Is this the entire story?

Okay, at this point we may be wondering why three women and four men? Why not three women and three men, or four women and four men? Did one woman escape the raid and that is why there are only three women and four men? Or was one woman having a threesome with two men?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

By now you have probably read the official finding of Suhakam. (You can read below the full Bernama report about Suhakam visiting my son in prison and what the visit uncovered). And, of course, we can accept what Suhakam and Bernama say. Although both are government bodies, we can certainly accept their word without all sorts of suspicions.

Just to digress a bit, I remember when I was under ISA detention in 2001 and Suhakam visited me at the request of my family. A day before the Suhakam visit I was told about it. I was then coached on what to tell Suhakam. If I cooperated then I would be rewarded. My wife and children would be allowed to visit me. If I do not, then there would be no family visits.

Suhakam wanted to meet me alone but the police did not agree. They insisted that the Special Branch officers must be present during the meeting. And they recorded everything I told Suhakam.

So I cooperated and gave Suhakam a glowing report. They went home extremely pleased and announced that I am being very well treated and am even being given Kentucky to eat. I got to see my wife and children soon after that.

Now back to the story about Suhakam visiting my son. "He scolded an officer. So, he had broken the law. Normally, when you do that, you will be placed in a separate room or block until the investigation is completed," said Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam.

Now, since Suhakam did not offer any details about the ‘incident’, maybe I can help do that.

They gave my son some Maggi Mee and my son asked for some hot water. The prison guard asked why he wanted hot water and my son replied to eat his Maggi Mee of course. For answering back, the guard slapped my son and put him in solitary confinement.

My stupid son thought that the guard asked the question because he required a reply. He did not realise that it was a rhetorical question and not a question that required a reply. And because he answered back he had ‘broken the law’ and was subsequently punished.

Okay, the next ‘crime’ my son is supposed to have committed is as follows.

The guards raided the cell, which had about 30 prisoners, and they found a mobile phone in the cell. The guards then said my son must be the owner of that mobile phone and they assaulted him because he denied that he was the owner of the mobile phone.

So those are matters concerning the prison guards, the details which Suhakam did not explain in that Bernama report. Now let’s talk about the police.

Further to these incidences, the police visited my son in prison and asked him to withdraw his not guilty plea and instead plead guilty to the charges he is facing. He refused, so they beat him up.

They then made a second visit and again asked him to withdraw his not guilty plea. He again refused and they made their move to again beat him up. And that was when my son went berserk. So they put him under psychiatric observation and then put him in solitary confinement.

So Suhakam did not lie. They just did not give us the whole story. And that is quite normal when it comes to the Malaysian government.

For example, there is currently a lot of brouhaha about the three women and four men who were sentenced to canning for indulging in illicit sex. Yes, it is not just three women as how the newspapers are reporting. It is three women and four men who were canned.

Okay, at this point we may be wondering why three women and four men? Why not three women and three men, or four women and four men? Did one woman escape the raid and that is why there are only three women and four men? Or was one woman having a threesome with two men?

Hmm…now it is beginning to get very interesting. Threesome….hmm…….

Can you see how we are given the story but not the entire story? Most of us would be following the case more closely if they had explained why it was three women and four men, especially if the explanation had been what I think it is.

This is the problem with the Malaysian newspapers. They swallow hook, line and sinker what the government says and they are not able to ‘fill in the gaps’.

Let us look at another sex related issue. Dr Munawar and Anwar Ibrahim’s adopted brother, Sukma, were arrested, charged, put on trial, and found guilty of allowing Anwar to sodomise them. Yes, that’s right, both were accused of the crime of allowing Anwar to sodomise them and they were sent to jail.

But it was not rape. It was consensual sex. They are alleged to have consented to allowing Anwar to bugger them. That was why they were jailed. In that case, why was Anwar not also charged? Why were the screwee sent to jail while the screwer escaped punishment?

This was never explained and the newspapers, as usual, did not ask.

Then Anwar was charged for sodomising his wife’s driver, Azizan, allegedly many times over a certain period of time. Again, it was not rape but consensual sex. But this time the screwer was sent to jail while the screwee was spared -- the other way around. Why? They said it was sex between two consenting adults. Then why was one party punished while the other escaped punishment?

In the Dr Munawar and Sukma case, the receiver goes to jail but the giver is spared. In Azizan’s case, the giver goes to jail while the receiver is spared. So confusing and no explanation offered. And the newspapers don't bother to ask.

Now we are seeing the Saiful case being argued in court and he claims that Anwar had sex with him maybe a dozen or so times over a certain period of time. So, again, this is not rape. This is sex with consent. But only Anwar is facing trial. Why is Saiful not also facing trial?

Yes, questions and yet more questions. But no answers are forthcoming. And that is also the same in my son’s case. They tell us part of the story but the story is full of gaps. And they do not fill in those gaps. And that is the modus operandi of the Malaysian government.

In the past they could do this and get away with it. Nowadays it is not so easy. And that was why they arranged that seminar in Washington yesterday. But, as usual, it fell flat. They thought they could pull the wool over the eyes of the Americans like they do with Malaysians. But they could not and the mission failed miserably.

But I will talk more about this Washington fiasco in another column.

*************************************************

Raja Azman Inflicted Injuries On Himself - Suhakam

(Bernama) -- Raja Azman, the son of fugitive blogger Raja Petra Raja Kamaruddin, inflicted injuries on himself at the Sungai Buloh prison but not in an attempt to commit suicide, according to the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam).

Suhakam commissioner Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam said today Raja Azman, 34, told him that he slashed his left arm and swallowed razor blades after learning that he would be placed in a separate block for violating prison rules.

"When I asked him why he had injured himself, he replied that he was not happy to be isolated at the Tawakal Block for an investigation. He was not tortured. No one inflicted any injuries on him, neither the prison wardens nor officers," he told reporters after having met with Raja Azman at the Sungai Buloh prison, near here.

Raja Azman is now at the prison ward. He has been remanded at the prison since May 19 last year pending his trial on four charges of housebreaking and theft. He had failed to post bail.

The Prisons Department lodged a report at the Batu Arang police station on Feb 8, the very day that Raja Azman was found injured.

Siva Subramaniam said he was informed by the prison authorities that they wanted to place Raja Azman in a separate block because he had violated prison rules.

"He scolded an officer. So, he had broken the law. Normally, when you do that, you will be placed in a separate room or block until the investigation is completed," he said.

Siva Subramaniam said the infliction of injuries was neither an attempt to commit suicide nor was it torture by anyone else.

Raja Azman was not mentally disturbed and was not physically abused, he said, adding that he had acted in a moment of anger.

He also said that the slash wound on his arm did not require any stitches but he was taken straightaway nevertheless to Sungai Buloh Hospital for a medical examination.

"He passed out two small razor blades on his own. He did not suffer any internal injury. He is now at the prison ward and will return to his block in a few days," he said.

Siva Subramaniam said Suhakam was generally satisfied with the handling of inmates at the prison.

He said he was also briefed by the prison director, Navander Singh, during the two-hour visit.

Nazri's talk was so boring even JJ read the newspaper

Nazri then started his formal speech and spoke for 30 minutes. It was a very academic and therefore a very boring speech. There was no real substance to it and the audience quickly grew bored. Even JJ got so bored as he sat next to Nazri on the podium.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

By Raja Petra Kamarudin in Washington

It was a strange scene at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington on Wednesday morning. When the seminar on Governance & Rule of Law in Malaysia began, only one of the speakers came into the room, Nazri Abdul Aziz.

Attorney-General Gani Patail and former Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamed were somehow nowhere to be seen.

And in good Malaysian fashion, the seminar started 10 minutes late.

The seminar's chairman, Ernest Bower, looked tired and nervous, saying that he had received a number of e-mails expressing concern that the seminar would not be balanced. He said that he wants a dialogue on important issues. Therefore he also has invited the opposition to speak at CSIS. He hopes they will accept.

Ernest Bower then shocked the audience of about 40 people by saying that the session was 'off the record'. The flyer announcing the seminar never said it was an off the record session.

It doesn't matter though. The session was so boring there is very little to report anyway.

Malaysian Ambassador to the US, Jamaluddin Jarjis a.k.a. JJ, spoke for two minutes. He just said that he is working very hard to improve relations with the US (whenever he happens to be in town, that is). He made no mention, though, whether the new US$150,000 Porsche he just bought is paid for by the Malaysian taxpayers or by him personally.

Nazri said that it was just a coincidence that he, Gani and Abdul Hamid happen to be in Washington at the same time. (Sure. If you believe that then I have half a bridge to Singapore to sell you.) He said he didn't know where the two missing persons were.

He then introduced the "four members of my delegation," all MPs. (Talk about wasting the taxpayers’ money!) Two of them were PKR turncoats, including the infamous Zahrin Mohamed Hashim.

In a tribute to Malaysia Today, Nazri held up an Internet printout and referred to Martin Jalleh's article, Malaysian Circus goes to Washington. He claimed that he had been planning the trip to Washington for nine months because he and the PM believe it is important to strengthen ties with the US.

Nazri then started his formal speech and spoke for 30 minutes. It was a very academic and therefore a very boring speech. There was no real substance to it and the audience quickly grew bored. Even JJ got so bored as he sat next to Nazri on the podium.

But what shocked the audience was to watch JJ's antics at such an "important meeting" at such a "prestigious think tank."

The whole while Nazri was speaking, JJ was sending and receiving messages on his Blackberry and mobile phone. He never turned off the ringer. When he tapped out a message, one could hear the "click, click, click" of the keys. He even called his aide up to the podium twice to have conversations. He also got up and left the room and then came back.

And here is a first for Washington.

Then, as Nazri was still speaking, JJ picked up the Washington Post and started to read it -- not once, but twice.

Nazri went on and on, quoting Malaysia's many laws banning corruption. But of course he never said that they apply only to the opposition and not to UMNO politicians or taxi permit holders (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Finally, he stopped speaking and said he would welcome tough questions. He got one right from the start from Kumar, the head of Amnesty International's Washington DC office.

Kumar said Nazri and JJ had both just said that they want to improve relations with the United States. But that will never happen as long as people in Washington have concerns about Malaysia's harassment of the opposition and Anwar's trial.

Referring to the Malaysia Today article, Kumar said if there's a Malaysian circus, it's Anwar's trial.

Nazri replied, "Anwar is a friend of mine." (With friends like Nazri, who needs enemies?). Nazri said he underwent his legal training in the UK and claimed that if he ever sensed that the Prime Minister was interfering in the case and there is political interference in Malaysia's independent judiciary, he would tender his resignation.

He added, "When we heard about Saiful's charges against Anwar, I thought it was unfortunate. For the sake of the country, we don't want the nation to endure a trial like this again. But Saiful is entitled to justice. Why talk about rule of law if you ignore his report? He had a right to report to the police. In any event, Anwar's acquittal before shows that our judiciary is independent, and we did not appeal that decision. That shows we are interested only in justice, not political persecution."

Nazri went on. "We do not have an agenda against Anwar. Why would we want to use the same old charge of sodomy, again? If you don't believe me, there is nothing I can do."

JJ clapped.

JJ was the only one who clapped.

Murray Hiebert then stood up to introduce himself as the former Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent in Malaysia (but politely declined to mention his experience with ‘good governance’ and ‘the rule of law’ in Malaysia when he was the guest of a Malaysian prison).

Murray asked about the Allah issue. Nazri turned to the Malaysiakini reporter in the room and told him, “Don't you dare report what I am going to say.”

Nazri looked alive and gave a 20-minute history and language lesson, repeating the usual government line. As Nazri finished his long-winded answer, JJ leaned over to whisper to Ernest Bower, who suddenly jumped up and brought the seminar to a halt. It was still only 11:30am and the seminar was supposed to continue until noon.

JJ probably thought an early halt would be wise before they put their foot deeper into the mouth. Or maybe he was really getting bored and just couldn't take it anymore. Or maybe he was hungry.

So JJ led Nazri out of the room and the audience followed.

So much for the so-called ‘dialogue’.

Malaysia threatens action over paper's caning comments

(MSN News) - Malaysia's home ministry said Thursday it had threatened to penalise one of the country's top-selling dailies over an article which was critical of the recent caning of three Muslim women.

Read: Press self-censorship in Malaysia: a case study

"We have issued a show-cause letter to the Star newspaper as what was said in the article can threaten public order," home ministry deputy secretary general Fuad Abdul Aziz told AFP.

"They have 14 days to explain to us why we shouldn't suspend them as there have been at least three police reports filed by groups and people and the article can be viewed as an insult to Islam and Islamic law," he added.

Fuad said the article titled "Persuasion, not compulsion", by the English-language daily's managing editor P. Gunasegaram, questioning whether the sentence of caning was appropriate, had upset Muslims.

"The Star's editor came to see us earlier this week and they published an apology in their paper on February 24 but we are seeking a fuller explanation and action to resolve this."

He said that following the paper's formal response, the ministry would have to decide whether to issue it with a warning, suspend it or revoke its publishing licence but said it was likely to be given a warning.

"The Star is an influential and established English-language paper so we want to make sure it continues reporting in a responsible manner," he added.

Editors at the Star could not be reached for comment.

The Centre for Independent Journalism urged the home ministry to retract its letter and said the media's role to provide opinions on current issues "must be respected".

"A common response is to invoke the use of repressive laws, a threat used not only by the authorities but increasingly, by non-governmental organisations," it said in a statement.

"This worrying trend has the effect of silencing dissenting views and putting a stop to intellectual engagement."

The caning earlier this month of three Muslim women for having illicit sex, the first time the penalty has been carried out on women under Islamic law in Malaysia, has drawn outrage from rights activists.

The case has fuelled concerns over rising "Islamisation" in Malaysia, where religious courts have been clamping down on rarely enforced religious laws that ban alcohol and sex out of wedlock for Muslim Malays.

Malaysia in caning women debate - Al Jazeera

Photo by Reuters/New Straits Times Press

Malaysia tries to handle fallout and score political points from news that it caned three women for sex outside of wedlock.

Malaysia wants to organise an international conference to "discuss" the caning of women.

It will be international only in a limited sense, since only other Muslim nations will be invited, and the agenda is extremely vague. Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil says only

'The ministry hopes ... we can make a comparative study on whether the sentence is normally practised among Muslim countries.

Since that information can easily be compiled with a few phone calls, and the subject of the conference as proposed does not, at first glance, hold much promise of enlightened or even interesting discussion, you have to wonder: what's going on here?

Well, in true Malaysian style, it's looking increasingly like a hasty and ham-fisted effort to manage the fallout - and gain political leverage - from the news that this month, for the first time in Malaysian history, three women were subjected to caning by authorities.

The women (along with four men, but there was no information provided about the apparent mismatch in numbers) were accused of having sex outside of wedlock, and sentenced by Malaysia's autonomous sharia court.

The home minister said:

The sentence is to educate and make the offenders realise their mistakes and to return to the right path".

The story highlights once again the rift between Malaysia's conservative Muslims - increasingly supported by the government - and the more liberal elements within both its Muslim and non-Muslim population.

In protesting the decision, some have asked why the sentence was imposed and carried out in secret and not announced until a week after the act, and wonder what it implies about the government's intentions towards Malaysia's secular constitution, which forbids caning of women.

Some are convinced that the women were coerced into making the statements in which they welcomed their punishment as "deserved".

Others question why former deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim was not caned when he was previously convicted of sodomy, since caning is prescribed for that act also. (Perhaps this uproar will have increased the chances of that sentence being handed down if he's convicted this time.)

And what does it mean for Malaysia's large gay and transsexual community, and those millions of Muslims who regularly consume alcohol?

All of them are now presumably on notice of being arrested and caned, too.

That Malaysia has been trending towards an increasingly strict Islamic identity has been debated in earnest for some years now.

The latest government attempt to manipulate the national psyche has been to force radio stations to play fewer Western songs, arguing they have a "negative impact on nationalism", and many are seeing parallels between this caning decision and the recent furore over the use of the word "Allah".

For many analysts, it all adds up to an increasingly grim scenario:

It is a power issue for the government of the day to show its ‘physical’ Islamic credentials and also for the sharia courts to quietly and using backdoor means to raise its status to a level higher than what is provided for in the Federal Constitution

For its part, the government is attempting to paint the canings as within the bounds of accepted practice; the deputy prime minster believes all that's required is a little explanation and dialogue to clear up any "wrong impressions".

But the strongest impression that is likely to remain from this incident is one of an increasingly paternalistic and sexist society seeking to convince its women that caning is necessary for their own good; something the DPM believes is necessary for reminding them "to honour and abide by their religion".

The attitude is unambiguously driven home by the somewhat Orwellian announcement that the caning conference will be organised by the "Secretariat of Advocacy and Empowerment of Muslim Women".

An Institutional Overhaul Is Long Overdue In Kuala Lumpur

Wall Street Journal

“The Leopard,” Giuseppe di Lampedusa’s celebrated novel about the crumbling feudal order in 19th century Sicily, made famous the line, “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.” That pretty much sums up the predicament of Malaysia’s ruling elite today.

BY ALICE LLOYD GEORGE,

The sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim drags on in Kuala Lumpur, with the opposition leader’s freedom and political career hanging in the balance. But the true significance of this anachronistic case does not depend on the outcome in the courtroom. The political assassination of Mr. Anwar aside, Malaysia is witnessing the death throes of a political machine that has run the country for over five decades. Mr. Anwar is a skilled politician who holds together an unlikely alliance of opposition parties—his conviction would certainly be a blow for the prospect of real political pluralism in Malaysia. But he also serves as a vessel for wider social forces and a disenchantment with the country’s leadership. Another figure would surely take his place at the head of the reform movement.

The ruling coalition was founded on the principle that the three main races—Malays, Chinese and Indians—participate in politics through their own parties. Coupled with an elaborate system of affirmative action, this has allowed the United Malays National Organization to maintain a lock on power by protecting Malays from the winds of competition. After the opposition made unprecedented gains in the March 2008 elections, desperate tactics were called for, hence a rather tired repeat of the homosexuality charge first brought against Mr. Anwar a decade ago, now dubbed “Sodomy II” by a skeptical public. The government has denied that the trial is politically motivated.

That the political system and patronage network are under increasing stress is clear, but the prognosis is not yet apparent to all. Some in UMNO, like Prime Minister Najib Razak, think they can maintain the old system by merely tinkering around the edges. Mr. Najib has gestured toward loosening long-standing affirmative-action policies, but any good intentions are obstructed by entrenched interests in UMNO’s conservative wing—to date the repeals have been cosmetic at best. Others are coming to a different realization—Malaysian society has matured and even Malays now recognize that outdated and discriminatory policies must give way to a more transparent and accountable system.

One such leader is Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, a former finance minister of royal blood. Mr. Razaleigh has re-emerged as an outspoken critic of the government in recent weeks, though he strongly denies any intention of switching to the opposition. The 73-year-old party veteran has a history of challenging the leadership; in 1988 he left UMNO and formed a rival Malay party before returning to the fold in 1996.

Sitting in his Kuala Lumpur home—a remarkably exact replica of the White House’s Oval Office—Mr. Razaleigh argues that UMNO politicians have not been responsive to calls for reform. “The young want to see a really multiracial organization, fighting on egalitarian issues, without having to fall back on race,” he explains. “Unless the party system and the political system are reformed exhaustively, I think we are going to be pulled back into the same boat we have been in for the last 50 years.”

Mr. Razaleigh believes that Malaysians want to move beyond identity politics, but UMNO is unable to break away from its Malay nationalist roots. Most recently, the government appealed a court ruling that allowed the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims. Though UMNO called for calm, the prime minister’s statement that he couldn’t stop protestors from expressing their opinions only served to fan the flames. The ruling was followed by a spate of desecration and arson attacks on churches and mosques. Mr. Najib further undermined the government’s response to the crisis when he flew across the world for a 10-day tour of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and India, taking key cabinet ministers and senior officials with him.

By contrast, in a milestone decision, the opposition Islamic party PAS—which only 10 years ago campaigned to create a theocratic state with Sharia law—took a more moderate stance, urging Malaysians to respect the court ruling. The irony is that while UMNO continues to play race politics to out-Islam its opponents, PAS is appealing to a more progressive voter base.

Part of the reason for the electorate’s change of heart is the realization that Malaysia risks being left behind economically if it doesn’t climb out of its middle-income trap and eliminate the inefficiencies inherent in racial policies. These policies were formulated in the 1970s, when Malaysia was a tiger economy. Now its growth lags behind Southeast Asian neighbors like Indonesia—the new “i” in BRIC—and China and India increasingly pose competitive challenges.

The country has suffered from an acute brain drain over the last decade, as individuals seek education and employment in countries where talent is better rewarded. Now it faces capital flight, too, with foreign direct investment dropping to $2.7 billion in 2009 from $8.1 billion the previous year, according to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates. One reason is the fear that UMNO will continue to play the race card and stir up tensions to keep itself in power. Another is the government’s failure to undertake much-needed institutional reforms and address issues such as corruption, civil liberties and judicial independence. Malaysia’s risk index, as calculated by Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, rose to 5.4 in January from 5.24 in December on a 10-point scale.

If there is a silver lining here, it is that even as UMNO has stoked tensions, by and large Malaysians have refused to be provoked—a stark contrast to the May 13 Incident in 1969, when rumors of ethnic slights quickly snowballed into massive riots and emergency rule. And that is one more indication that leaders like Mr. Anwar and Mr. Razaleigh are right that Malaysian society is ripe for change. If the current UMNO elite is to stand any chance of remaining in power, it needs to focus on remedying the very real challenges on its doorstep, rather than felling the opposition. Societal reform based on equality of opportunity is a change that is long overdue.

Ms. Lloyd George is a Princeton in Asia fellow at The Wall Street Journal Asia.

Government should stop waste of public funds which end up in greater national embarrassments like the “strangest” cloak-and-dagger CSIS seminar featur

By Lim Kit Siang,

Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Anifah Aman should give an assurance that the government would stop waste of public funds which end up in greater national embarrassments like the “strangest” cloak-and-dagger Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) seminar “Governance and Rule of Law in Malaysia” featuring the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in Washington yesterday.

I agree with the former United States Ambassador to Malaysia John R Mallot who had described the seminar as the “strangest” he had attended in Washington DC. The reasons for such an appellation would include:

1. Seminar Panellists – Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and former Chief Justice and now head of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) advisory panel Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad who were billed to appear with Minister in Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz never showed up. Nazri told the seminar he did not know where the two were in Washington.

   The presence of the Abdul Gani and Hamid would have reinforced criticisms of the lack of progress in judicial and institutional reforms to restore international confidence in the independence and integrity of key national institutions. This is why I had publicly gone on record to criticize Abdul Gani’s participation at the CSIS seminar as his first duty is to carry out the duties of the Attorney-General independently and professionally to ensure national and international confidence in the administration of justice rather than to join in government’s international roadshows to win foreign hearts and minds that there is the just rule of law and a truly independent judiciary in Malaysia.

2. Seminar pronounced “off the record” – The last-minute conversion of the CSIS seminar into an “off-the-record” session gave it a cloak-and-dagger character that what Nazri said in his speech and Q & A cannot stand public and international scrutiny. Mallot said that it was “unusual” for the session to be off-the-record, which is “very rare for a Washington think-tank”.

3. The two hour seminar was cut short by one-third of the time – starting 10 minutes late and ending 30 minutes earlier.

4. Dismal crowd – one account put it as about 40 people.

Has the Malaysian government achieved its purpose in the CSIS seminar in convincing Washington opinion about the justice, propriety and justification for the Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy2 prosecution and persecution?

From all accounts, the answer must be an unequivocal “No”. The “strangest” cloak-and-dagger CSIS seminar in Washington is not coup for the new Malaysian Ambassador to Washington, Jamaluddin Jarjis but a major blot in his record book.

The Najib government should learn from the embarrassment and ignominy of the “strangest” cloak-and-dagger CSIS seminar in Washington yesterday – that the only way for Malaysia to escape the international opprobrium and condemnation for the Anwar Sodomy2 trial is to drop the charges against the Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Compassionate Fund Will Be Given To Those Who Want It - PM

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 26 (Bernama) -- Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the federal government still insisted on giving compassionate fund to Kelantan because it believed there were people in the state who wanted the aid.

"We will give (the compassionate fund), the federal government will give the aid to whoever accepts, whoever does not want it it is up to him, definitely there are people who want the aid," he said.

Speaking to reporters after chairing a meeting of Umno's Supreme Council here Thursday night, Najib, who is also Umno president, said the federal government would ensure the aid was distributed in transparent manner to those eligible to receive it.

"Aid to the people of Kelantan will be given and we will give to those want to receive it.

"We want to give it to the people...the bottomline is that we want the people to benefit (from the compassionate fund)," he said when asked about the poltical implications concerning the awarding of the compassionate fund for the people of Kelantan.

He said the federal government would stick to its stand on the provision of the compassionate fund and not oil royalty, which was claimed by certain people should be given to Kelantan.

"We have a clear stand on what is decided based on the Federal Constitution and the country's laws and according to legal experts, nothing that can be put forward (by Kelantan) can make us feel that the government's decision is not right," he said.

Najib said the under the Ninth Malaysia Plan, the government had allocated more than RM7 billion to Kelantan for development eventhough the state was under opposition rule.

He was asked to comment on the action of Gua Musang Umno division chief Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who continued to question the action of the Federal Government in relation to oil-royalty for Kelantan.

On whether Umno will take action against Tengku Razaleigh, Najib said Umno's supreme council will hear the opinions of party members before making any decision.

Meanwhile, Najib said the meeting also discussed current developments in the party including emphasis on party machinery and its Juara Rakyat programme, which would be extended to Perak and other states.

The meeting was also informed that as of Jan 31, 2010, Umno's membership stood at 3,526,952 and that the party was still in the process of updating its membership list.

Asked about the proposed amendment to the Barisan Nasional's constitution to allow direct membership to individuals and groups into the coalition, Najib said the meeting was informed about the matter but it would only be discussed at the BN Supreme Council meeting.

Interview with Nurul Izzah

The future lies with the younger politicians and the acceptance of ‘new politics’, says Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar, who burst onto the political scene as ‘Puteri Reformasi’ a decade ago.

Trusting 'the Other' - Anil Netto

A friend of mine, Philip, a Chinese Malaysian, phoned earlier this week and shared with me a few anecdotes of his encounters with his fellow Malaysians, who happened to be Malay, during life-threatening situations.

When he was stricken with a severe bout of dengue fever some time ago, it was a Malay doctor, Dr Salleh, at a private hospital who went out of his way – beyond the call of duty – and stayed back after office hours to care for him. It was only after Dr Salleh was sure that Philip was out of danger that he returned home.

Philip also recalled the occasion when his son was suffering from an acute bout of meningitis. It was a female Malay doctor at Hospital UKM who recommended and performed a lumbar puncture procedure. “I entrusted my son, the joy of my life, to her professional care, and she did not let me down.”

Years earlier, in the 1980s, Philip recounted how he stumbled on an accident scene, when a Chinese Malaysian boy was seriously hurt. It was an unlikely group of young Malay ‘punks’ (then the fad) who first came to his aid, wiping the injured lad’s face and dabbing the blood streaming down.

These experiences are indelibly etched in Philip’s memory and have left him without a trace of racism. Today, he just hopes politicians will focus on a continuous programme of upgrading ‘kemahiran Melayu‘ (and that of other Malaysians as well) instead of going to town with all those ketuanan slogans.

Now, wouldn’t that be more meaningful and empowering?

Hakmilik: Peneroka Felda mengadu pada Suhakam

Patahiyah set to become first women council chief

Patahiyah set to become first women council chief of Penang Island replacing Tan Cheng Chui. We are happy for Patahiyah as this is a meaningful executive position, intended to score points and political mileage.

But Kapitan Lim Guan Eng would never appoint Ramasamy s/o Amasamy or any other Samy or some Kuppusamy as the first Indian MPPP Council Chief. Whereas the Speaker of the Dewan (as in Perak) and DCM II (as in Penang) are ceremonial and non executive positions with no power, and representative and the people should not fall for these positions, which are mere decorations to score political mileage. Get the point?

Admin

Najib aide probed for sedition but won’t be prosecuted

Najib aide probed for sedition but won’t be prosecuted

(Singapore Straits Times 4/2/2010 at page A 22).

Admin

Hindraf the only hope for Malaysian Indians (refer Singapore Straits Times 5/2/2010 at page 11).

Hindraf/HRP has never made any promises save and expect promising to continue to struggle for the Indians and against the injustices and tyranny of the UMNO led Malay-sian government. Let alone not delivering their promises. In any event Hindraf/HRP’s not in the government to deliver any promises.

There have been repeated claims that there are too many Indian based political parties. But all nine of them from MIC, PPP, IPF, Punjabi Peoples Party, Kimma, Mindraf, MMSP, MCC and MUIP are all in with UMNO or UMNO support political parties. And it is because this is where the honey is.

The one and only Indian based political party in the Opposition against UMNO is HRP. This is because HRP is driven by principles and struggles for the Indians not to be excluded from the national mainstream development of Malaysia.

P. Uthayakumar

Muhyiddin questions Ku Li’s loyalty over oil dispute

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 25 — Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has questioned Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s loyalty to Umno and accused the Kelantan prince of trying to confuse the public over the oil royalty dispute.

He also defended the federal government’s refusal to pay oil royalty claimed by Kelantan, saying that it was in “accordance with law.”

“I know of the move taken by Tengku Razaleigh and some opposition leaders to make people believe what is not legally right. I think that is not the proper way to do it. This is not political but the constitutional and legal way of whatever Act enacted by Parliament,” the deputy prime minister told reporters today.

Muhyiddin (picture) also questioned the Umno veteran’s loyalty to the party.

“We are studying the situation. As everybody is aware of the statements and actions that he (Tengku Razaleigh) has taken. Even though they are his personal opinion but it is not in line with the decision made by the government and party leadership. So we must look at what will happen next and maybe he will realise in the end. This is not a question about bringing hardship to the people of Kelantan or anybody. We have given explanations based on facts.

“I have been informed that he has met the prime minister but what I do not understand is why he is still continuing with his actions. As if he is the only one fighting for the people of Kelantan and that we are not considerate. Actually leaders from Barisan Nasional have given explanations and will continue to do so,” he said.

Muhyiddin said that educated professionals from Kelantan understood the government’s position.

“Many of the people from Kelantan are lawyers and professionals and can analyse the matter. I have heard statements from the people of Kelantan, especially academicians and those with certificates, saying that the actions taken by the government do not go against the law,” he said.

He argued that the allocation of compassionate payments instead of oil royalties was in accordance with the law.

“The term is not royalty and that has been explained by the government and also through the advertisements for the general public’s knowledge which was well received. I think what we have done (in giving compassionate payment) is in accordance with the law.

“Since Kelantan requested for some help then we considered and agreed to give them compassionate payment. So this is all according to the Petroleum Development Act and whatever interpretation has been well explained by the adverts that we have put in,” he said.

The federal government had over the weekend taken out advertisements in Berita Minggu, Mingguan Malaysia and Sinar Harian, listing eight reasons to deny Kelantan its claim for oil royalties.

But Tengku Razaleigh and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) have been campaigning hard to force the federal government to pay oil royalties claimed by the state.

Tengku Razaleigh, who is Petronas founder, had earlier this week rubbished attempts by the federal government to explain, through newspaper advertisements, its refusal to pay the Kelantan government oil royalties.

“The advertisement fails to point out that almost all the oil found in Malaysia is located more than three nautical miles offshore, and Petronas has nevertheless been making oil payments to the states,” said the Gua Musang MP.

The federal government’s main argument is that oil and gas are extracted from waters that are beyond the three-nautical mile limit prescribed as territorial waters under Malaysia’s Emergency Ordinance (Essential Powers) No. 7 1969.

“By the argument deployed in the advertisement, Terengganu, Sabah and Sarawak too are not entitled to the ‘cash payments’ of 5 per cent of profit from oil,” said Tengku Razaleigh earlier this week.

“The argument for depriving Kelantan of 5 per cent cash payments on the basis of its petroleum resources being found beyond three nautical miles is an insult to the intelligence,” he added.

The Gua Musang Umno chief said that the implication of the argument is that Terengganu has no right to receive the cash payment which was reinstated early last year.

Anwar’s bid for more evidence ends

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal - The Malaysian Insider

PUTRAJAYA, Feb 25 — The Federal Court has dismissed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s request to review its own Jan 29 decision barring his legal team from getting more key evidence from the prosecutors in his ongoing sodomy trial.

In a unanimous decision, the court dismissed the review application on grounds that it was not a suitable case for re-examination by another panel of judges.

Earlier, the three-men panel led by Justices Zulkifli Ahmad Makinuddin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Heliliah Mohd Yusof heard arguments from Anwar’s lawyer Karpal Singh (picture) and Solicitor-General II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden.

Mohd Yusof had argued that the court is not empowered to review its decision. A review can only granted if the applicant manages to prove that "there was an error in law" and only in extremely rare cases is a review granted.

Murder accused’s wife also charged in consulate driver’s death

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 25 — It has emerged that the wife of the Indonesian-born taxi driver charged with murdering Malaysian consulate driver Mohd Shah Saemin had worked together with the victim and were described as “close”, the Sydney Morning Herald reported today.

The newspaper also reported that she has now been charged as an accessory after the fact, following the arrest of her husband Hazairin Iskandar.

Her son Andrew was also detained in Singapore after arriving there after a flight from Sydney.

The newspaper claimed from interviews with colleagues of Mohd Shah and Nita Eriza Iskandar, an accounts clerk at the consulate, the two were very close and would often have lunch together.

According to an account of events published by the Sydney Morning Herald, the last time Mohd Shah spoke to Nita, he was screaming for help down the telephone after being set upon by two men with a hammer on Sunday night outside his home in Marion Street, Leichhardt, Sydney.

The newspaper reported that he called to a woman standing nearby, who threw her body over him in the hope it would stop the attack.

Nita would arrive later at the scene as police tried in vain to revive him.

Nita was charged yesterday with being an accessory after the fact to murder and hindering a police investigation, the newspaper reported.

She was refused bail and will appear in Newtown local court today.

Colleagues and neighbours were said to have been taken aback at the developments in what was first thought to be a road rage investigation.

The details emerging from the case will also put to rest suspicions that the incident was a hate crime linked to racism, which the New Straits Times suggested in an editorial yesterday.

The NST had written that Mohd Shah’s murder had brought home this rising scourge (of race hate).

In the Sydney Morning Herald story, it was reported that Nita, an Indonesian-born Australian citizen, had worked at the consulate for about 10 years and has been on leave since Monday.

Mohd Shah began working at the consulate three years ago after moving to Australia in 2000.

‘‘All these twist of events are confusing,’’ the consulate director Mohd Nasir Abu Hassan told the newspaper.

‘‘We’re not suspicious of people when they hold hands or whatever. That’s how we’re taught.

‘‘They had no other relationship that we know of, but out of work we do not know.’’

The newspaper also reported that Nita had attended an embalming service to prepare Mohd Shah’s body at Lakemba mosque before her arrest.

She had told workmates she would pay for the body’s repatriation and accompany it home to Malaysia. Her husband had said that he planned to go with her.

He elected not to face the magistrate, Christopher Longley, at Burwood local court yesterday. Bail was refused and the matter adjourned until April 20.

‘‘If he did that I never forgive him,’’ Nita also told Channel 10 of her husband yesterday.

By the time the interview went to air, she too was under arrest and police were arranging for her son’s return to Australia.

The wooden coffin was carried into Lakemba mosque last night where it was prayed over before being flown to Malaysia today, the newspaper reported.

Kelantan strikes back over KL’s oil ads

By Debra Chong - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 25 — Fed-up with the federal government’s attempts to dodge out of paying oil royalties, the Kelantan state government is fighting fire with fire.

Earlier this week, Kelantan sent out copies of its eight-point stand of its claims for payments for oil produced off its coast to several Malay-language newspapers to counter the federal government’s eight arguments.

According to lawyer Tommy Thomas, a member of a team of lawyers engaged to act for the state government, the papers have yet to publish the state’s version.

The federal government had over the weekend taken out pages in Berita Minggu, Mingguan Malaysia and Sinar Harian listing eight reasons to deny Kelantan its claim.

“We disagree with the answers given in the recent advertisement made on behalf of the federal government,” Thomas said, and provided a copy of the state’s basis for its oil claims for contrast.

He noted that the Petroleum Development Act (PDA), which is the document referred to by both state and federal governments in the oil dispute, had come into force on Oct 1, 1974, and had set up Petronas, giving it rights to oil sourced from land or in waters in the country.

“Under the PDA, each of the 13 states signed identical agreements and vesting grants at different dates between 1975 and 1976 with Petronas, vesting their respective ownership of oil in Petronas,” the lawyer said, giving a brief background of the case.

The national oil company was to pay each state where oil was produced “a yearly sum equivalent to five per cent of the value of petroleum produced onshore and offshore of the state concerned”, Thomas added.

He also pointed out that Kelantan’s neighbour on the east, Terengganu, had received yearly payments for oil from the federal government from the start while the state was in the hands of the national coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN), but the payments stopped almost immediately after the state fell to PAS in 1999.

Kelantan’s response to the eight questions raised is reproduced below alongside the federal government’s answers to the same questions, for comparison.

1. According to the Petroleum Development Act 1974, what is the term used for payment made for oil and gas production?

State: The PDA, the 13 Agreements and the 13 Vesting Grants all use the term “cash payments”. The popular word used by all concerned is “royalty”. However, nothing turns on the description of the payment.

Federal: The term used is “cash payment” of 5 per cent. The word “royalty” is not being used anywhere in the Act.

2. According to the agreements between Petronas and the state government in 1975/1976, what are the requirements to entitle the state governments to the 5 per cent cash payments?

State: The terms used in the PDA, the 13 Agreements and the 13 Vesting Grants are “on-shore” and “off-shore” to denote petroleum produced from land (on-shore) and from water (off-shore). Neither the PDA, the 13 Agreements nor the 13 Vesting Grants contain any limitations on the right of any state to receive cash payments for petroleum produced off its coast based on the length from the coast. Hence, neither the PDA, the 13 Agreements nor the 13 Vesting Grants restrict the payment of cash payments for petroleum produced 3 miles, 12 miles, 200 miles or any other distance from the coast of the 13 states because distance is not specified in the PDA, the Agreements and the 13 Vesting Grants. Instead, the generic word “off-shore” is used.

The Emergency (Special Powers) Ordinance No. 1969 does not govern the ownership of petroleum, whether on-shore or off-shore. The Ordinance also does not deal with the legal obligations of Petronas to pay cash payments to a state where petroleum is produced on-shore or off-shore. Only the PDA does. Thus, the Ordinance is not the relevant law on the matter.

Federal: The oil or gas wells must be within the state boundaries, that is, the state land and its territory waters which is 3 nautical miles measured from the ebb level (Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No.7 1969).

3. Does the Kelantan state government or any other state governments in Peninsular Malaysia have the right to claim from Petronas the said cash payment?

State: Yes, provided petroleum is produced on-shore or off-shore the state concerned. Thus, in March 1978, Petronas informed Terengganu that petroleum had been produced in the Pulai oil field, which is located about 150 miles from the coast of Terengganu. In June 1978, Petronas made the first ever cash payment to Terengganu for petroleum produced off-shore Terengganu (in Pulai). For 22 successive years, that is, from 1978 to March 2000, Petronas made cash payments to Terengganu twice a year under the PDA, the Agreement and the Vesting Grant, although petroleum was produced hundreds of miles off-shore Terengganu. Only when PAS formed the state government of Terengganu after the general election of November 1999 did Petronas cease making cash payments to Terengganu, although Petronas is still producing petroleum off-shore Terengganu without paying Terengganu for it.

Federal: They have no right to do so as at this moment, all productive oil and gas wells in the peninsula are situated beyond the 3 nautical mile zone. Therefore, any production from the wells situated beyond state waters, which is beyond the 3 nautical mile zone, belongs to the federal government.

4. What is the position of Sabah and Sarawak on the issue of royalty payment?

State: Until the PDA came into force in October 1974, the legal basis of royalty payments to Sabah and Sarawak were laws passed by the British colonial power. After the PDA’s enactment and the establishment of Petronas, Sabah and Sarawak are treated in an identical manner as the peninsula states. Thus, the sole legal basis of payment of cash payments to Sabah and Sarawak since October 1974 is the PDA, their two Agreements and their two Vesting Grants. They are in the identical position with Kelantan, Terengganu and the other nine states of Peninsular Malaysia. All are treated equally under the PDA to avoid discrimination among the 13 states of Malaysia.

Federal: Before 1974, the state governments of Sabah and Sarawak already had their own positions on the royalty rights through enforcement of agreements as well as the enforcement of the Continental Shelf Act 1966. It is historic and special privileges acknowledged when they joined Malaysia in 1963.

5. What is meant with the payment of “Wang Ehsan”?

State: This is the political label invented by the Mahathir administration in 2000 when it directed Petronas to cease making cash payments to Terengganu after PAS formed the state government. The term “wang ehsan” has no legal basis. It is not found in the PDA, the 13 Agreements and the 13 Vesting Grants.

Federal: Wang Ehsan is a contribution or aid channelled to the states including Kelantan based on the discretion of the federal government. This contribution is beyond the scope/ jurisdiction of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and the agreement signed between Petronas and the state government in 1975/1976. This aid is given solely based on the federal government’s awareness and responsibility for the welfare of the state and its people.

6. Why is the federal government offering Wang Ehsan to Kelantan in the amount of RM20 million only?

State: We cannot answer this question as it is a sum arbitrarily picked out by the federal government and without any legal basis.

Federal: The federal government is giving this allocation based on courtesy with regard to gas produced in federal waters. The Kelantan state government has no right in the area as it is outside the 3 nautical mile zone.

7. What is the position of the statement made by former Petronas chairman Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah that royalty should be paid to Kelantan based on the petroleum production obtained from outside the state waters as well as questioning the giving of the Wang Ehsan?

State: We support the recent public statement by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. Much weight must be given to Tengku Razaleigh as he was the first chairman of Petronas, and signed the 13 Agreements on behalf of Petronas with each of the state governments. He is very conversant with these matters. He also enjoyed the trust and confidence of the late Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia’s 2nd Prime Minister, and the architect of our petroleum policy.

Federal: The statement by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Gua Musang MP, needs to be seen as a mere personal opinion from him. Any decision taken with regard to the right to royalty payment needs to be made in accordance with the relevant laws as well as agreements signed between Petronas and the state governments.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah needs to explain that the PAS Terengganu government cannot question the position of Wang Ehsan as the money that has been channelled all this while, although in the name of oil royalty, does not belong to the state.

He also stated that when Petronas was formed, there was no state in Peninsular Malaysia that had the right to the oil production found in the area outside the state’s “territory” (Bernama, Nov 1, 2000).

Although today Tengku Razaleigh had changed his position, the position of the law has still not changed. The people and the country are obliged to respect the laws of the country.

8. Is the opposition leader informed of the position of the rights of the state government in this issue?

State: Again, we cannot answer this question because Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the opposition, does not officially represent Kelantan in the petroleum royalty issue.

Federal: Based on the position of the existing provisions of law, the opposition leader is aware that the state government has no right to any cash payment or royalty in relation to the petroleum production which are being explored beyond state waters. That is why the opposition leader had once tried to make a resolution to amend the Petroleum Development Act 1974 in December 2009.

Therefore, the opposition leader himself is aware that the Kelantan state government has no right on any oil or gas wells within federal territory.

‘Three blind mice’ to Washington went

By Terence Netto
Comment “Make them the object of ridicule. Nothing succeeds like laughter where the masses are concerned,” offered M J Akbar, a renowned Indian journalist and communications expert while on a visit to Kuala Lumpur last week at the invitation of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Akbar, who is also an author, was sharing his insights with Pakatan Rakyat-aligned media practitioners. His audience had little difficulty agreeing with their erudite interlocutor that the deepest cuts in political debate are wrought by barbs leavened with humour.

Three decades ago the Conservatives in Britain, led by Margaret Thatcher, campaigned to victory in a general election against Labour by employing the pithy slogan: “Labour - it doesn’t work.”

Few political contests before and since have displayed the devastating wit and concision encapsulated by that bon mot.

Akbar’s listeners hardly needed prompting that the exertions of local powers-that-be in portraying themselves as worthy of merit can sometimes border on the absurd; they were just wondering where to locate the genius who can transmute the absurd into the evocatively fabulous.

Take the decision to send de facto law minister Nazri Aziz, former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamed, and Attorney General Gani Patail to Washington for a conference on the rule of law and transparent governance.

Excepting Abdul Hamid, under whose brief tenure as chief justice the courts in the country improved marginally, sending Nazri and, particularly, Gani to the Washington conference was like asking Jacob Zuma to be presenter at an international conference on Aids prevention.

Incorrigible Zuma, who some years ago was charged with rape after having unprotected sex with a young woman who was HIV positive, has just now admitted to having unprotected sex with yet another young woman with whom he has fathered a child. (Zuma is the president of a country which has some of the highest rates of HIV infection.)

Sending anybody from the government to a Washington conference on good governance would be as futile as raising your tone when addressing the deaf. Listing the grounds for absurdity in the government’s presumption of its own merit would bore the seat off your pants.

Suffice loose canon Nazri is the sort of fellow you only send into battle if you are minded to take on the charlatanry of Dr Mahathir Mohamed: He can swing roundhouse hooks the way a prizefighter desperate to put bread on his kids’ table can be expected to.

His vociferous branding some time ago of Dr Mahathir as “racist” and as the “father of all racists” was patently indiscriminate until Nasir Safar’s remarks about the immigration into Malaysia of Indian beggars and Chinese whores occasioned the response from the former premier that this was a “truth” you bandied about only in private. Seldom could the flailing Nazri been so spot-on.

After the fiasco of Sodomy I, you would think Gani would have been chastened enough not to try something as feeble again. Think again.

A lawyer who must surely overrate his persuasive powers, Gani’s best use would be as counsel if Sudan’s Omar Bashir were to submit to the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for genocide in Darfur.

This is not such a stretch. Bashir was once in Malaysia in the 1980s studying some course. He must have picked up some esoteric science.

He would need that if he elects to go to the Hague, though if he were to commission Gani, he would have to forget the Malaysian’s performance in the case of who owned Pedra Banca, the island off Johor that Singapore out argued Malaysia at the International Court of Justice two years ago. But then Gani never knows when he is beat.

It’s like the lines from the ditty:

Three blind mice

Three blind mice

See how they run

See how they run.

And so on and so forth...

Yesterday In History

by Simon Templar,

The Star is a joke. Why I still read it on a daily basis is as much an unresolved mystery to me as to why rich and all powerful Najib is unable to get a better looking wife. (Ok you feminist out there, so I am being a sexist here, sue me!)

Yesterday's paper was another day of reporting on Malaysia and her nonsense.

From the front page:

Power supply for 95% of Sarawak by 2012

KUCHING: Ninety-five percent of Sarawak will be connected with electricity supply and 90% of the state’s households will enjoy treated water by 2012, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

He said the RM3.4bil allocation for infrastructure projects in Sarawak under the 10th Malaysia Plan and National Key Results Areas (NKRAs) was testimony to the close ties between the Federal Government and the state.

“This is our commitment to Sarawak. We have forged a good understanding that development projects be implemented smoothly, not only in the rural area but throughout the state,” Najib said at the launch of the rural electrification scheme at Rumah Juliana, Saratok, some 350km from here yesterday.

There are 3 ways to react to the headline grabber above.

If you do not have a brain and is a die hard BN supporter, this report will only strengthen your belief that BN is god's gift to man. In times when the country is suffering economically and bleeding financially, the PM has squeezed some money to the tune of RM3.4 billion to help the poor in Sarawak. Long live PM Najib!

If you are a fed-up Malaysian and has Anwar's poster in your bedroom, you will see this as scumbag Najib bribing his way into retaining Sarawak. And you swear that with such a move, the Sarawak state elections cannot be more than 6 months away.

Now if you are of sound mind and rational, you will be asking 'What the fuck?! You mean in Malaysia still got many people with no electricity and water ah? Sarawak not the richest state in the country meh? They have so banyak oil and timber you know. Are the Sarawakians stupid or do they enjoy pretending to be stupid to be buggered left, right and centre? '

Mr. PM is so proud that he is bringing basic living necessities to these poor bastards (of whom some are still clothed in nothing but loin cloths). Any other decent human will be so ashamed to have neglected this part of the country that he will be getting them Sarawakians the facilities in super hush hush manner. And yet this shameless queen-controlled freak of the nature is strutting his belly all over town pretending to be the people's saviour. Had I been a headhunter, I would have had my field day!

Sarawakians are supposed to be rich. The Sabahans are supposed to be rich. Yet they are poor beyond recognition. And they are not even an ordinary state to Malaysia. They are a partner to the Malaysian 'coalition'. Why the Sarawakians and Sabahans never revolted to get themselves out is another mystery in life. To me, it ranks pretty much high up there with Atlantis, UFOs and Yetis. (And again, Rosmah).

I also found this article sending the blood pressure meter a tick higher too.


Get CP 500 notice cancelled if you don’t earn extra income

PETALING JAYA: If you receive a notice of instalment payment (CP 500) from the Inland Revenue Board, do not panic!

The notice, which states the amount, due date and number of instalments, is meant for taxpayers with earnings other than monthly salaries such as income from business and rentals as well as commissions from multi-level marketing or insurance.

Those with a fixed salary, but without other earnings, should go to the branch handling their income tax files to have the notice cancelled.

IRB public relations officer Masrun Maslin admitted that IRB had received many complaints from taxpayers without side income who were issued with such notices.

“Do not panic. If you do not have any other means of income other than your monthly salary, just go to the branch handling your file for the notice to be cancelled immediately,” he said. However, he said taxpayers would still have to provide supporting documents such as the EA form to show that they did not have income other than their monthly salaries.

Masrun said taxpayers without side income were being issued with such notices due to possible errors in their income tax return forms. “For instance, they must have wrongly put dividends, bonuses or pensions in the other earnings column instead of the salary column.

“The system automatically captures the data on the other earnings and thus, the taxpayers will be issued the CP 500 notices.”

He said previously, the IRB would look at the list of those eligible for the tax liability on other earnings before issuing the notice.

A complainant who declined to be identified said he was upset upon receiving the notice.

He said he contacted the IRB branch handling his file and was advised to ignore it.

However, he was asked to call the branch again next month to check whether he would still have to settle the instalment payments.

“The officer told me that he had been receiving a lot of queries and complaints pertaining to the notice,” he added.

I can tell you for sure that IRB screwed up on this. And yet they have the guts to come out and say that the taxpayers 'could have filled up the forms wrongly'. Fuck you! Is it that difficult to simply say 'we messed up'. Is it that difficult? Instead of apologising, you turn it around and blame us. 'Us' because I receive the similar form too.

I could not even be bothered about the form when I received it. Simply put it, it is somewhere in the rubbish truck already. And to be really honest with you people, I didn't even open the form packed in a plastic envelope. I know what a CP500 is and I am not even interested in knowing how much they want me to fork out each month for god knows what reason they cook up.

I am not going to pay. Period. So why bother opening or calling for clarification.

And now IRB wants me to drive to their office, get a number, wait my turn and proof to their officers that I should not be getting the form of which they screwed up? You stupid dumb arses of the world! You messed it up, you clean in up. Don't involve me, please. Just fuck off and leave me alone.

So ladies and gentlemen, these are some of the latest development in Malaysia; summarised and explained. Enjoy your continued stay in Malaysia.


Note: I am not cheesed off as I was writing this. Choice of language is a very personal thing - quite difficult to explain. Besides, I think certain words drive messages through more effectively. Come on... we all are all grown ups. A little PG 13 won't hurt you. And we all know that no kids are reading these boring political sites la ok.

Perak Crisis

The courts in Malaysia have ... emasculated themselves by avoiding any form of judicial intervention or activism when the interests of the all powerful executive is at stake.

By Gerard Lourdesamy

The recent Federal Court decision on the Perak crisis confirming Zambry Abdul Kadir as the legitimate menteri besar of Perak raises several questions that have serious constitutional and political implications.

The Federal Court seems to have taken the position that a constitutional monarch has wide discretionary powers in determining whether an incumbent Prime Minister or Menteri Besar continues to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the legislature and therefore whether he can remain in office. In the exercise of this discretion, the Ruler can rely on extraneous circumstances to determine if the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar still commands the support of the majority in the legislative assembly notwithstanding that no vote of confidence is carried against him. The Federal Court was silent as to whether an objective or subjective exercise of discretion by the Ruler is called upon but the Court of Appeal in its judgment seemed to suggest that an objective exercise of discretion is required and that in any event the acts of the Sultan of Perak in assessing whether the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin had lost the support of the majority of members of the state assembly amounted to an objective exercise of such discretion.

The Federal Court also concluded that there was no mandatory requirement in the Perak Constitution for a vote of confidence to be taken on the floor of the Legislative Assembly in order to determine the loss of confidence. Therefore, the loss of confidence can be determined by external factors or even by the conduct of the incumbent Menteri Besar himself.

The Federal Court in a rather concise single judgment with which all five members of the bench concurred in such an important constitutional case that would have warranted a full bench of the apex court and separate judgments in any other jurisdiction, came to the conclusion based on the factual matrix of the case and the evidence, that between 1 and 5 February 2009, Nizar had indeed lost the support of the majority of members of the Legislative Assembly following the declaration by three members of the ruling Pakatan Rakyat coalition that they had become independents but friendly to the opposition Barisan Nasional coalition; that they had lost confidence in Nizar and now supported the Barisan Nasional; and most importantly that they continued to remain as members of the Legislative Assembly and had not resigned or vacated their seats. Therefore, the Federal Court concluded that Nizar could and must have sought dissolution of the Legislative Assembly from the Ruler on the ground that he had ceased to have the support of the majority of its members. In the apex court’s view, Nizar could not possibly given the circumstances prevailing at that time, sought a general dissolution of the Legislative Assembly to pave the way for a fresh election in the state. Both situations are provided for in the Perak Constitution.

The distinction here is that a refusal by the Ruler of a request for dissolution on the grounds of loss of confidence entails the resignation of the executive council including the Menteri Besar who is a member of the executive council and in effect its head. On the other hand the refusal of a request for a general dissolution does not entail any consequences to the executive council.

The Federal Court interpreted the clause on a loss of confidence dissolution as one which does not require the fact of such loss of confidence to be established only by means of a vote of confidence but through other circumstances, and once the Ruler refused his consent to the request, then Nizar had no choice but to tender his own resignation and that of the executive council. This in their view was a mandatory requirement the failure to comply with would lead to a situation of democratic chaos and unconstitutional conduct of the highest level that would paralyze the functioning of effective constitutional government in the state.

It cannot be denied that constitutional conventions that cover the exercise of prerogative powers by the Sovereign even in matters such as the appointment of the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar and the request for the dissolution of the legislature do exist. But the application of these conventions must also be considered in the context of written constitutions and their interpretation. If a provision in any written constitution is clear and beyond doubt then effect should be given to it notwithstanding the existence of certain constitutional conventions that come from jurisdictions that do not have a written constitution. Conventions only have a role to play in a written constitution where there is a lacuna or where the provisions in question are unclear or imprecise in their meaning and effect.

The fact that the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar while being a member of the cabinet or executive council is only answerable to the legislature for his constitutional and political legitimacy cannot be overlooked. On the other hand ministers of the cabinet or executive councilors invariably hold office at the pleasure of the Sovereign and can be dismissed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar. A reading of the relevant provisions in the Federal Constitution or in this case the Perak Constitution will show that the authors of the constitution envisaged a higher degree of protection for the holder of the office of Prime Minister or Menteri Besar as opposed to members of the Cabinet or executive council. The latter are lesser personages who essentially hold office at the grace and favour of the Prime Minister or the Menteri Besar as part and parcel of the largesse of political patronage. The Chief Executive on the contrary as either the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar, is given a much more prominent role beyond primus inter pares in the exercise of his constitutional role as head of government and as the primary link between the Sovereign and the Cabinet or executive council and by extension Parliament or the legislative assembly in a Westminster system of parliamentary government.

Therefore, after reading the relevant provisions of the Federal Constitution or the Perak Constitution and after considering the applicable constitutional conventions, it can be determined that the Ruler has no power to dismiss the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar or to declare his office as vacant unless and until there is an objective determination that the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar has lost the confidence of a majority of members of the legislature.

The Federal Court also favoured the judgment of the High Court in Amir Kahar’s case that departed from the findings of the same court in Stephen Kalong Ningkan’s case primarily on the methods of determining the issue of loss of confidence. The apex court also relied on the opinion of the Privy Council in the Nigerian case of Akintola to justify its conclusions. It is regrettable that in so doing the apex court gave a literal, narrow and pedantic interpretation to the relevant constitutional provisions while disregarding fundamental principles governing the role and powers of a constitutional monarch, the established conventions applicable to such circumstances as in the Perak case and most importantly the public interest as manifested by the overwhelming majority of the people of Perak who voted in support of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition during the 2008 general election.

The Federal Court in my opinion fell into error on the following grounds in the Perak case:

a. The Ruler while having a discretion in the matter of the appointment of the Menteri Besar does not have any such discretion when it comes to the determination of whether the incumbent Menteri Besar still has the confidence of the majority of members of the legislative assembly. This distinction is clear from the different wordings in the Perak Constitution regarding the powers of the Ruler in these two differing situations;

1. The Ruler as a Constitutional Monarch does not have any role to play in determining whether the incumbent Menteri Besar has lost the confidence of the legislature as that is a matter for members of the legislature to determine. This is simply because the Menteri Besar does not hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler and he and the Executive Council are responsible to the legislature and not the Ruler. I will go so far as to say that the Ruler in this case had transgressed into the jurisdiction of the legislature and eroded its rights and privileges. It is a cardinal and sacred principle of constitutional government that the peoples’ representatives in the legislature are the only ones who have the right to prematurely determine the life of any government prior to a general election. The Ruler merely has a dignified role to play in constitutional government but the efficient parts are for the executive and the legislature to exercise and determine (see Dicey);

1. Extraneous circumstances whether objective or otherwise is a dangerous basis and precedent on which to determine if an incumbent Menteri Besar ought to be forced to resign or dismissed from office or to declare vacant his office. If allowed to flourish, it can be open to abuse and misuse at the hands of unscrupulous politicians and destroy the very fabric of constitutional government and the public interest;

1. The extraneous circumstances in the Perak case were unreliable and disputed because of the differing views taken by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Election Commission as to the status of the three assemblymen who had declared themselves independent. The Speaker argued that they had vacated their seats by virtue of the resignation letters that he had received from them. The three assemblymen disputed the purported resignation letters and denied their validity. While the Election Commission declared that it was unable in the circumstances to declare their three seats as vacant and that they remained as the duly elected assemblymen for the three seats. Between 1 and 5 February 2009, there were conflicting views on the status of the three assemblymen with the Speaker contending that he had the final decision and the Election Commission saying otherwise. At that point in time the Federal Court had yet to determine whether it was the Speaker or the Election Commission who had the power to declare a casual vacancy of seats in the Legislative Assembly. There was a provision in the Perak Constitution to the effect that the power lay with the Election Commission but this provision had not yet been tested in the Federal Court at the material time by either contending party. The Court of Appeal in its judgment in this case, with remarkable hindsight concluded that the power lay with the Election Commission. But this crucial fact was not known to the Ruler on 5 February 2009. Therefore, it could not be established mathematically beyond doubt on 5 February 2009 that the Barisan Nasional had a clear majority of 31 seats as opposed to the Pakatan Rakyat’s 28 in the Legislative Assembly despite whatever assurances that the Ruler received from the three impugned assemblymen. The fact that the Barisan Nasional did not ask for the Ruler to convene the Legislative Assembly to determine its strength supports the conclusion that there was a possibility that the Speaker would not have allowed the three assemblymen to take part in the proceedings. Therefore, it was most likely that neither coalition with only 28 seats each would have a majority in the Legislative Assembly and the vote of no confidence would not have been carried as the Speaker would have voted against the motion following convention;

1. The word “confidence” referred to in the Perak Constitution as opposed to “support” is a term of art as the High Court Judge in Ningkan’s case opined. In Amir Kahar, the Judge felt that there was no difference. The word “confidence” connotes a degree of trust and acceptance beyond question whereas the word “support” can be interpreted to mean transient agreement or lack of objection. “Support” can be impermanent as opposed to “confidence”. That is why the floor of the legislature is the best place to determine whether an incumbent prime minister or menteri besar has the “confidence” of the majority in the course of a confidence motion taken on a division in private. Despite the assurances given by the three assemblymen to the Ruler in private audience, the fact that two or all of them had “disappeared” from the state prior to their appearance at a press conference in Putrajaya on 4 February 2009 with the then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to show their support for the Barisan Nasional should have alerted the Ruler to the possibility of some improper or coercive pressure being put on them. This was confirmed further the next day when all of them were bussed to the palace for the audience under the watchful eyes of the police and minders of the Barisan Nasional;

1. Amir Kahar’s case can be distinguished on its facts as the petition sent to the Sabah Governor was signed by a very clear majority of the members of the legislative assembly just like in Akintola’s case and in Amir Kahar’s case the then incumbent chief minister Joseph Pairin Kitingan did not dispute the loss of confidence and tendered his resignation to the Governor. In Nizar’s case, he never conceded that he had lost the confidence of the majority and neither did he resign. Furthermore, it would seem that neither the Barisan Nasional nor the Pakatan Rakyat had a majority in the Legislative Assembly between 1 and 5 February 2009. It was a deadlock at 28-28 between the two parties. In any event it is my view that Akintola and Amir Kahar are not good precedents to be followed as they effectively deny the legislature the right to vote the incumbent government out of office thereby rendering the constitutional role of the legislature illusory in such circumstances;

1. The Ruler in such a charged atmosphere of political uncertainty and chicanery in Perak between 1 and 5 February 2009 should not have been allowed to become the “football of competing parties” but instead the matter should have been determined by the legislature in an open and transparent manner. The Federal Court by allowing the introduction of extraneous circumstances to determine the loss of confidence has in effect vested the Ruler with a discretionary power that will invariably expose the Ruler to allegations of political bias and eventually in any future case involving the Barisan Nasional at the federal level open the apex court to criticisms for bias or unfairness if they rule otherwise under similar circumstances involving the Pakatan Rakyat; and

1. Lastly, by vesting the Ruler with a discretionary power to determine the loss of confidence issue by relying on extraneous circumstances, the Federal Court has in effect changed the nature of the role of the monarchy from a Constitutional one to an Executive one. The danger here is that the exercise of any discretionary executive power by the Ruler in person in determining the loss of confidence issue will subject that decision to the purview of the High Court by way of judicial review and therefore challenge the hitherto held view that the exercise of the royal prerogative in person in matters of state such as the appointment of the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar and the request for the dissolution of the legislature are not amenable to judicial review (see the speech of Lord Roskill in the GCHQ case). The Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Canada have in several decisions argued that the exercise of executive prerogative powers even in matters of national security and foreign relations can be reviewed by the court. By allowing the Ruler to exercise his personal discretion in determining the loss of confidence issue, the Federal Court has expanded the powers of the Constitutional Monarch to the point of vesting Executive Powers on the Ruler to dismiss the Menteri Besar or declare his office vacant without reference to the legislature and thereby subjecting the decision of the Ruler to review by the High Court.

It is also a cause for concern that the Federal Court has consistently subscribed to a very narrow, conservative and pedantic view when it comes to the interpretation of the Federal and State Constitutions. It has more readily and wrongly in my view fallen into the trap of interpreting the constitution from the standpoint of Parliamentary supremacy as opposed to Constitutional supremacy which is the most important feature of any written constitution.

Most judges in the superior courts are more than willing to interpret the Constitution as if it were an ordinary piece of legislation and subject to Federal Laws to the extent of qualifying fundamental rights and liberties in the Constitution by reference to ordinary laws passed by Parliament. The courts in Malaysia have not only emasculated themselves by avoiding any form of judicial intervention or activism when the interests of the all powerful executive is at stake but they have also consistently differed to the views of the government in most matters to the point that constitutional safeguards are negated or diluted altogether.

This is because a vast majority of judges either consciously or unconsciously subscribe to the view that the government is right in most circumstances and knows best and that they are merely public servants with concerns about promotions, pensions, appointments after retirement and their families’ well being. Somewhere in this confusion principles and integrity is sacrificed and a constitutional oath to defend the rights and liberties of the people is conveniently forgotten. At the end of the day until and unless the judiciary is fundamentally reformed from top to the bottom and there is a paradigm shift in judicial thinking, there will remain a serious public perception that there are only two types of judges in this country: those who know the law and those who know the government.