 am 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 am to 6 pm. 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 am 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 am, 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 :-
________________________________________________________________________________
I, Balasubramaniam Perumal, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981. I was subsequently promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 1998.
1. I currently work as a freelance private investigator.
2. I wish to refer to the statutory declaration I affirmed on July 1, 2008. I refer specifically to paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52, wherein I have stated inter-alia that:
And I make this solemn declaration voluntarily and conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960.
PETALING JAYA: Private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s first statutory declaration linked Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.He retracted this in his second SD which came a day later.
FMT is reproducing the two statutory declarations for those who could have missed, or had forgotten, the contents of the two SDs which remain relevant even today.
_______________________________________________________________________________
This is PI Bala's first SD affirmed on July 1, 2008 –
and made public on July 3, 2008 - which implicated Prime Minister Najib
Tun Razak in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.
1st STATUTORY DECLARATIONI, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: xxxxxx-xx-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at xxxxx, Selangor 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 8am to 5pm 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 am 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 :-
- He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.
- 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.
- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
- 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.
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 :-
- That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
- That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.
- That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris.
- That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
- That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
- That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
- 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.
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 drivers 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 pm to 8 am 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 am to 6 pm. 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 am 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 am, 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 :-
- State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
This is PI Bala's second SD in which he retracted the controversial contents of his first SD made public a day earlier.
2nd STATUTORY DECLARATIONI, Balasubramaniam Perumal, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981. I was subsequently promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 1998.
1. I currently work as a freelance private investigator.
2. I wish to refer to the statutory declaration I affirmed on July 1, 2008. I refer specifically to paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52, wherein I have stated inter-alia that:
- Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
- Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
- Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;
- Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
- Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;
- Altantuya Shaariibuu met Najib Razak in Singapore;
- Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;
- I told the police about the relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu but when it came to sign my statement this detail was left out;
- The prosecutor during the course of the trial in the High Court of Shah Alam did not ask me any questions in respect of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s purported relationship with Najib Razak or of a phone call I received from one DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC to Najib Razak and/or his wife;
- Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested but did not receive a response; and
- Najib Razak sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.
- At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
- At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu and the she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
- At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;
- At no material time did Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Najib Razak, together with Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
- At no material time did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;
- At no time whatsoever did Abdul Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Najib Razak met with Altantuya Shaariibuu in Singapore;
- At no time whatsoever did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;
- At no time did I tell the police during the course of their investigations about any relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu as no such relationship existed to my knowledge. Accordingly, the statement I signed before the police is complete;
- At no time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested; and
- At no time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak had sent him an SMS on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.
And I make this solemn declaration voluntarily and conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960.
Indian community must go for change
There is also no reason why Indians who have stayed here for decades, speak BM and had contributed to the economic growth are denied citizenship, says Chua Jui Meng.
COMMENT
By Chua Jui Meng
Pakatan Rakyat is fully committed to ensuring that it is a warrior for all Malaysians. When Pakatan is given the mandate by the people to govern Malaysia after the next general election, it will be a government for all the people, irrespective of race.
Our commitment was displayed at the National Registration Department (NRD) in Putrajaya on Dec 12 that was disrupted by MIC gangsters.
Pakatan’s Malay, Chinese and Indian leaders and MPs from PKR, PAS and DAP supported the 1,000-people protest by stateless Indians who were born in Malaysia or had stayed in the country for decades.
As usual, the NRD director-general Jariah Mohd Said only had technical excuses for the problem.
We told her in no uncertain terms that all born in Malaysia are automatic citizens by operation of law and they must be granted citizenship with blue identity cards.
There is also no reason why Indians who have stayed here for decades, speak Bahasa Malaysia and had contributed to the nation’s economic growth are denied citizenship.
Why are foreigners like Bangldeshis, Pakistanis and Moros (from the Philippines’ Mindanao) who cannot even speak Bahasa Malaysia are given instant citizenship?
We demanded that the NRD resolve the plight of the stateless Indians in Malaysia quickly because the situation is unacceptable.
There was a case of a stateless Indian in his 80s who was asked by a NRD clerk to pay RM100 for an identity card. What’s this about?
There was also a case of a Perakian who alleged that the MIC demanded RM1,000 to have his identity card changed back to blue.
He had renewed his identity card but it was changed from blue to red for reasons only best known to the NRD.
Pakatan de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has pledged that a Pakatan federal government would be administered with the principles of justice.
The Indian community must go for change in the next general election to ensure that their future is secure.
Only cronies make it big
After 55 years of the Umno-led Barisan Nasional (BN), where are we socially and economically?
Even the majority of rural and urban Malays are suffering and living in poverty with rising cost of living.
Only Umno and BN leaders, their families and cronies are rich or super rich.
Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s son, Mirzan bought controlling stakes in the world’s biggest beer brewer San Miguel of the Philippines and Petron, formerly Esso. How could Mirzan afford the purchases?
Another of Mahathir’s son, Mokhzani is the boss of Kencana Petrolium, another oil and gas industry player.
Mahathir, who is still influential in Petronas, is now trying to have his other son, Mukhriz, a deputy international trade and industry minister, installed as prime minister.
We and Malaysia will be sucked dry of our wealth if we do not stop Umno and its cronies.
Why is Singapore able to distribute annual cash payouts for its citizens but not Malaysia? That’s because Singapore does not privatise its projects while Malaysian projects are all privatised to benefit cronies.
The Indians can help change all these by giving Pakatan and Anwar the chance to implement all its people-centric policies to reform the government that truly serves all Malaysians and the country.
Chua Jui Meng is PKR vice-president and Johor state chief. He is also a former MCA vice-president and an ex-Cabinet member.
COMMENT
By Chua Jui MengPakatan Rakyat is fully committed to ensuring that it is a warrior for all Malaysians. When Pakatan is given the mandate by the people to govern Malaysia after the next general election, it will be a government for all the people, irrespective of race.
Our commitment was displayed at the National Registration Department (NRD) in Putrajaya on Dec 12 that was disrupted by MIC gangsters.
Pakatan’s Malay, Chinese and Indian leaders and MPs from PKR, PAS and DAP supported the 1,000-people protest by stateless Indians who were born in Malaysia or had stayed in the country for decades.
As usual, the NRD director-general Jariah Mohd Said only had technical excuses for the problem.
We told her in no uncertain terms that all born in Malaysia are automatic citizens by operation of law and they must be granted citizenship with blue identity cards.
There is also no reason why Indians who have stayed here for decades, speak Bahasa Malaysia and had contributed to the nation’s economic growth are denied citizenship.
Why are foreigners like Bangldeshis, Pakistanis and Moros (from the Philippines’ Mindanao) who cannot even speak Bahasa Malaysia are given instant citizenship?
We demanded that the NRD resolve the plight of the stateless Indians in Malaysia quickly because the situation is unacceptable.
There was a case of a stateless Indian in his 80s who was asked by a NRD clerk to pay RM100 for an identity card. What’s this about?
There was also a case of a Perakian who alleged that the MIC demanded RM1,000 to have his identity card changed back to blue.
He had renewed his identity card but it was changed from blue to red for reasons only best known to the NRD.
Pakatan de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has pledged that a Pakatan federal government would be administered with the principles of justice.
The Indian community must go for change in the next general election to ensure that their future is secure.
Only cronies make it big
After 55 years of the Umno-led Barisan Nasional (BN), where are we socially and economically?
Even the majority of rural and urban Malays are suffering and living in poverty with rising cost of living.
Only Umno and BN leaders, their families and cronies are rich or super rich.
Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s son, Mirzan bought controlling stakes in the world’s biggest beer brewer San Miguel of the Philippines and Petron, formerly Esso. How could Mirzan afford the purchases?
Another of Mahathir’s son, Mokhzani is the boss of Kencana Petrolium, another oil and gas industry player.
Mahathir, who is still influential in Petronas, is now trying to have his other son, Mukhriz, a deputy international trade and industry minister, installed as prime minister.
We and Malaysia will be sucked dry of our wealth if we do not stop Umno and its cronies.
Why is Singapore able to distribute annual cash payouts for its citizens but not Malaysia? That’s because Singapore does not privatise its projects while Malaysian projects are all privatised to benefit cronies.
The Indians can help change all these by giving Pakatan and Anwar the chance to implement all its people-centric policies to reform the government that truly serves all Malaysians and the country.
Chua Jui Meng is PKR vice-president and Johor state chief. He is also a former MCA vice-president and an ex-Cabinet member.
Family demands justice for death-in-custody victim
They said Krishnan Subramaniam was arrested in Kota Damansara on Nov 8 and on Nov 20, the magistrate's court in Petaling Jaya ordered that he be sent to the Hospital Bahagia mental hospital in Tanjung Rambutan, Perak, for observation.
However, Krishnan was found dead when he was sent to the hospital on Nov 22.
"The
post-mortem conducted on Krishnan confirms that he died of septicaemia,
meaning that his blood was badly infected," Subang MP Sivarasa Rasiah
said outside the federal police headquarters."How did that happen? It is because there was a wound on his wrist, caused by his handcuffs or possibly by other causes that were not treated.
"We know that if he was treated with antibiotics that are easily available, he would have recovered in a week," added Sivarasa, who was with Krishnan's family to hand over a memorandum calling on Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar to take action on the matter.
krishnan appeared ill when seen in court
He said Krishnan already appeared ill when his mother Suppamanah Munaindy saw him at the magistrate’s court.
Sivarasa demanded that Bukit Aman sets up a task force to look into the matter and punish those responsible. In addition, he said. those involved in investigating and guarding Krishnan must be suspended immediately.
This
needed to be done at the federal headquarters level because a police
station and the state police contingent headquarters were involved in
Krishnan’s death.In addition, Sivarasa claimed, no action was taken on the police report lodged by Krishnan’s older brother, Palanisamy Subramaniam, on the day of Krishnan’s death.
The memorandum was received by ASP Jahangir on behalf of the IGP.
Earlier, Suppamanah (left) and Palanisamy broke down in tears when recounting the circumstances of the death of the 34-year-old, who was supposedly detained on suspicion of drug abuse.
PKR legal bureau member Selvamalar Genapathy, who translated what the mother and brother spoke in Tamil, said the police had done urine tests on Krishnan three to four times and each test showed negative for drugs.
“On Nov 8, police again asked for a urine sample, so he undid his trousers. They got angry and beat him up on-the spot...
“Several witnesses said when Krishnan was taken to the Damansara police station, his clothes were blood-soaked,” Selvamalar said.
She also quoted Suppamanah as denying that Krisnan had no mental or criminal problems, and that he was a decent person.“My brother-in-law has never done any wrong,” added Krishnan’s sister-in-law Selvarani Alagappan (left).
“He loves my family a lot and does whatever I ask. Why did the police to this to him? Why are the police so cruel? Why did they kill my brother-in-law? Why?
“He has done good to other people, why did he get beaten like this? The police are cruel! Evil! They don’t appreciate other people’s lives, are they going to bring him back to life?” Selvarani shouted.
PKR Youth wants cops to probe Deepak's revelations
PKR Youth has lodged a police report calling for investigations into businessperson Deepak Jaikishan's allegations about Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor being involved in the second statutory declaration (SD) of P Balasubramaniam.
It
was filed at the Petaling Jaya police station at noon by its chief,
Shamsul Iskandar Md Akin, who based his report on a video interview with
Deepak by HarakahDaily and the allegations of Deepak as published by Keadilan Daily.Shamsul Iskandar wants the police to investigate Deepak's expose that Rosmah had sought his help in the second SD filed by Balasubramaniam, a private investigator then, as well as the claim that Najib was involved in the preparation of the second SD through a senior lawyer.
"Deepak has also claimed that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's (MACC) is more interested in closing the case after the exposure on the SD and this should also be investigated," he said.
Shamsul Iskandar listed five questions to be answered in the investigation:
- What are the interests of Najib and Rosmah in calling Deepak on the day Balasubramaniam made his first SD and in asking the businessman's assistance to help out with the second SD? What is the couple's involvement in the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu?
- Balasubramaniam said he and his family were threatened, causing him to issue the second SD. If this is true, what is the role played by Najib and his younger brother Nazim, along with Rosmah, in the threat? What do they intend to hide?
- Balasubramaniam also emphasised that his first SD is the correct one. If this is the truth, then Najib could not have been telling the truth when he swore that he had never met Altantuya.
- Who abetted with the two Special Action Unit police officers, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, in ordering and directing the murder of Altantuya?
- Is it true that the MACC has closed its investigation on Balasubramaniam, resulting in the truth yet to be unfolded?
Haris names lawyer
In a related developent, lawyer and human right activist Haris Ibrahim said he has told the Bar Council the name of the lawyer allegedly involved in preparing the second SD.
"Given
that by the terms of SD2, Balasubramaniam would be admitting to an
offence of swearing out a prior false statutory declaration, was it not
incumbent upon the solicitor(s) concerned in its preparation to have
taken instructions from Bala and to have warned him of the consequences
of affirming the statutory declaration that was being drawn up for his
affirmation?" he asked in his blog-post today.Haris (right) said his letter to the council was received and acknowledged at 1.45pm today.
However, he omitted the lawyer's name from his blog-post "for now".
Yesterday, the council had said that an independent investigation could be carried out if a formal complaint is lodged.
EC accuses Ambiga, Bersih of partisan agenda
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 19 — The Election Commission (EC) questioned today the ability of Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan to ensure all ‘citizen observers’ in her Bersih 2.0 electoral watchdog group obey the law and steer clear of fouling up the polls regulator’s work.EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar was reported by a Malay news portal as saying Bersih 2.0 was formed along partisan lines and that it was possible the group may have a certain agenda to protect its partisan interests.
He told Sinar Harian Online that while the prominent legal expert who is co-chairman of the electoral reforms group is seen to be familiar with the law, he asked: “But is she capable of taking care of members involved in the Jom Pantau PRU13?”
“Not all know the law, with the election closing in, this campaign launch may cause all sorts of problems to arise,” Wan Ahmad was reported as saying.
The grassroots movement that has been pressuring the government to clean up the election process had earlier this week announced it will be employing thousands more “citizen observers” as their eyes and ears to monitor the election process on polling day.
Wan Ahmad said the EC acknowledged the right of citizens to monitor the election process for any possible fraud that may arise, but said they must not disturb the work of the authorities and EC.
“We want to remind them so that Bersih 2.0 that launched this campaign will not disturb this election’s affairs,” he told the news portal.
Bersih 2.0 has already launched its “Jom Pantau” and “Jom 100” but Ambiga Sreenevasan said on Monday that these campaigns would be expanded next month to keep up the pressure on the authorities.
The lawyer-activist insisted that the polls would not be as clean as Bersih 2.0 wants and the best way to keep the authorities in check is by increasing voter turnout and employing citizens to watch out for any hanky-panky on polling day.
Ambiga said Bersih 2.0’s latest plans were born out of frustration that despite its push over the past few years, the government and the EC’s polls reform efforts have been unsatisfactory.
She rapped the EC for purportedly being “insincere”, pointing out that the agency had only recently decided to set up a special unit to clean up the electoral roll.
Ambiga also complained that the EC had failed to fulfil other key demands of Bersih 2.0, including an undertaking that all contesting parties would be given free and fair access media, international observers would be allowed on polling day and a firm commitment is made to put an end to all forms of political violence before or during campaigning.
Bersih 2.0, a coalition of more than 82 non-governmental organisations, had held its second rally for free and fair elections since 2007 on July 9 last year, earning international recognition when scenes of chaos and violence were plastered across the foreign media.
Screw you, Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim
“As
a Muslim I am sad… it is clearly stated in the Quran that this sort of
brutality is a crime and should not go unpunished. I trust the
inspector-general of police [Ismail Omar] when he said the police are
not racists. It has already been three weeks since the incident; more
delays will only complicate the issue,” National Indian Action Team
chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim said.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
You can read the full news item from Free Malaysia Today below. I just want to talk about this part:
National
Indian Action Team chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim, who accompanied
the family, said he sympathised with the family’s loss. “As a Muslim I
am sad… it is clearly stated in the Quran that this sort of brutality is
a crime and should not go unpunished. I trust the inspector-general of
police [Ismail Omar] when he said the police are not racists. It has
already been three weeks since the incident; more delays will only
complicate the issue,” he said.
Why
must these idiots always say ‘according to Islam’, or ‘according to the
Qur’an’, or ‘as a Muslim’, and so on? Is Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim
trying to say that murder is only a sin in Islam but for all the other
religions murder is allowed? Is murder wrong only according to the
Qura’n whereas all the other ‘holy books’ condone murder?
Muslims
just love to say something and then equate it to their faith or
religious teachings. They try to impress us as to how noble and sincere
Islam is -- meaning that since they are followers of Islam then this
would also mean that they too are noble and sincere.
People
can see what type of religion Islam is. You do not need to try to
impress people by foaming at the mouth telling us what Islam allows and
forbids. People will not judge you by the foam spitting out of your
mouth. People will judge you by your actions.
If
you keep reminding people that you do this good thing or that good
thing because you are a Muslim and that this is what Islam or the Qur’an
tells you to do, then when you do something bad people will also be
reminded that you are a Muslim.
Why
not Muslims stop telling us that they are Muslims? Stop telling us that
we must do this or must do that because this is what Islam or the
Qur’an tells us we must do. Stop boasting about Islam and about how good
the teachings of Islam are and hence since I am a Muslim that means I
am a good person.
If you stop doing all that then maybe when Muslims do bad things people will stop blaming Islam for it.
Murder
is wrong. You do not need a holy book like the Qur’an or a religion
like Islam to teach us that it is wrong. Can’t you just as a human being
oppose murder? Why must you oppose murder because you are a Muslim? So
why bring Islam into this? If you bring Islam into everything then
corrupted people will be identified as corrupted Muslims.
But
when that happens you do not like it. You do not like Islam being
associated with bad deeds. It is the person and not Islam that is at
fault, you will say. But then who is the one associating everything with
Islam if not the Muslims themselves?
**************************************************
‘Police killed my brother’(FMT) - The family of a man who died in custody wants to know why the police did not investigate the cause of his death some three weeks ago.
Sixty-year-old M Supamma broke down in tears in front of the Bukit Aman police headquarters today, demanding an explanation over her son’s sudden death while in police custody on Nov 22.
“They did not let me see him. When I saw him in court, he could barely speak. He could only raise his hand to wave at me. I asked them [the police], why isn’t my son talking to me?” she said.
She said a police officer, on duty to watch over her son in court, told her that S Krishnan had a head injury and was weak.
“I fainted after seeing my son like that,” a sobbing Supamma told reporters. She was at Bukit Aman to hand over a memorandum asking the police to set up a task force to investigate her son’s death in custody.
Supamma is a mother of three and Krishnan was her youngest. Suppama said she was devastated and was unable to accept that her son had died.
Krishnan, 34, worked at a sanitary company at Taman Tun Dr Ismail with his brother Palanisamy, 39.
Palanisamy said his brother was first arrested on Nov 8 in front of Block A PPRT Section 8, Kota Damansara. He was on his way back from work when he was asked to perform a urine test for suspected drug use.
“He tried to loosen his pants following orders from plainclothes policemen, but accidentally dropped his pants. He was assaulted and beaten up by the policeman for this.
“According to witnesses, his shirt was drenched in blood as a result of the beating,” he added.
Palanisamy claimed the policemen gave him a different shirt before he was brought to the police station. He was then remanded at the Shah Alam police station.
On Nov 20, Krishnan was produced at the Petaling Jaya magistrate’s court where he was ordered to be sent to Hospital Bahagia in Tanjung Rambutan, Perak, for observation.
However, Krishnan was only sent to the hospital on Nov 22, lifeless.
‘Can you give me my brother back?‘
According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was septicemia. Septicemia is bacteria in the blood caused by infections; in Krishnan’s case, it was caused by open wounds to both his wrists.
“In the last few months, Krishnan was regularly tested for drugs. At least three to four times each month, but all of the tests proved negative. Also, he has had no previous records of drug abuse,” said Palanisamy.
He said a police report on Krishnan’s death was lodged by the family on Nov 22, urging the authorities to investigate the cause of his brother’s death.
At this point, Palanisamy started crying hysterically screaming: “The police have killed my brother. Can you give me my brother back? Who is going to take care of my mother now?”
National Indian Action Team chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim, who accompanied the family, said he sympathised with the family’s loss.
“As a Muslim I am sad… it is clearly stated in the Quran that this sort of brutality is a crime and should not go unpunished. I trust the inspector-general of police [Ismail Omar] when he said the police are not racists. It has already been three weeks since the incident; more delays will only complicate the issue,” he said.
Krishnan’s family lawyer, G Sivamalar, said the police can only use reasonable force if the suspect resists arrest.
“But in this case witnesses say Krishnan did not resist arrest but was beaten up when he accidentally dropped his pants during the urine test. This is not fair and just,” she added.
Supamma handed over the memorandum to ACP Jahangir who represented the police force at the gates of the police headquarters. Also present with the family today was PKR leader R Sivarasa.
Perkasa Chief Insults The Malays
TO say that Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali (left)
has little between his ears because of his recent pronouncements is to
say something too obvious. And yet one might be tempted to do it to
dispel the misinformation he seems to be spreading.
What’s
more inexcusable is his statement that the Chinese will become a
national security threat if they acquire more political and economic
power. It could lead, he warned, to another bloody racial conflict like
the May 13 riots. This, I have to say, insults not only the Chinese but
the Malays as well.
But
there’s surely more to Ibrahim’s antic than what’s on the surface. He
has not been in politics this long to appear so simple-minded. His
agenda was to strike terror into the hearts of voters. He was employing
the scare tactics that Prime Minister Najib Razak and Barisan Nasional
(BN) have been resorting to of late as the general election draws near.
Coincidentally, at the Umno general assembly last month, Wanita Umno
President Shahrizat Abdul Jalil (right) also irresponsibly raised the bogey of May 13.
Ironically, such scare tactics betray a lack of self-confidence on the part of Najib and BN. Ibrahim must have caught on to it and sensed that BN may even lose the elections for the first time. But this does not exonerate him from saying things that are insulting, that could engender hatred. Based neither on fact nor reasoned argument.
After all, the industries that are considered haram to Muslims make up only a small percentage of the total economy. Why is he making a mountain of such a molehill?
He
uses the inability of the Malays to make money from these business
sectors as a reason for the Government to continue with affirmative
action for them. Is that a sound argument?
Malays don’t need to rely on these sectors to succeed. Ibrahim only needs to look at Syed Mokhtar al-Bukhary’s (left) business empire to see how a Muslim can prosper bountifully without touching any of the haram industries. That would be enough to debunk his theory that the Muslims are economically disadvantaged.
More important, when Ibrahim talks about the economic situation of the Malays, why must he invariably compare it to that of the non-Malays? In order to draw the sinister conclusion that the latter are a threat?
That the Chinese are being insulted is obvious. I very much doubt the community has any intentions whatsoever of being a threat to anyone, especially their fellow citizens, so it’s not fair to consider them as such. If of late, they have been more vocal in agitating for their rights as Malaysians and calling for better governance for the good of the country, should that be considered threatening?
The aftermath of the May 13 riots in 1969. Pix: sribuana.blogspot.comBut what about the Malays? Why do I say that Ibrahim’s talk about another May 13 is insulting to the Malays as well?
Because he is implying that they will be envious of Chinese success. He is implying meanness in the hearts of Malays. He is implying that they cannot stand it when others achieve success and, as such, they will clash with them. He is insulting all self-respecting and peace-loving Malays.
May 13 did not happen because ordinary, responsible and peace-loving Malays decided to clash with non-Malays. It was orchestrated, as we now know. People in the ruling party whipped up sentiments to amok point, so to speak. It was politically engineered, to bring down Tunku Abdul Rahman, the then prime minister.
In a sense, the Chinese were made scapegoats by the plotters, who capitalized on the theme of racial conflict to cover up their own ulterior ambitions.
Such
riots don’t happen in Malaysia – at least not on such a major scale –
without their being initiated by political beings. And a riot will be
all the more powerful if the political beings engineering it also happen
to be in power. If May 13 is going to happen again, it will have to be
engineered by the people in power. Ordinary Malaysians will not fight
without cause. We can be sure of that.
Ibrahim completely negates the decency and sense of responsibility of the Malay people.
He also disregards the prospect that the Malays themselves have the ability to succeed.
Why does he clamor for continued affirmative action? Is it not to perpetuate a cause that will serve his political enhancement? Is it not to pander to a market that will buy his rhetoric and vote him in again?
But is it a cause still relevant? Is it viable in today’s globalized world of which Malaysia is an integral part?
Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad – who is, incidentally, Patron of Perkasa – should be well aware of the answer even if he often says the opposite of what he knows. Recently, however, he said that affirmative action for the Malays would have to be phased out in the future. And he seemed to momentarily make sense… until he qualified it by adding, “but only when we are certain that the Malays can compete in the market” without “the crutches”.
With his selective memory these days, he has obviously forgotten he said something contrary to that in his interview with The Star
in October 2004: “We have tried to tell them if you depend on
subsidies, you are going to be very weak. But they don’t seem to
understand. We tell them if you use crutches, you will not be able to
stand up. Throw away the crutches, stand up straight because you still
have the capacity.”
Unfortunately, Mahathir (right) has reverted to being a great advocate of crutches. But the question is, how do “we” decide when the Malays will be ready to throw them away? What are the concrete criteria? When it is as arbitrary and unscientific as “when they are ready”, the issue can be unresolved indefinitely.
At least, the New Economic Policy (NEP) had a quantified target – that of the Malays achieving 30 percent share of the economy by 1990. But that year has come and gone and the affirmative action still continues. It has, in fact, now stretched to more than 40 years of implementation. Why are the Malays still not ready?
Perhaps they already are. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of switching mindsets to accept that one is ready for something. Moreover, some Malays will say, as Mahathir has pointed out, that they don’t need crutches. The proof of this is that millionaire Malays are buying multi-million ringgit houses (but they are still getting the 7 percent discount – do millionaires deserve affirmative action?).
In any case, if we accept that the Malays are not ready, then who is to blame?
Who was responsible for getting the Malays ready? Isn’t it the Government? And who has formed the bulk of the Government all these decades? Isn’t it Umno?
So why has the Government, headed by Umno, the party for the Malays, not succeeded in getting the Malays ready after all these decades?
Doesn’t it mean that Umno has failed?
Pix: The Malaysian InsiderIf
Mahathir and his sidekicks, like Ibrahim Ali, still clamor for
crutches, Umno must have failed. To all intents and purposes then, the
party that claims to serve the interests of the race it represents has
failed its own race.
So Ibrahim has no cause to deflect the issue onto the non-Malays, just as no one should make the Chinese scapegoats for May 13.
Mahathir is one to talk. It was under his watch that the NEP got extended when it should have expired. He would never acknowledge it but in 1990, he must have realized that, as the supreme leader of Umno then, he had failed to meet the target.
So what he says now is nothing but political posturing. It’s the same with Ibrahim. He, too, knows why he says the dumb things he says, because he can’t really be that dumb.
And because all this talk – by both men – is to serve a political cause rather than the people and the nation, their action is all the more insidious. And should be taken with huge doses of skepticism.
They may not know it but they have lost a lot of maruah (dignity) for pursuing this course.
Maruah being an important element of Malay culture, reasonable and self-respecting Malays would surely not want to lose it themselves.
But
there’s surely more to Ibrahim’s antic than what’s on the surface. He
has not been in politics this long to appear so simple-minded. His
agenda was to strike terror into the hearts of voters. He was employing
the scare tactics that Prime Minister Najib Razak and Barisan Nasional
(BN) have been resorting to of late as the general election draws near.
Coincidentally, at the Umno general assembly last month, Wanita Umno
President Shahrizat Abdul Jalil (right) also irresponsibly raised the bogey of May 13. Ironically, such scare tactics betray a lack of self-confidence on the part of Najib and BN. Ibrahim must have caught on to it and sensed that BN may even lose the elections for the first time. But this does not exonerate him from saying things that are insulting, that could engender hatred. Based neither on fact nor reasoned argument.
After all, the industries that are considered haram to Muslims make up only a small percentage of the total economy. Why is he making a mountain of such a molehill?
He
uses the inability of the Malays to make money from these business
sectors as a reason for the Government to continue with affirmative
action for them. Is that a sound argument?Malays don’t need to rely on these sectors to succeed. Ibrahim only needs to look at Syed Mokhtar al-Bukhary’s (left) business empire to see how a Muslim can prosper bountifully without touching any of the haram industries. That would be enough to debunk his theory that the Muslims are economically disadvantaged.
More important, when Ibrahim talks about the economic situation of the Malays, why must he invariably compare it to that of the non-Malays? In order to draw the sinister conclusion that the latter are a threat?
That the Chinese are being insulted is obvious. I very much doubt the community has any intentions whatsoever of being a threat to anyone, especially their fellow citizens, so it’s not fair to consider them as such. If of late, they have been more vocal in agitating for their rights as Malaysians and calling for better governance for the good of the country, should that be considered threatening?
The aftermath of the May 13 riots in 1969. Pix: sribuana.blogspot.comBut what about the Malays? Why do I say that Ibrahim’s talk about another May 13 is insulting to the Malays as well?Because he is implying that they will be envious of Chinese success. He is implying meanness in the hearts of Malays. He is implying that they cannot stand it when others achieve success and, as such, they will clash with them. He is insulting all self-respecting and peace-loving Malays.
May 13 did not happen because ordinary, responsible and peace-loving Malays decided to clash with non-Malays. It was orchestrated, as we now know. People in the ruling party whipped up sentiments to amok point, so to speak. It was politically engineered, to bring down Tunku Abdul Rahman, the then prime minister.
In a sense, the Chinese were made scapegoats by the plotters, who capitalized on the theme of racial conflict to cover up their own ulterior ambitions.
Such
riots don’t happen in Malaysia – at least not on such a major scale –
without their being initiated by political beings. And a riot will be
all the more powerful if the political beings engineering it also happen
to be in power. If May 13 is going to happen again, it will have to be
engineered by the people in power. Ordinary Malaysians will not fight
without cause. We can be sure of that. Ibrahim completely negates the decency and sense of responsibility of the Malay people.
He also disregards the prospect that the Malays themselves have the ability to succeed.
Why does he clamor for continued affirmative action? Is it not to perpetuate a cause that will serve his political enhancement? Is it not to pander to a market that will buy his rhetoric and vote him in again?
But is it a cause still relevant? Is it viable in today’s globalized world of which Malaysia is an integral part?
Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad – who is, incidentally, Patron of Perkasa – should be well aware of the answer even if he often says the opposite of what he knows. Recently, however, he said that affirmative action for the Malays would have to be phased out in the future. And he seemed to momentarily make sense… until he qualified it by adding, “but only when we are certain that the Malays can compete in the market” without “the crutches”.
With his selective memory these days, he has obviously forgotten he said something contrary to that in his interview with The Star
in October 2004: “We have tried to tell them if you depend on
subsidies, you are going to be very weak. But they don’t seem to
understand. We tell them if you use crutches, you will not be able to
stand up. Throw away the crutches, stand up straight because you still
have the capacity.”Unfortunately, Mahathir (right) has reverted to being a great advocate of crutches. But the question is, how do “we” decide when the Malays will be ready to throw them away? What are the concrete criteria? When it is as arbitrary and unscientific as “when they are ready”, the issue can be unresolved indefinitely.
At least, the New Economic Policy (NEP) had a quantified target – that of the Malays achieving 30 percent share of the economy by 1990. But that year has come and gone and the affirmative action still continues. It has, in fact, now stretched to more than 40 years of implementation. Why are the Malays still not ready?
Perhaps they already are. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of switching mindsets to accept that one is ready for something. Moreover, some Malays will say, as Mahathir has pointed out, that they don’t need crutches. The proof of this is that millionaire Malays are buying multi-million ringgit houses (but they are still getting the 7 percent discount – do millionaires deserve affirmative action?).
In any case, if we accept that the Malays are not ready, then who is to blame?
Who was responsible for getting the Malays ready? Isn’t it the Government? And who has formed the bulk of the Government all these decades? Isn’t it Umno?
So why has the Government, headed by Umno, the party for the Malays, not succeeded in getting the Malays ready after all these decades?
Doesn’t it mean that Umno has failed?
Pix: The Malaysian InsiderIf
Mahathir and his sidekicks, like Ibrahim Ali, still clamor for
crutches, Umno must have failed. To all intents and purposes then, the
party that claims to serve the interests of the race it represents has
failed its own race.So Ibrahim has no cause to deflect the issue onto the non-Malays, just as no one should make the Chinese scapegoats for May 13.
Mahathir is one to talk. It was under his watch that the NEP got extended when it should have expired. He would never acknowledge it but in 1990, he must have realized that, as the supreme leader of Umno then, he had failed to meet the target.
So what he says now is nothing but political posturing. It’s the same with Ibrahim. He, too, knows why he says the dumb things he says, because he can’t really be that dumb.
And because all this talk – by both men – is to serve a political cause rather than the people and the nation, their action is all the more insidious. And should be taken with huge doses of skepticism.
They may not know it but they have lost a lot of maruah (dignity) for pursuing this course.
Maruah being an important element of Malay culture, reasonable and self-respecting Malays would surely not want to lose it themselves.
*Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, available in bookstores together with its Malay translation, Jangan Kelentong Lagi, Kita Semua Orang Malaysia. The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer.
Najib Arrives In Delhi For Asean-India Commemorative Summit
By M. Saraswathi
NEW DELHI, Dec 20 (Bernama) -- Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak arrived here Wednesday night to attend the two-day Asean-India Commemorative Summit which starts Thursday.
The plane carrying Najib and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor landed at Palam Air Force Station at 10.05 pm (12.35 am on Thursday in Malaysia).
The Malaysian leader was received by E.Ahamed, India's Minister of State for External Affairs and Human Resource Development, and Malaysian High Commissioner Datuk Tan Seng Sung.
Najib will be joined at the summit by Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, International Trade and Industry Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri G.Palanivel, Special Envoy to India and South Asia for Infrastructure Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, as well as senior officials for the relevant ministries.
On the sidelines of the Delhi gathering themed 'Asean-India Partnership for Peace and Shared Prosperity', Najib is scheduled to have a bilateral meeting with his Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh.
NEW DELHI, Dec 20 (Bernama) -- Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak arrived here Wednesday night to attend the two-day Asean-India Commemorative Summit which starts Thursday.
The plane carrying Najib and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor landed at Palam Air Force Station at 10.05 pm (12.35 am on Thursday in Malaysia).
The Malaysian leader was received by E.Ahamed, India's Minister of State for External Affairs and Human Resource Development, and Malaysian High Commissioner Datuk Tan Seng Sung.
Najib will be joined at the summit by Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, International Trade and Industry Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri G.Palanivel, Special Envoy to India and South Asia for Infrastructure Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, as well as senior officials for the relevant ministries.
On the sidelines of the Delhi gathering themed 'Asean-India Partnership for Peace and Shared Prosperity', Najib is scheduled to have a bilateral meeting with his Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)