This was published some years back during the economic crisis, where Mahathir condemned Soros. Soros replied but this was not published by our main medias.
Now read for yourself how Soros answered Dr. M.Subject: The Corruption Of Mahahir as published in the Bangkok Post
Taxpayers and voters were made to pay for his visionionary expenses enriching selected vendors along the way all paid by taxpayer or rakyat's moneyThe Corruption Of Mahahir SOROS REPLY TO MAHATHIR. Adapted from Bangkok Post (Not published locally)I have always said Dr Mahathir is a menace to his own people...
Now only you can see the effects of his foolishness when the ringgit has halved its value overnight and your economy goes kaput. Single handedly you have caused hardship to millions of your own people.
You have built useless mega projects at tremendous cost to the country.The telecoms tower in Kuala Lumpur and the highest building in the world show how stupid you are. Not only does it cause massive traffic jam, it has totally no purpose. If you need high ground for telecoms antennae a nearby mountain is there for free.This tower has no purpose from the ground up to 300 metres. The satelites make this totally unneccesary..
A fool and his money are soon parted. The only thing is you are the fool and the money belongs to Malaysians. You make 20% in every project, you have real estate in Japan and billions of shares corruptly acquired.Your 3 sons are worth 8 billion US$. Where do they get this money? Of course, corruption.
You are known as the Marcos of Malaysia, having enriched yourself to the tune of billions.You dare to shed crocodile tears during UMNO delegates meeting about the ills of corruption. Yet you are the most corrupt of all the prime ministers before you. A thief is crying thief and hopes people look the other way. Who dares to say anything when the chief is caught with his hands in the candy jar?
You said wisdom is not the monopoly of the West. So is foolishness. You have more foolishness than most people would believe. Billions are used to build two high rise Petronas buildings that benefit nobody. It now stands tall, a symbol of stupidity and irresponsibility.Instead they just add on to traffic jam.
What is this reclamation of 10 islands off Kedah? Totally absurb and stupid. Of course your benefit is 20%. And the bridge across from Malacca to Sumatra across international waters? Why not build a bridge to the moon? I am sure you still can get your 20%. You called me a Moron . How can a Moron make so much money..
By allowing short selling and borrowing millions of share from your banks we fund managers made millions out of your inexperience and poor regulations. You lose all Malaysians' money, therefore you are the Moron ... Now you know too late and start crying over spilt milk.
In Australia you are known as the recalcitrant ego maniac; in UK the corrupt bastard because of your stupid purchase of our movie studio and the 290 million ringgit Lotus racing car plant and the shady Pergau dam loans from the UK . They are useless to us and you still want to buy them.
What about buying British reject submarines through your agent, of course. The agent/ broker is designed to make millions out of Malaysian government. Your purchase of our battleships is at least 50% more than others are paying. Your purchase of 9 hospitals from UK lock, stock and barrel does not support your local architects or your industry and the British send you obsolete medical equipment. The design is atrocious, one end to the other is half a kilometer and there is no CT-scan, an absolute necessity.
In the Uk your face appears in no less than 17 newspapers as a corrupt dictator.
In Malaysia you are known as the (IBM) International Big Mouth.
In Japan they call him the 'smallest one' (brain size).
In Pacific island the Santa Claus (giving advice left and right).
In South America they call him the parrot (he talks a lot but does not know what it is about).
In Manila the living Marcos.
In Malaysia they are spending millions to lure tourists and you talk rubbish scaring every foreigner away. "When he is dumb he is doubted a fool, when he opens his mouth it removes all doubt."
While I agree the West does not have the monopoly to wisdom, your actions are not the wisest either.
Your EAEC has totally no support even in Asean. Your South-South dialogue mets with the same fate and what is this I hear of the Bridge from Malaysia to Indonesia covering 20 miles across International shipping lanes?
How crazy can one get?Even the Japanese don't have the money. This world's stupidity seems to be concentrated in one man's mind - yours.
The multimedia super corridor - MSC -. Well in USA its most stupid concept because we Americans, would have thought of it light years before. Even if it makes money, we can copy this concept can't we?Why do you want to spend your hard-earned money doing questionable projects?
It will be like the Bakun project. Abandoned fund wasted and another white elephant. I always say politicians should not be involved in business. Your ministers are also businessmen and almost every official is enriching himself.
Look at Rafidah Aziz, selling thousands of Approved Permits (APs) for cars each worth 20-30 thousand Malaysian dollars. Why not your government sells them and makes the money? She has acquired millions of shares meant for bumis for free before she agrees to list them.
Look at your Selangor Chief Minister collecting millions for approving high rise buildings from businessman. He is worth a few billions. Unfortunately he was caught with a few millions pocket money in Australia .
Every Chief Minister is awarding useless projects to his cronies then collecting secret pay offs on the side.The Land development Boards and the Economic Development Boards are used to bailout any loses suffered by politicians. The profits they keep, the loses they force the Government bodies to absorb.
How can your poor ever close the gap when every good deal is snatched by your politicians? How can your country get out of poverty if all the billions of corruption money is taken out of the country?
Look at the Sarawak Chief Minister selling billions worth of timber concessions under the table; selling every piece of state land to businessman without tender; using his own companies to obtain lucrative government contracts; selling approval signatures for a fee 'you pay I approve'.
He has 8 billion US > stashed overseas. Thousands of acres of land are given to one or two companies while thousands of poor people still live in cardboard makeshift homes; have no water and shit into the river..
Thousands of acres of land are sold to companies for plantations while the native don't have even one acre to their name. He is selling sand near the beaches to one company for earth filling and then ask the government to spend millions to protect the coastline when erosion occurs.
He lost 300 millions of the sarawak government money trying to make computer chips. He has built a port in Northern Sarawak town in water so shallow it needs dredging every year.
The Prime Minister built highways without tender, your cronies get the deal and the price double..
Your Langkawi airport runway is built is double the cost by your own company Ekran.The Malaysian nation has lost at least 30 billions during your last 10 years of corrupt rule.
One billion lost from the purchase of phantom skyhawk war planes nobody has ever seen (are they still in the Nevada desert USA ?). 3 billion lost from the London tin scandal (you thought you could corner the London tin market without knowing the Americans have a stockpile!
Stupidity at its best. 6 billion Perwaja steel mill where nobody even know where the money goes, 3 billion bank Bumiputra scandal where George Tan bribed all the bank officials to lend him the money..
6 billion forex lost by Bank Negara (the fool and his money are soon parted) and 6 billion to build three of the world’s tallest buildings (built by Japanese and Koreans and furniture imported from France - not Malaysia ) and 1 billion lost from purchase of British warship including fees paid to the broker and under the table...
Add the 10 billion you stole and 5 billion taken by Ministers.
In the 1997 the World Journalists meeting voted Dr Mahathir the Prime Minister of the Decade.
It sounded strange to everybody until it was revealed those who voted against are threatened by IRD officers and with losing their jobs.
In New York the United Nations 1997 meeting, the most corrupt Prime Minister of the decade is President Suharto and second Dr Mahathir (Actually Dr Mahathir should take first place but bribed the Indonesian to take honour of Number One.There are Fifty thousand of your university students not given places in Malaysia but are good enough for places overseas resulting in billion of dollars lost.
The British and the Australians are thinking how stupid. Your best students are sent overseas raising their standards while as in most countries the best are kept in local universities and the rejects sent overseas..
A university student in Hong Kong is much more prestigeous than any Australian counterpart.. You have been colonised by the British so long you cannot even educate your own people. Look at Hong Kong or Singapore , less than 5% study overseas. All the money saved. Your country could save billions if every student overseas is recalled to a local university, and at the same time raising your own standards.Your people are still without shoes, without land to farm, without homes, bathing in rivers shitting in hole in the ground, without water and electricity.
Your cities are concrete jungles without greenery and open spaces. Your KL is jammed with traffic. Yet you still keep on building high rises. You should come down from the clouds and stop daydreaming and firmly plant your feet in the ground.
Your schools are cramped 500 students to an acre and thousands of acres are given free to some politician who leaves them idle. Your parks are being taken by politicians to build shophouses and every cabinet minister is a landgrabbing businessman who build roads onlyto their cronies' land.
The Malaysians' Prayer"Ya Allah, we thank you for your gifts of timber, oil and grain. But then the devil sent us corrupt Mahathir without a Brain And look we are back to square one again So just take Dr Mahathir back to Hell And we will be alive and well.
"In China people have been shot for embezzling one thousand dollars. With 8 billion you have stolen therefore you would be shot 80 thousand times.. Now you are leading an anti-corruption campaign.
We all know what you should do. Look yourself in the mirror. You see the crooked you.. Then use your left hand and handcuff your right hand.
You have put the opposition leader and his son in jail when they said in parliament you are the richest PM in the world.
And his colleague Mr Karpal Singh too for 2 years.
So I get a reward or bribe if I now say you are the poorest PM in this world?
Your 3 sons are sitting in the board of directors of more than 200 companies. They must have been educated in Harvard school of business and obtained distintions? Or is it "you don't know me, you don't do business in Malaysia ” law that applies.
Billions of ringgit of Employee's Provident Funds and public Petronas funds are used to bail out your sons who make losses investing in every venture you thought you could make money. How unethical and corrupt.
Every one of your politicians are sitting on the boards of tens of companies making thousands without any effort, lending their VIP names to borrow millions from local banks without collateral..Now these have become non performing loans.
Now you want 20 million Malaysians to sacrifice for the folly of ONE man? Why not the fool resign and admit he wasted and took most of the money. I could teach you how to put your economy on track but first you must apologize to the Jews and the Malaysian people as well.
'SOROS'
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
DR.M : YUO KILLED DEMOCRACY IN MALAYSIA :
Artikel menarik ini diambil dari portal Malaysia Kini. Ini pandangan dan komen rakyat tentang permasaalahan yg sedang berlaku sekarang ini hasil daripada legacy Uncle Det.
'That is your legacy You silenced the voices of dissent in no uncertain terms. And in the end, the monsters your created devoured you in the process.'Dr M on democracy and sore losers
Suhaimi Said: Dr Mahathir Mohamad, I remember you as a dictator. Hundreds of people were detained under ISA during your rule. So don't talk about democracy. I was a victim of your dictatorship.
Equaliser: Dr Mahathir, you killed democracy in Malaysia - that is your legacy. We don't need people like you anymore in this blessed country. You are a Malay nationalist, that's all. You didn't serve all of Malaysia's people, which include the Chinese, Indians, and other ethnic groups.
A statesman is one who has served his country's people well and promoted democratic values and principles within government institutions and society as whole. You silenced voices of dissent in no uncertain terms.
And in the end, the monsters your created devoured you in the process.Yes, you created monsters greedy for money and power, and who were willing to use any means necessary to acquire them. This country has failed to serve all its people and continues to do so. Y
ou began the trend of money politics and this is the result of your actions.Just watch the news daily and you can see how lop-sided the coverage is in favour of the ruling party, and this right in front of our very own eyes.
If only all Malaysians would open their eyes and ears to see and listen, they would know what to do come the 13th general election.
Kris: It has been estimated that during Mahathir's premiership, the amount of taxpayers' money allegedly misused by him and his cronies was in the region of hundreds of billions.
To carry out this, he completely destroyed the judiciary and the enforcement agencies by replacing the honest top officials in these agencies with tainted officials who could be blackmailed into doing his bidding.
By having these people under his thumb and by controlling the media and the civil service, he ensured that he literally had dictatorial powers. To make sure that all the crooked deals that he made were not known to the public, he enacted laws like the Official Secrets Act.
In short, he was a premier who manipulated the democratic system to give himself dictatorial powers. That is why it is extremely disgusting to hear this man pontificating on democracy or corruption.
Playfair: It is sad but not surprising that Dr Mahathir continues to peddle half-truths to justify his opinions. He reduces democracy to a one-dimensional event - elections - and fails to refer to other equally important elements that constitute the package called democracy.
He speaks of "sore losers", but what about the 'tyranny of the majority' (which he should be all too familiar with)?
A system cultivated and nourished through dubious means and made legal through a two-thirds majority and then used to subvert national institutions to do the bidding of the majority - sore losers are nothing compared to this tyranny.
Asian values were promoted as an ideology to restrict mass political participation, good governance, transparency and accountability.
The sacking of Anwar Ibrahim could not have been more un-Asian, not to mention un-Islamic, un-Malay and un-Malaysian (if Umno will allow the use of such a term).Please keep speaking, sir, so that we can find out how you worked your way to remain in power for so long.
TC88: Talk about sore losers. Mahathir is probably a hypocrite. When Umno was declared illegal and Mahathir's position as its leader and prime minister was sorely threatened, he sacked the then Lord President and the five Supreme Court (now called the Federal Court) judges when he knew the verdict was not going to be in his favour.
Dr Mahathir, you destroyed the very fabric of Malaysia's public institutions, its constitution, the judiciary, the enforcement agencies like the police, attorney-general, and the then ACA
This has been highlighted by Ku Li (Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah) in his speeches. Please do the honourable thing and retire, and just keep quiet like your anointed successor, Pak Lah (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), the Father of Malaysia's Conscience.
'That is your legacy You silenced the voices of dissent in no uncertain terms. And in the end, the monsters your created devoured you in the process.'Dr M on democracy and sore losers
Suhaimi Said: Dr Mahathir Mohamad, I remember you as a dictator. Hundreds of people were detained under ISA during your rule. So don't talk about democracy. I was a victim of your dictatorship.
Equaliser: Dr Mahathir, you killed democracy in Malaysia - that is your legacy. We don't need people like you anymore in this blessed country. You are a Malay nationalist, that's all. You didn't serve all of Malaysia's people, which include the Chinese, Indians, and other ethnic groups.
A statesman is one who has served his country's people well and promoted democratic values and principles within government institutions and society as whole. You silenced voices of dissent in no uncertain terms.
And in the end, the monsters your created devoured you in the process.Yes, you created monsters greedy for money and power, and who were willing to use any means necessary to acquire them. This country has failed to serve all its people and continues to do so. Y
ou began the trend of money politics and this is the result of your actions.Just watch the news daily and you can see how lop-sided the coverage is in favour of the ruling party, and this right in front of our very own eyes.
If only all Malaysians would open their eyes and ears to see and listen, they would know what to do come the 13th general election.
Kris: It has been estimated that during Mahathir's premiership, the amount of taxpayers' money allegedly misused by him and his cronies was in the region of hundreds of billions.
To carry out this, he completely destroyed the judiciary and the enforcement agencies by replacing the honest top officials in these agencies with tainted officials who could be blackmailed into doing his bidding.
By having these people under his thumb and by controlling the media and the civil service, he ensured that he literally had dictatorial powers. To make sure that all the crooked deals that he made were not known to the public, he enacted laws like the Official Secrets Act.
In short, he was a premier who manipulated the democratic system to give himself dictatorial powers. That is why it is extremely disgusting to hear this man pontificating on democracy or corruption.
Playfair: It is sad but not surprising that Dr Mahathir continues to peddle half-truths to justify his opinions. He reduces democracy to a one-dimensional event - elections - and fails to refer to other equally important elements that constitute the package called democracy.
He speaks of "sore losers", but what about the 'tyranny of the majority' (which he should be all too familiar with)?
A system cultivated and nourished through dubious means and made legal through a two-thirds majority and then used to subvert national institutions to do the bidding of the majority - sore losers are nothing compared to this tyranny.
Asian values were promoted as an ideology to restrict mass political participation, good governance, transparency and accountability.
The sacking of Anwar Ibrahim could not have been more un-Asian, not to mention un-Islamic, un-Malay and un-Malaysian (if Umno will allow the use of such a term).Please keep speaking, sir, so that we can find out how you worked your way to remain in power for so long.
TC88: Talk about sore losers. Mahathir is probably a hypocrite. When Umno was declared illegal and Mahathir's position as its leader and prime minister was sorely threatened, he sacked the then Lord President and the five Supreme Court (now called the Federal Court) judges when he knew the verdict was not going to be in his favour.
Dr Mahathir, you destroyed the very fabric of Malaysia's public institutions, its constitution, the judiciary, the enforcement agencies like the police, attorney-general, and the then ACA
This has been highlighted by Ku Li (Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah) in his speeches. Please do the honourable thing and retire, and just keep quiet like your anointed successor, Pak Lah (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), the Father of Malaysia's Conscience.
KISAH PENDAYUNG SAMPAN
Suatu hari, seorang Professor yang sedang membuat kajian tentang lautan menumpang sebuah sampan. Pendayung sampan itu seorang tua yang begitu pendiam. Professor memang mencari pendayung sampan yang pendiam agar tidak banyak bertanya ketika dia sedang membuat kajian.Dengan begitu tekun Professor itu membuat kajian. Di-ambilnya sedikit air laut dengan tabung uji kemudian digoyang-goyangselepas itu dia menulis sesuatu di dalam buku. Berjam-jam lamanya Professor itu membuat kajian dengan tekun sekali. Pendayung sampan itu mendongak ke langit. Berdasarkan pengalamannya dia berkata di dalam hati; "Hmm. Hari nak hujan."
"OK, semua sudah siap, mari kita balik ke darat", kata Professor itu.
Pendayung sampan itu akur dan mula memusingkan sampannya ke arah pantai. Hanya dalam perjalanan pulang itu barulah Professor itu menegur pendayung sampan.
"Kamu dah lama kerja mendayung sampan?" Tanya Professor itu.
"Hampir semur hidup saya", Jawab pendayung sampan itu dgn ringkas.
"Seumur hidup kamu?" Tanya Professor itu lagi. "Ya".
"Jadi kamu tak tahu perkara-perkara lain selain dari mendayung sampan?" Tanya Professor itu.
Pendayung sampan itu hanya menggelengkan kepalanya. Masih tidak berpuas hati, Professor itu bertanya lagi, "Kamu tahu geografi?"
Pendayung sampan itu menggelengkan kepala.
"Kalau macam ni, kamu dah kehilangan 25 peratus dari usia kamu."
Kata Professor itu lagi, "Kamu tahu biologi?"
Pendayung sampan itu menggelengkan kepala.
"Kasihan. Kamu dah kehilangan 50 peratus usia kamu. Kamu tahu fizik?" Professor itu masih lagi bertanya.
Seperti tadi, pendayung sampan itu hanya menggelengkan kepala.
"Kalau begini, kasihan, kamu sudah kehilangan 75 peratus dari usia kamu.Malang sungguh nasib kamu, semuanya tak tahu.Seluruh usia kamu dihabiskan sebagai pendayung sampan." Kata Professor itu dengan nada mengejek dan angkuh. Pendayung sampan itu hanya berdiam diri.
Selang beberapa minit kemudian, tiba-tiba hujan turun. Tiba-tiba saja datang ombak besar. Sampan itu dilambung ombak besar dan terbalik.Professor dan pendayung sampan terpelanting. Sempat pula pendayung sampan itu bertanya;
"Kamu tahu berenang?"
Professor itu menggelengkan kepala.
"Kalau macam ini, kamu dah kehilangan 100 peratus nyawa kamu." Kata pendayung sampan itu sambil berenang menuju ke pantai.
Moral of the Story:
Dalam hidup ini IQ yang tinggi belum tentu boleh menjamin kehidupan. Tak guna kalau kita pandai dan tahu banyak perkara jika tak tahu perkara-perkara penting dalam hidup.
Adakalanya orang yang kita sangka bodoh itu rupanya lebih berjaya dari kita. Dia mungkin bodoh dalam bidang yang tidak ada kena mengena dengan kerjayanya, tetapi 'MASTER' dalam bidang yang diceburi. Hidup ini singkat. Jadi, tanyalah pada diri sendiri,untuk apakah ilmu yg dikumpulkan jika bukan untuk digunakan dan boleh digunakan?
Hikmat Inspirasi:
Kepuasan itu terletak pada usaha bukannya pada pencapaian. Usaha sempurna adalah kemenangan.-/zai6973.blogspot
"OK, semua sudah siap, mari kita balik ke darat", kata Professor itu.
Pendayung sampan itu akur dan mula memusingkan sampannya ke arah pantai. Hanya dalam perjalanan pulang itu barulah Professor itu menegur pendayung sampan.
"Kamu dah lama kerja mendayung sampan?" Tanya Professor itu.
"Hampir semur hidup saya", Jawab pendayung sampan itu dgn ringkas.
"Seumur hidup kamu?" Tanya Professor itu lagi. "Ya".
"Jadi kamu tak tahu perkara-perkara lain selain dari mendayung sampan?" Tanya Professor itu.
Pendayung sampan itu hanya menggelengkan kepalanya. Masih tidak berpuas hati, Professor itu bertanya lagi, "Kamu tahu geografi?"
Pendayung sampan itu menggelengkan kepala.
"Kalau macam ni, kamu dah kehilangan 25 peratus dari usia kamu."
Kata Professor itu lagi, "Kamu tahu biologi?"
Pendayung sampan itu menggelengkan kepala.
"Kasihan. Kamu dah kehilangan 50 peratus usia kamu. Kamu tahu fizik?" Professor itu masih lagi bertanya.
Seperti tadi, pendayung sampan itu hanya menggelengkan kepala.
"Kalau begini, kasihan, kamu sudah kehilangan 75 peratus dari usia kamu.Malang sungguh nasib kamu, semuanya tak tahu.Seluruh usia kamu dihabiskan sebagai pendayung sampan." Kata Professor itu dengan nada mengejek dan angkuh. Pendayung sampan itu hanya berdiam diri.
Selang beberapa minit kemudian, tiba-tiba hujan turun. Tiba-tiba saja datang ombak besar. Sampan itu dilambung ombak besar dan terbalik.Professor dan pendayung sampan terpelanting. Sempat pula pendayung sampan itu bertanya;
"Kamu tahu berenang?"
Professor itu menggelengkan kepala.
"Kalau macam ini, kamu dah kehilangan 100 peratus nyawa kamu." Kata pendayung sampan itu sambil berenang menuju ke pantai.
Moral of the Story:
Dalam hidup ini IQ yang tinggi belum tentu boleh menjamin kehidupan. Tak guna kalau kita pandai dan tahu banyak perkara jika tak tahu perkara-perkara penting dalam hidup.
Adakalanya orang yang kita sangka bodoh itu rupanya lebih berjaya dari kita. Dia mungkin bodoh dalam bidang yang tidak ada kena mengena dengan kerjayanya, tetapi 'MASTER' dalam bidang yang diceburi. Hidup ini singkat. Jadi, tanyalah pada diri sendiri,untuk apakah ilmu yg dikumpulkan jika bukan untuk digunakan dan boleh digunakan?
Hikmat Inspirasi:
Kepuasan itu terletak pada usaha bukannya pada pencapaian. Usaha sempurna adalah kemenangan.-/zai6973.blogspot
THE REAL MAHATHIR MOHAMAD AS SEEN BY BARRY WAIN : Din Merican
The real Mahathir laid bare for Malaysians and UMNO: Siti Hasmah says “he belongs to the people“ at a cost of RM100 billion
Malaysia has squandered an estimated RM100 billion on financial scandals under the 22-year rule of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, according to a new book about the former prime minister.
According to Barry Wain, author of the soon-to-be launched ‘Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times’, direct financial losses amounted to about RM50 billion.
This doubled once the invisible costs, such as unrecorded write-offs, were taken into account. The RM100 billion total loss was equivalent to US$40 billion at then prevailing exchange rates.
Barry, who is a former editor of the Asian Wall Street Journal, says most of the scams, which included a government attempt to manipulate the international tin price and gambling by Bank Negara on global currency markets, occurred in the 1980s.
‘Malaysian Maverick’ is the first independent, full-length study of Mahathir, who retired in 2003 after more than two decades as premier. The book will be published globally next week by Palgrave Macmillan.
Wain writes that the Mahathir administration, which took office in 1981 with the slogan, “clean, efficient, trustworthy”, was almost immediately embroiled in financial scandals that “exploded with startling regularity”.
By the early 1990s, he says, cynics remarked that it had been “a good decade for bad behaviour, or a bad decade for good behaviour”.
Secret military deal with US
The book also reveals that:
Mahathir, despite his nationalistic rants, signed a secret security agreement with the United States in 1984 that gave the Americans access to a jungle warfare training school in Johor and allowed them to set up a small-ship repair facility at Lumut and a plant in Kuala Lumpur to repair C-130 Hercules transport aircraft.
Mahathir used a secret fund of his ruling UMNO to turn the party into a vast conglomerate with investments that spanned almost the entire economy.
Mahathir’s UMNO financed its new Putra World Trade Centre headquarters in Kuala Lumpur partly with taxpayers money, by forcing state-owned banks to write off at least RM140 million in interest on UMNO loans.
Wain, who is now a writer-in-residence at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, however credits Mahathir with engineering the country’s economic transformation, deepening industrialisation and expanding Malaysia’s middle class.
But Mahathir had undermined state institutions, permitted the spread of corruption and failed to provide for Malaysia’s future leadership, he says.
Friday, November 20, 2009
CHANGELING : A Real True Story
Ulasan Faisal Tehrani.......Korupsi
SEBUAH kisah benar lakonan Angelina Jolie & John Markovitch.10 Mac 1928 apabila Christine bangun pagi dengan janji untuk membawa anaknya menonton filem, dia menerima panggilan untuk menggantikan tempat seorang rakan sekerja yang sedang sakit. Meski hari tersebut adalah hari cutinya, Christine berlepas ke tempat kerja sebagai seorang ketua operator penuh dedikasi, dan pulang dalam keadaan lewat. Dia mendapati Walter, buah hatinya tidak ada di rumah seperti biasa. Malah tiada di mana-mana. Walter Collins segera dilaporkan sebagai kanak-kanak hilang. Maka bermulalah penderitaan seorang ibu yang menanti sesuatu yang tidak kunjung tiba.
Filem arahan Clint Eastwood ini tidak terlalu berminat menyelami perasaan Christine sebagai seorang ibu yang penuh emosi meskipun Angelina Jolie yang memeran watak Christine dengan penuh luar biasa sekali melakonkan watak seorang ibu yang tertekan jiwa seraya berdepan dengan trauma kehilangan anak lelakinya.
Fokus utama Changeling jauh lebih bersifat politik. Ia bercita-cita besar untuk membongkar korupsi pihak berkuasa Los Angelas pada waktu itu.Kehebatan Changeling terletak pada tiga lapis tema yang berselirat.
Pertama, kisah kehancuran hati seorang ibu mendepani realiti kehilangan anaknya.
Kedua, sebuah filem tentang kejahatan pihak berkuasa polis Los Angelas yang bukan menangkap penjenayah tetapi sebaliknya melindungi penjenayah.
Ketiga, kisah suspen bagaimana pembunuh bersiri kanak-kanak yang dipercayai menculik Walter dihadapkan ke muka pengadilan lalu menerima hukuman gantung sampai mati.
Changeling yang terbit tahun 2008, menyorot seorang ibu yang lurus dan naif. Sebagai warga kota yang jujur dan baik, Christine mempercayai sepenuh hatinya bahawa pihak polis sedang dan akan melakukan yang terbaik untuk mencari anaknya yang hilang.
Tetapi Christine tersilap. Pihak polis sedang mendapat keuntungan dengan berlagak sebagai polis. Kuasa yang ada di tangan polis membolehkan mereka melakukan apa sahaja terhadap sesiapa sahaja.
Di Los Angelas waktu itu, polis adalah raja sarang pelacuran, raja penyeludupan senjata, raja samseng dan pembunuhan malah raja sekian banyak sindiket.Plot berubah menjadi bahagian yang paling menakutkan. Walter Collins dipulangkan.
Tetapi igauan buruk yang baharu menjelma dalam hidup Christine. Dia seorang ibu yang amat mengenal anaknya Walter. Budak lelaki yang dipulangkan oleh pihak polis bukanlah anaknya tetapi seorang anak hilang yang lain.
Demi memperbaiki imej, polis Los Angelas telah mengajar anak tersebut untuk mengaku sebagai Walter Collins dan disiapkan jejeran media dan wartawan untuk menunjukkan betapa cekapnya pihak berkuasa.Christine bertegas budak yang didatangkan oleh pihak polis bukan anaknya. Ia menjadi lebih jelas apabila anak tersebut dilihat berkhatan, dan ketinggiannya tidak mencapai ketinggian Walter yang kerap diukur oleh Christine.
Menyedari ada sesuatu yang tidak kena, Christine mulai melawan arus. Pihak polis yang merasakan Christine kini di pihak yang bersiap untuk mencemar ‘nama baik’ mereka bakal bertindak lebih ganas. Christine didekati oleh seorang paderi, Gustav Brigleb agamawan yang mengisytiharkan perang moral ke atas pihak polis yang ganas dan melakukan jenayah terancang.
Pertama kali, Christine menolak untuk ‘berjuang bersamanya’. Christine hanya mahu anaknya pulang. Bukan terlibat dalam sebuah gerakan politik. Akan tetapi plot yang lebih mengejutkan menerjah. Pihak polis yang rasa terancam dengan suara-suara keras Christine membuat pilihan untuk mengisytiharkan Christine sebagai gila dan dia dihantar ke wad gila. Christine terkejut mendapati pesakit jiwa yang terkumpul di dalam hospital terasing tersebut ialah mangsa keganasan polis.
Ada di antaranya dihantar ke neraka itu semata-mata kerana tidak mahu meniduri pegawai polis tertentu. Ada yang dihantar ke tempat tersebut kerana mengingkari suami mereka, juga pegawai polis.Kekuatan filem ini ialah permainan plot dan sub-plotnya yang baik. Sebab dan akibat terjalin dengan baik meski ia bergerak lambat dan setingkat demi setingkat suspen atau ketegangan dibina. Perjuangan Christine kini bukan lagi mencari anak yang hilang semata-mata tetapi ialah melawan korupsi pihak polis dan ia dilakukan tanpa mengalah dan berundur.
Suku akhir filem ini memaparkan pula bahagian memualkan di mana penculik dan pembunuh bersiri kanak-kanak yang bertanggungjawab menculik Walter ditahan. Ia disulam dengan adegan polis termasuk ketuanya dihadapkan ke tribunal ala-ala inkues terbuka.Apakah lagi yang menarik pada Changeling?
Filem ini, Changeling mempaparkan sisi politik seorang agamawan, iaitu turun ke padang menyelesaikan masalah masyarakat. Gereja dijadikan titik pusat perlawanan menentang korupsi sehingga di akhirnya sebahagian besar masyarakat ikut keluar berdemonstrasi menunjuk rasa terhadap ketidakadilan pihak berkuasa. Kepimpinan agama seperti ini yang begitu teguh dan berani melawan ahli-ahli politik korup sering mendapat tempat dalam sejarah. Dalam skala yang lebih besar dan berpengaruh pada tahun 1979 misalnya, Imam Khomeini menjadi pemimpin agama yang bangkit menentang penindasan, ketidakadilan dan korupsi penguasa.
Rakyat yang terkesan oleh keganasan polis rahsia Savak ikut bersama dengan beliau. Changeling dikuatkan oleh lakonan bintang-bintang terkemuka Hollywood antara lain Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich dan Jeffrey Donovan. Ia menerima pencalonan Oscar untuk kategori sinematografi dan penataan seni. Jolie sendiri dicalonkan untuk kategori pelakon wanita terbaik.Changeling adalah satu lagi tanda dalam sinema moden.
Sekiranya filem Malaysia berminat untuk meninggalkan tanda di peringkat antarabangsa, filem yang berani seperti ini harus dihasilkan. Pelbagai korupsi yang pernah menjadi skandal dalam politik negara wajar difilemkan. Isu skandal BMF, Perwaja, reformasi tahun 1997, tragedi Memali, pembunuhan Altantuya Shaaribu, kes liwat Saiful Bukhari Azlan atau kematian misteri Teoh Beng Hock memberikan bumbu cerita yang bertenaga.Filem dengan sisi muluk dan molek pihak berkuasa ala Gerak Khas hanya meninggalkan citra propaganda. Kausaliti dengan niat propaganda sering diabaikan di peringkat internasional. Malah cepat kita lupakan.Tetapi adakah karyawan Malaysia yang berani?
Tersiar di Siasah edisi 15-21 November. Dilarang menerbit kembali atau memindah ubah.
SEBUAH kisah benar lakonan Angelina Jolie & John Markovitch.10 Mac 1928 apabila Christine bangun pagi dengan janji untuk membawa anaknya menonton filem, dia menerima panggilan untuk menggantikan tempat seorang rakan sekerja yang sedang sakit. Meski hari tersebut adalah hari cutinya, Christine berlepas ke tempat kerja sebagai seorang ketua operator penuh dedikasi, dan pulang dalam keadaan lewat. Dia mendapati Walter, buah hatinya tidak ada di rumah seperti biasa. Malah tiada di mana-mana. Walter Collins segera dilaporkan sebagai kanak-kanak hilang. Maka bermulalah penderitaan seorang ibu yang menanti sesuatu yang tidak kunjung tiba.
Filem arahan Clint Eastwood ini tidak terlalu berminat menyelami perasaan Christine sebagai seorang ibu yang penuh emosi meskipun Angelina Jolie yang memeran watak Christine dengan penuh luar biasa sekali melakonkan watak seorang ibu yang tertekan jiwa seraya berdepan dengan trauma kehilangan anak lelakinya.
Fokus utama Changeling jauh lebih bersifat politik. Ia bercita-cita besar untuk membongkar korupsi pihak berkuasa Los Angelas pada waktu itu.Kehebatan Changeling terletak pada tiga lapis tema yang berselirat.
Pertama, kisah kehancuran hati seorang ibu mendepani realiti kehilangan anaknya.
Kedua, sebuah filem tentang kejahatan pihak berkuasa polis Los Angelas yang bukan menangkap penjenayah tetapi sebaliknya melindungi penjenayah.
Ketiga, kisah suspen bagaimana pembunuh bersiri kanak-kanak yang dipercayai menculik Walter dihadapkan ke muka pengadilan lalu menerima hukuman gantung sampai mati.
Changeling yang terbit tahun 2008, menyorot seorang ibu yang lurus dan naif. Sebagai warga kota yang jujur dan baik, Christine mempercayai sepenuh hatinya bahawa pihak polis sedang dan akan melakukan yang terbaik untuk mencari anaknya yang hilang.
Tetapi Christine tersilap. Pihak polis sedang mendapat keuntungan dengan berlagak sebagai polis. Kuasa yang ada di tangan polis membolehkan mereka melakukan apa sahaja terhadap sesiapa sahaja.
Di Los Angelas waktu itu, polis adalah raja sarang pelacuran, raja penyeludupan senjata, raja samseng dan pembunuhan malah raja sekian banyak sindiket.Plot berubah menjadi bahagian yang paling menakutkan. Walter Collins dipulangkan.
Tetapi igauan buruk yang baharu menjelma dalam hidup Christine. Dia seorang ibu yang amat mengenal anaknya Walter. Budak lelaki yang dipulangkan oleh pihak polis bukanlah anaknya tetapi seorang anak hilang yang lain.
Demi memperbaiki imej, polis Los Angelas telah mengajar anak tersebut untuk mengaku sebagai Walter Collins dan disiapkan jejeran media dan wartawan untuk menunjukkan betapa cekapnya pihak berkuasa.Christine bertegas budak yang didatangkan oleh pihak polis bukan anaknya. Ia menjadi lebih jelas apabila anak tersebut dilihat berkhatan, dan ketinggiannya tidak mencapai ketinggian Walter yang kerap diukur oleh Christine.
Menyedari ada sesuatu yang tidak kena, Christine mulai melawan arus. Pihak polis yang merasakan Christine kini di pihak yang bersiap untuk mencemar ‘nama baik’ mereka bakal bertindak lebih ganas. Christine didekati oleh seorang paderi, Gustav Brigleb agamawan yang mengisytiharkan perang moral ke atas pihak polis yang ganas dan melakukan jenayah terancang.
Pertama kali, Christine menolak untuk ‘berjuang bersamanya’. Christine hanya mahu anaknya pulang. Bukan terlibat dalam sebuah gerakan politik. Akan tetapi plot yang lebih mengejutkan menerjah. Pihak polis yang rasa terancam dengan suara-suara keras Christine membuat pilihan untuk mengisytiharkan Christine sebagai gila dan dia dihantar ke wad gila. Christine terkejut mendapati pesakit jiwa yang terkumpul di dalam hospital terasing tersebut ialah mangsa keganasan polis.
Ada di antaranya dihantar ke neraka itu semata-mata kerana tidak mahu meniduri pegawai polis tertentu. Ada yang dihantar ke tempat tersebut kerana mengingkari suami mereka, juga pegawai polis.Kekuatan filem ini ialah permainan plot dan sub-plotnya yang baik. Sebab dan akibat terjalin dengan baik meski ia bergerak lambat dan setingkat demi setingkat suspen atau ketegangan dibina. Perjuangan Christine kini bukan lagi mencari anak yang hilang semata-mata tetapi ialah melawan korupsi pihak polis dan ia dilakukan tanpa mengalah dan berundur.
Suku akhir filem ini memaparkan pula bahagian memualkan di mana penculik dan pembunuh bersiri kanak-kanak yang bertanggungjawab menculik Walter ditahan. Ia disulam dengan adegan polis termasuk ketuanya dihadapkan ke tribunal ala-ala inkues terbuka.Apakah lagi yang menarik pada Changeling?
Filem ini, Changeling mempaparkan sisi politik seorang agamawan, iaitu turun ke padang menyelesaikan masalah masyarakat. Gereja dijadikan titik pusat perlawanan menentang korupsi sehingga di akhirnya sebahagian besar masyarakat ikut keluar berdemonstrasi menunjuk rasa terhadap ketidakadilan pihak berkuasa. Kepimpinan agama seperti ini yang begitu teguh dan berani melawan ahli-ahli politik korup sering mendapat tempat dalam sejarah. Dalam skala yang lebih besar dan berpengaruh pada tahun 1979 misalnya, Imam Khomeini menjadi pemimpin agama yang bangkit menentang penindasan, ketidakadilan dan korupsi penguasa.
Rakyat yang terkesan oleh keganasan polis rahsia Savak ikut bersama dengan beliau. Changeling dikuatkan oleh lakonan bintang-bintang terkemuka Hollywood antara lain Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich dan Jeffrey Donovan. Ia menerima pencalonan Oscar untuk kategori sinematografi dan penataan seni. Jolie sendiri dicalonkan untuk kategori pelakon wanita terbaik.Changeling adalah satu lagi tanda dalam sinema moden.
Sekiranya filem Malaysia berminat untuk meninggalkan tanda di peringkat antarabangsa, filem yang berani seperti ini harus dihasilkan. Pelbagai korupsi yang pernah menjadi skandal dalam politik negara wajar difilemkan. Isu skandal BMF, Perwaja, reformasi tahun 1997, tragedi Memali, pembunuhan Altantuya Shaaribu, kes liwat Saiful Bukhari Azlan atau kematian misteri Teoh Beng Hock memberikan bumbu cerita yang bertenaga.Filem dengan sisi muluk dan molek pihak berkuasa ala Gerak Khas hanya meninggalkan citra propaganda. Kausaliti dengan niat propaganda sering diabaikan di peringkat internasional. Malah cepat kita lupakan.Tetapi adakah karyawan Malaysia yang berani?
Tersiar di Siasah edisi 15-21 November. Dilarang menerbit kembali atau memindah ubah.
RASULULLAH S.A.W DAN PENGEMIS YAHUDI BUTA
Satu kisah untuk dijadikan iktibar. Teringkat pula pepatah Inggeris menyatakan " Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover".
Di sudut pasar Madinah Al-Munawarah seorang pengemis Yahudi buta hari demi hari apabila ada orang yang mendekatinya ia selalu berkata "Wahai saudaraku jangan dekati Muhammad, dia itu orang gila, dia itu pembohong, dia itu tukang sihir, apabila kalian mendekatinya kalian akan dipengaruhinya". Setiap pagi Rasulullah SAW mendatanginya dengan membawa makanan, dan tanpa berkata sepatah kata pun Rasulullah SAW menyuapi makanan yang dibawanya kepada pengemis itu walaupun pengemis itu selalu berpesan agar tidak mendekati orang yang bernama Muhammad. Rasulullah SAW melakukannya hingga menjelang Beliau SAW wafat. Setelah kewafatan Rasulullah tidak ada lagi orang yang membawakan makanan setiap pagi kepada pengemis Yahudi buta itu.
Suatu hari Abubakar r.a berkunjung ke rumah anaknya Aisyah r.ha. Beliau bertanya kepada anaknya, "anakku adakah sunnah kekasihku yang belum aku kerjakan", Aisyah r.ha menjawab pertanyaan ayahnya, "Wahai ayah engkau adalah seorang ahli sunnah hampir tidak ada satu sunnah pun yang belum ayah lakukan kecuali satu sunnah saja". "Apakah Itu?", tanya Abubakar r.a. Setiap pagi Rasulullah SAW selalu pergi ke ujung pasar dengan membawakan makanan untuk seorang pengemis Yahudi buta yang berada di sana", kata Aisyah r.ha.
Ke esokan harinya Abubakar r.a. pergi ke pasar dengan membawa makanan untuk diberikannya kepada pengemis itu. Abubakar r.a mendatangi pengemis itu dan memberikan makanan itu kepada nya. Ketika Abubakar r.a. mulai menyuapinya, si pengemis marah sambil berteriak, "siapakah kamu ?". Abubakar r.a menjawab, "aku orang yang biasa". "Bukan !, engkau bukan orang yang biasa mendatangiku", jawab si pengemis buta itu. Apabila ia datang kepadaku tidak susah tangan ini memegang dan tidak susah mulut ini mengunyah. Orang yang biasa mendatangiku itu selalu menyuapiku, tapi terlebih dahulu dihaluskannya makanan tersebut dengan mulutnya setelah itu ia berikan pada ku dengan mulutnya sendiri", pengemis itu melanjutkan perkataannya.
Abubakar r.a. tidak dapat menahan air matanya, ia menangis sambil berkata kepada pengemis itu, aku memang bukan orang yang biasa datang pada mu, aku adalah salah seorang dari sahabatnya, orang yang mulia itu telah tiada. Ia adalah Muhammad Rasulullah SAW. Setelah pengemis itu mendengar cerita Abubakar r.a. ia pun menangis dan kemudian berkata, benarkah demikian?, selama ini aku selalu menghinanya, memfitnahnya, ia tidak pernah memarahiku sedikitpun, ia mendatangiku dengan membawa makanan setiap pagi, ia begitu mulia.... Pengemis Yahudi buta tersebut akhirnya bersyahadat dihadapan Abubakar r.a.
Di sudut pasar Madinah Al-Munawarah seorang pengemis Yahudi buta hari demi hari apabila ada orang yang mendekatinya ia selalu berkata "Wahai saudaraku jangan dekati Muhammad, dia itu orang gila, dia itu pembohong, dia itu tukang sihir, apabila kalian mendekatinya kalian akan dipengaruhinya". Setiap pagi Rasulullah SAW mendatanginya dengan membawa makanan, dan tanpa berkata sepatah kata pun Rasulullah SAW menyuapi makanan yang dibawanya kepada pengemis itu walaupun pengemis itu selalu berpesan agar tidak mendekati orang yang bernama Muhammad. Rasulullah SAW melakukannya hingga menjelang Beliau SAW wafat. Setelah kewafatan Rasulullah tidak ada lagi orang yang membawakan makanan setiap pagi kepada pengemis Yahudi buta itu.
Suatu hari Abubakar r.a berkunjung ke rumah anaknya Aisyah r.ha. Beliau bertanya kepada anaknya, "anakku adakah sunnah kekasihku yang belum aku kerjakan", Aisyah r.ha menjawab pertanyaan ayahnya, "Wahai ayah engkau adalah seorang ahli sunnah hampir tidak ada satu sunnah pun yang belum ayah lakukan kecuali satu sunnah saja". "Apakah Itu?", tanya Abubakar r.a. Setiap pagi Rasulullah SAW selalu pergi ke ujung pasar dengan membawakan makanan untuk seorang pengemis Yahudi buta yang berada di sana", kata Aisyah r.ha.
Ke esokan harinya Abubakar r.a. pergi ke pasar dengan membawa makanan untuk diberikannya kepada pengemis itu. Abubakar r.a mendatangi pengemis itu dan memberikan makanan itu kepada nya. Ketika Abubakar r.a. mulai menyuapinya, si pengemis marah sambil berteriak, "siapakah kamu ?". Abubakar r.a menjawab, "aku orang yang biasa". "Bukan !, engkau bukan orang yang biasa mendatangiku", jawab si pengemis buta itu. Apabila ia datang kepadaku tidak susah tangan ini memegang dan tidak susah mulut ini mengunyah. Orang yang biasa mendatangiku itu selalu menyuapiku, tapi terlebih dahulu dihaluskannya makanan tersebut dengan mulutnya setelah itu ia berikan pada ku dengan mulutnya sendiri", pengemis itu melanjutkan perkataannya.
Abubakar r.a. tidak dapat menahan air matanya, ia menangis sambil berkata kepada pengemis itu, aku memang bukan orang yang biasa datang pada mu, aku adalah salah seorang dari sahabatnya, orang yang mulia itu telah tiada. Ia adalah Muhammad Rasulullah SAW. Setelah pengemis itu mendengar cerita Abubakar r.a. ia pun menangis dan kemudian berkata, benarkah demikian?, selama ini aku selalu menghinanya, memfitnahnya, ia tidak pernah memarahiku sedikitpun, ia mendatangiku dengan membawa makanan setiap pagi, ia begitu mulia.... Pengemis Yahudi buta tersebut akhirnya bersyahadat dihadapan Abubakar r.a.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
A BIT OF HISTORY : MAHATHIR - ANWAR IBRAHIM FEUD
Artikel lama untuk disingkap. Jangan orang kata Melayu Mudah Lupa. Cuba lihat dan faham pada ayat yang saya terangkan dgn warna merah.
Malaysia: The Feud
How Mahathir and Anwar became embroiled in a clash that threatens to send Malaysia into upheavalby Sheri Prasso and Mark Clifford in Kuala Lumpur, with Joyce Barnathan in Hong Kong.
To Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has a passion for flying and sailing, Malaysia’s annual air and boat show on the island of Langkawi was an event he hated to miss–even as his nation stumbled through an economic crisis. So Mahathir decided to hold the December 3, 1997, meeting of the Malaysian Cabinet on the island, instead of in the capital of Kuala Lumpur.
But by the time he arrived at the elegant Gunung Raya hilltop retreat, Mahathir was in for a jolt. His next-in-command–Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim–had virtually concluded business without him, according to sources knowledgeable about the meeting. In what amounted to an economic coup, the cabinet had decided to adopt an austerity plan similar to those imposed on neighboring Thailand and Indonesia by the International Monetary Fund. The plan would slash public spending and halt infrastructure projects championed by Mahathir.
The new policy was a stunning rebuke to Mahathir. Since the onset of the Asian crisis five months earlier, he had been railing against a perceived Western conspiracy and insisting Malaysia could maintain its breakneck growth. Mahathir’s reaction: He humbly agreed to go along with his Cabinet’s decision–but on the very next day undermined it by announcing Malaysia would proceed with a controversial $2.7 billion rail and pipeline project. Alarmed investors immediately sent the ringgit to a new low.
Those intrigue-filled days in December were a prelude to what has become Malaysia’s worst political crisis in nearly three decades. Although Mahathir and Anwar had long had differences over economic stewardship and management of political spoils, that rift widened as Asia’s financial crisis wore on and the two leaders worked increasingly at cross purposes. Ultimately, the dispute led Mahathir to clamp controls on the currency and jail his deputy, casting himself as an international rogue.
Today, the clash threatens to send Malaysia into upheaval. Anwar, a central player in the old patronage system, has now emerged as a hero of the swelling reformasi movement, which advocates a more open society and economy. He goes on trial November 2 on 10 charges of sodomy and corruption. A conviction could turn the protests into an ugly confrontation.
How did the two men end up so militantly opposed to each other? Over the past month, BUSINESS WEEK interviewed dozens of Malaysians from both camps, including Anwar prior to his arrest, prominent pro-Mahathir businessmen, informed academics, and Anwar associates. Together, they draw portraits of the one-time allies and their battle to control the future of Malaysia Inc., an economic model that uses patronage to speed economic development.
HEIR APPARENT.
It is a tragic spectacle. Just a few years ago, Mahathir was poised to retire from politics as the prickly but nonetheless brilliant and erudite architect of a model developing nation. And Anwar, the anointed successor, would smoothly take the helm of the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and lead a modern, politically stable 21st-century economy.
Former Islamic radical Anwar, 51, was the more Western-friendly of the two, often quoting Shakespeare and hobnobbing with the moguls of international finance. Mahathir, 72, has long taken a confrontational stance toward the West. But like Anwar, he viewed foreign investment as key to Malaysia’s economy and advocated freer trade within Asia.
Both also were savvy politicians who steered choice deals to their allies in the business community.
Just last year, foreign investors criticized the government’s handling of insider deals by Malaysian Resources Corp., a media and infrastructure company controlled by Anwar allies.
Still, Anwar had a reform agenda. In recent years, he increasingly advocated the rule of law and more transparency. But until the crisis erupted, he was willing to bide his time until it was his turn to run the country. ”He was that close to power,” says Anwar’s wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, holding her thumb and forefinger close together. ”He was tolerating a lot.”
Perhaps the key difference between the two leaders was their outlook on the world. Anwar quickly realized that the meltdowns of Thailand and Indonesia were caused by excessive borrowing, overbuilding, and big trade imbalances–and that Malaysia’s situation was similar. Malaysia didn’t yet need an IMF bailout, but he feared its economy would implode without swift action. While this surely would hurt his business allies, Anwar was willing to have Malaysia absorb economic pain first and rebuild for the future.
Mahathir looked at it differently. Unlike the ascendant Anwar, he was in the twilight of his career–and feared for his legacy. While Anwar hinted he wanted to end patronage, Mahathir genuinely thought the system he proudly calls ”Malaysia Incorporated” was a legitimate model for developing nations. A handful of wealthy businessmen are singled out for privileges and given the role of creating jobs, implementing big projects, and keeping the economy and the ruling party humming. Then wealth trickles down from Mahathir’s chosen few to the many.
”We view Malaysia as a corporation, and the shareholders in the government are companies,’’says Mustapha Mohamed, the new No.2 at the Finance Ministry. ”To the extent you help the bigger guys, the smaller guys benefit.” When Western agencies attacked his system as institutionalized corruption, Mahathir ”was quite angry,” says Francis Yeoh, managing director of YTL Corp. and a longtime Mahathir ally. ”He found it incredibly ! ! hypocritical and unfair.” Mahathir declined to be interviewed.
When Malaysia was growing 8% to 10% annually, the uneasy alliance worked. But the crisis in Malaysia’s financial markets provoked a fury in Mahathir toward the outside world. The feud broke out two days after Mahathir returned from a two-month globe-trotting sabbatical in July, 1997, just as the crisis hit. He began blasting foreigners–and he kept it up for months. He blamed ”international manipulators” such as financier George Soros and Jewish traders for trying to undo the success of the Muslim Malaysians.
Malaysian officials grew weary of the Mahathir effect on the currency and stock markets. The central bank, Bank Negara tracked the plunges in the ringgit every time Mahathir lashed out, and officials showed him the data. If Mahathir would tone it down, they suggested, the ringgit might stabilize. For a while, he complied.
Meanwhile, Anwar tightened up on money and began urging Mahathir to suspend big infrastructure projects. When Mahathir agreed on September 5 to postpone the $5.3 billion Bakun Dam, a new airport, and plans to build the world’s longest building, the market enjoyed the largest one-day surge in over three years. But it fizzled as the crisis deepened.
Mahathir’s patience ran out. On November 21, he set up the National Economic Action Council to devise remedies. It included Mahathir, Anwar, economic adviser Daim Zainuddin, and prominent economists and business leaders. Council members quickly squared off over the best cure for the crisis: the IMF’s austerity medicine or the easy money and massive government spending Mahathir preferred. ”We argued back and forth, back and forth,” recalls Zainal Aznam Yusof, deputy director of the Institute for Strategic & International Studies, a government think tank. But as the months wore on, ”we became convinced that you cannot go on with tightening monetary policy. You might push the economy over the edge.”
Then came a move that rocked market confidence and drove a deeper wedge between Anwar and Mahathir: the bailout of big infrastructure developer Renong. Headed by longtime Mahathir associate Halim Saad, it was precisely the sort of company Mahathir was determined to save. Renong had built some of Malaysia’s biggest projects but was choking under a pile of debt. In a complex transaction that left minority shareholders in the cold, Renong subsidiary United Engineers Malaysia (UEM) paid a stiff premium to buy out the parent company. Analysts suspected that Mahathir allies benefited, a charge Renong denied.
Anwar, miffed at the way the bailout was handled, ordered regulators to investigate. UEM was found to have broken disclosure rules, but the punishment was light. ”Within two weeks of the Renong-UEM deal being announced, it was all over” for Malaysia’s stock market, says a local securities trader.
Five days after the Renong bailout came the meeting on Langkawi. Anwar, having just met with IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus and acting on the advice of his central bank governor, Ahmad Don, had concluded that the IMF formula of tight monetary policy and government austerity was right. The Cabinet agreed. When Mahathir arrived, the virtual IMF program was a fait accompli.
”MORAL OBJECTION.”
But local business leaders were growing unhappy with the effects of Anwar’s policies. So was Mahathir. ”The intensity of business collapses and bank collapses was like tenpins falling every day,” says YTL’s Yeoh. ”He couldn’t stand it.” Adds another prominent businessman: ”He doesn’t believe in bankruptcies.He has a moral objection to them.”
The attempts to get around Anwar’s IMF-style budget grew. According to Anwar associates, Daim called the CEO of Bank Bumiputra, Abdul Aziz Othman, and asked him to lend $20 million to a company in trouble. After checking with Anwar, these sources say, Aziz told Daim no. Tensions between Daim and Anwar rose. Daim declines to comment on the allegation or other matters related to Anwar. Bank Bumi did not respond to requests for comment.
By February, Mahathir was pushing for more bailouts. Anwar aides contend that the Prime Minister had broached the idea of using Petroliam Nasional (PETRONAS) to bail out his son Mirzan Mahathir’s shipping company, Konsortium Perkapalan (KP), which had trouble servicing its $490 million debt. Both Mirzan and PETRONAS deny the Prime Minister had anything to do with the $220 million purchase of KP’s assets by a PETRONAS unit.
‘I didn’t ask him to intervene. I just told him that any businessman faced with this situation will have to sell and pay down the debt,” says Mirzan, who holds a Wharton MBA.’We believe we are a viable company.”But the deal reminded many Malaysians of Indonesia’s Suharto, who fell partly because of his family’s greed.
In 1994, opposition politicians criticized the stakes Mahathir’s sons had in over 200 companies. Now, those concerns were resurfacing. Comparisons with Suharto ”must have upset Dr. Mahathir, even though there are important differences between the two,” says University of Malaya economist Professor K.S. Jomo.
In April, the Anwar-Mahathir rift grew wider. Speaking in New York at the elite Council on Foreign Relations, Anwar lauded the virtues of ”creative destruction.” Mahathir would deride that term time and again in speeches months later.
Anwar later told Mahathir he was trying to push Malaysia’s agenda by calling for reform of the international monetary system. But he did not mince his words in New York about what was going on back home. ”What are meant to be mere crutches often become permanent appendages, spawning a dependency mentality and rendering the public purse a rich feeding ground for all kinds of parasites,” he said to applause.
Yet while he was away, Anwar got wind of another attempted bailout, this time for Daim pal Tajudin Ramli at Malaysia Airlines. ”The moment my back is turned, they push through this nonsense,” he told his aides. ”How am I supposed to explain this over here?”
Mahathir denied he was involved. Anwar suggested the Finance Ministry would veto the deal, and it was never done.
Shortly after Anwar returned home, Suharto fell. Mahathir had met with the aging strongman in Cairo on May 14 at the G-15 summit. Mahathir left the meeting speaking of ”foreign parties trying to unseat us both.” The new Indonesian President, B.J. Habibie, was a friend of Anwar.
ESPIONAGE CHARGES.
So was Indonesian newspaper editor Nasir Tamara, who caused a flap on June 2 when he addressed Malaysian scholars, businessmen, and social activists assembled by Anwar’s think tank. While he didn’t mention Malaysia, Nasir spoke of cronyism and explained how the reformasi movement toppled Suharto. An Anwar aide says Mahathir questioned his deputy about the speech.
By the time the UMNO General Assembly meeting began on June 20, Mahathir had decided to get rid of Anwar–and the open battle began. Information packets given to the 1,900 conference attendees all contained a book alleging homosexual and heterosexual affairs by Anwar. The book, Fifty Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Be Prime Minister, also charged him with spying for a foreign power. Diplomats and other sources say the book could not have been distributed without Mahathir’s knowledge.
Anwar’s camp returned fire. The leader of the UMNO Youth league, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, criticized the government for ”corruption, collusion, and nepotism.” Mahathir blasted back the next day, saying that everyone, including Anwar and his allies, had benefited from the state’s largesse. Days later, Mahathir announced that Daim would take over management of the economy. Anwar’s role was sharply curtailed. At a mention of Daim during an interview with BUSINESS WEEK on June 30, Anwar crossed his arms and visibly stiffened.
By the end of August, Malaysian stocks were down 80% from the previous year. On September 1, Mahathir shocked the world by imposing currency controls.
He told Anwar to resign by 5:30 p.m. the following day ”or I’ll humiliate you tomorrow,” according to former Anwar aides. He refused. ”I told him, ‘If you resign it’s like an admission of guilt,”’ Anwar’s wife Wan Azizah recalls saying the next day over a lunch where the food went uneaten. Anwar then went to his Finance Ministry office. At 5:30, the power went off at his official residence. At 7, Anwar received a letter from Mahathir saying he had been dismissed.
”I tried to work within the system,” Anwar told BUSINESS WEEK three days after his ouster. But now, Anwar acted like the outsider. He organized the biggest protest in Malaysia’s history on September 20, attended by up to 50,000 people, to call for reform. That day, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II was in town for the Commonwealth Games. Mahathir ordered Anwar’s arrest that night.
A week later, Anwar appeared in court, bruised from what he said was a police beating.
Whatever the verdict in Anwar’s trial, it is unlikely to end the momentum for reform kindled by his ouster. Clearly Malaysia’s reform movement has legs, although no one wants a repeat of the violence that devastated Indonesia during Suharto’s fall. It looks like the transition won’t be easy.
Mahathir seems intent on staying in power to safeguard the economic structure he spent 17 years building.
But even if Anwar vanishes from power, the questions he posed in this turbulent year will haunt his stern mentor for years to come.
Malaysia: The Feud
How Mahathir and Anwar became embroiled in a clash that threatens to send Malaysia into upheavalby Sheri Prasso and Mark Clifford in Kuala Lumpur, with Joyce Barnathan in Hong Kong.
To Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has a passion for flying and sailing, Malaysia’s annual air and boat show on the island of Langkawi was an event he hated to miss–even as his nation stumbled through an economic crisis. So Mahathir decided to hold the December 3, 1997, meeting of the Malaysian Cabinet on the island, instead of in the capital of Kuala Lumpur.
But by the time he arrived at the elegant Gunung Raya hilltop retreat, Mahathir was in for a jolt. His next-in-command–Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim–had virtually concluded business without him, according to sources knowledgeable about the meeting. In what amounted to an economic coup, the cabinet had decided to adopt an austerity plan similar to those imposed on neighboring Thailand and Indonesia by the International Monetary Fund. The plan would slash public spending and halt infrastructure projects championed by Mahathir.
The new policy was a stunning rebuke to Mahathir. Since the onset of the Asian crisis five months earlier, he had been railing against a perceived Western conspiracy and insisting Malaysia could maintain its breakneck growth. Mahathir’s reaction: He humbly agreed to go along with his Cabinet’s decision–but on the very next day undermined it by announcing Malaysia would proceed with a controversial $2.7 billion rail and pipeline project. Alarmed investors immediately sent the ringgit to a new low.
Those intrigue-filled days in December were a prelude to what has become Malaysia’s worst political crisis in nearly three decades. Although Mahathir and Anwar had long had differences over economic stewardship and management of political spoils, that rift widened as Asia’s financial crisis wore on and the two leaders worked increasingly at cross purposes. Ultimately, the dispute led Mahathir to clamp controls on the currency and jail his deputy, casting himself as an international rogue.
Today, the clash threatens to send Malaysia into upheaval. Anwar, a central player in the old patronage system, has now emerged as a hero of the swelling reformasi movement, which advocates a more open society and economy. He goes on trial November 2 on 10 charges of sodomy and corruption. A conviction could turn the protests into an ugly confrontation.
How did the two men end up so militantly opposed to each other? Over the past month, BUSINESS WEEK interviewed dozens of Malaysians from both camps, including Anwar prior to his arrest, prominent pro-Mahathir businessmen, informed academics, and Anwar associates. Together, they draw portraits of the one-time allies and their battle to control the future of Malaysia Inc., an economic model that uses patronage to speed economic development.
HEIR APPARENT.
It is a tragic spectacle. Just a few years ago, Mahathir was poised to retire from politics as the prickly but nonetheless brilliant and erudite architect of a model developing nation. And Anwar, the anointed successor, would smoothly take the helm of the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and lead a modern, politically stable 21st-century economy.
Former Islamic radical Anwar, 51, was the more Western-friendly of the two, often quoting Shakespeare and hobnobbing with the moguls of international finance. Mahathir, 72, has long taken a confrontational stance toward the West. But like Anwar, he viewed foreign investment as key to Malaysia’s economy and advocated freer trade within Asia.
Both also were savvy politicians who steered choice deals to their allies in the business community.
Just last year, foreign investors criticized the government’s handling of insider deals by Malaysian Resources Corp., a media and infrastructure company controlled by Anwar allies.
Still, Anwar had a reform agenda. In recent years, he increasingly advocated the rule of law and more transparency. But until the crisis erupted, he was willing to bide his time until it was his turn to run the country. ”He was that close to power,” says Anwar’s wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, holding her thumb and forefinger close together. ”He was tolerating a lot.”
Perhaps the key difference between the two leaders was their outlook on the world. Anwar quickly realized that the meltdowns of Thailand and Indonesia were caused by excessive borrowing, overbuilding, and big trade imbalances–and that Malaysia’s situation was similar. Malaysia didn’t yet need an IMF bailout, but he feared its economy would implode without swift action. While this surely would hurt his business allies, Anwar was willing to have Malaysia absorb economic pain first and rebuild for the future.
Mahathir looked at it differently. Unlike the ascendant Anwar, he was in the twilight of his career–and feared for his legacy. While Anwar hinted he wanted to end patronage, Mahathir genuinely thought the system he proudly calls ”Malaysia Incorporated” was a legitimate model for developing nations. A handful of wealthy businessmen are singled out for privileges and given the role of creating jobs, implementing big projects, and keeping the economy and the ruling party humming. Then wealth trickles down from Mahathir’s chosen few to the many.
”We view Malaysia as a corporation, and the shareholders in the government are companies,’’says Mustapha Mohamed, the new No.2 at the Finance Ministry. ”To the extent you help the bigger guys, the smaller guys benefit.” When Western agencies attacked his system as institutionalized corruption, Mahathir ”was quite angry,” says Francis Yeoh, managing director of YTL Corp. and a longtime Mahathir ally. ”He found it incredibly ! ! hypocritical and unfair.” Mahathir declined to be interviewed.
When Malaysia was growing 8% to 10% annually, the uneasy alliance worked. But the crisis in Malaysia’s financial markets provoked a fury in Mahathir toward the outside world. The feud broke out two days after Mahathir returned from a two-month globe-trotting sabbatical in July, 1997, just as the crisis hit. He began blasting foreigners–and he kept it up for months. He blamed ”international manipulators” such as financier George Soros and Jewish traders for trying to undo the success of the Muslim Malaysians.
Malaysian officials grew weary of the Mahathir effect on the currency and stock markets. The central bank, Bank Negara tracked the plunges in the ringgit every time Mahathir lashed out, and officials showed him the data. If Mahathir would tone it down, they suggested, the ringgit might stabilize. For a while, he complied.
Meanwhile, Anwar tightened up on money and began urging Mahathir to suspend big infrastructure projects. When Mahathir agreed on September 5 to postpone the $5.3 billion Bakun Dam, a new airport, and plans to build the world’s longest building, the market enjoyed the largest one-day surge in over three years. But it fizzled as the crisis deepened.
Mahathir’s patience ran out. On November 21, he set up the National Economic Action Council to devise remedies. It included Mahathir, Anwar, economic adviser Daim Zainuddin, and prominent economists and business leaders. Council members quickly squared off over the best cure for the crisis: the IMF’s austerity medicine or the easy money and massive government spending Mahathir preferred. ”We argued back and forth, back and forth,” recalls Zainal Aznam Yusof, deputy director of the Institute for Strategic & International Studies, a government think tank. But as the months wore on, ”we became convinced that you cannot go on with tightening monetary policy. You might push the economy over the edge.”
Then came a move that rocked market confidence and drove a deeper wedge between Anwar and Mahathir: the bailout of big infrastructure developer Renong. Headed by longtime Mahathir associate Halim Saad, it was precisely the sort of company Mahathir was determined to save. Renong had built some of Malaysia’s biggest projects but was choking under a pile of debt. In a complex transaction that left minority shareholders in the cold, Renong subsidiary United Engineers Malaysia (UEM) paid a stiff premium to buy out the parent company. Analysts suspected that Mahathir allies benefited, a charge Renong denied.
Anwar, miffed at the way the bailout was handled, ordered regulators to investigate. UEM was found to have broken disclosure rules, but the punishment was light. ”Within two weeks of the Renong-UEM deal being announced, it was all over” for Malaysia’s stock market, says a local securities trader.
Five days after the Renong bailout came the meeting on Langkawi. Anwar, having just met with IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus and acting on the advice of his central bank governor, Ahmad Don, had concluded that the IMF formula of tight monetary policy and government austerity was right. The Cabinet agreed. When Mahathir arrived, the virtual IMF program was a fait accompli.
”MORAL OBJECTION.”
But local business leaders were growing unhappy with the effects of Anwar’s policies. So was Mahathir. ”The intensity of business collapses and bank collapses was like tenpins falling every day,” says YTL’s Yeoh. ”He couldn’t stand it.” Adds another prominent businessman: ”He doesn’t believe in bankruptcies.He has a moral objection to them.”
The attempts to get around Anwar’s IMF-style budget grew. According to Anwar associates, Daim called the CEO of Bank Bumiputra, Abdul Aziz Othman, and asked him to lend $20 million to a company in trouble. After checking with Anwar, these sources say, Aziz told Daim no. Tensions between Daim and Anwar rose. Daim declines to comment on the allegation or other matters related to Anwar. Bank Bumi did not respond to requests for comment.
By February, Mahathir was pushing for more bailouts. Anwar aides contend that the Prime Minister had broached the idea of using Petroliam Nasional (PETRONAS) to bail out his son Mirzan Mahathir’s shipping company, Konsortium Perkapalan (KP), which had trouble servicing its $490 million debt. Both Mirzan and PETRONAS deny the Prime Minister had anything to do with the $220 million purchase of KP’s assets by a PETRONAS unit.
‘I didn’t ask him to intervene. I just told him that any businessman faced with this situation will have to sell and pay down the debt,” says Mirzan, who holds a Wharton MBA.’We believe we are a viable company.”But the deal reminded many Malaysians of Indonesia’s Suharto, who fell partly because of his family’s greed.
In 1994, opposition politicians criticized the stakes Mahathir’s sons had in over 200 companies. Now, those concerns were resurfacing. Comparisons with Suharto ”must have upset Dr. Mahathir, even though there are important differences between the two,” says University of Malaya economist Professor K.S. Jomo.
In April, the Anwar-Mahathir rift grew wider. Speaking in New York at the elite Council on Foreign Relations, Anwar lauded the virtues of ”creative destruction.” Mahathir would deride that term time and again in speeches months later.
Anwar later told Mahathir he was trying to push Malaysia’s agenda by calling for reform of the international monetary system. But he did not mince his words in New York about what was going on back home. ”What are meant to be mere crutches often become permanent appendages, spawning a dependency mentality and rendering the public purse a rich feeding ground for all kinds of parasites,” he said to applause.
Yet while he was away, Anwar got wind of another attempted bailout, this time for Daim pal Tajudin Ramli at Malaysia Airlines. ”The moment my back is turned, they push through this nonsense,” he told his aides. ”How am I supposed to explain this over here?”
Mahathir denied he was involved. Anwar suggested the Finance Ministry would veto the deal, and it was never done.
Shortly after Anwar returned home, Suharto fell. Mahathir had met with the aging strongman in Cairo on May 14 at the G-15 summit. Mahathir left the meeting speaking of ”foreign parties trying to unseat us both.” The new Indonesian President, B.J. Habibie, was a friend of Anwar.
ESPIONAGE CHARGES.
So was Indonesian newspaper editor Nasir Tamara, who caused a flap on June 2 when he addressed Malaysian scholars, businessmen, and social activists assembled by Anwar’s think tank. While he didn’t mention Malaysia, Nasir spoke of cronyism and explained how the reformasi movement toppled Suharto. An Anwar aide says Mahathir questioned his deputy about the speech.
By the time the UMNO General Assembly meeting began on June 20, Mahathir had decided to get rid of Anwar–and the open battle began. Information packets given to the 1,900 conference attendees all contained a book alleging homosexual and heterosexual affairs by Anwar. The book, Fifty Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Be Prime Minister, also charged him with spying for a foreign power. Diplomats and other sources say the book could not have been distributed without Mahathir’s knowledge.
Anwar’s camp returned fire. The leader of the UMNO Youth league, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, criticized the government for ”corruption, collusion, and nepotism.” Mahathir blasted back the next day, saying that everyone, including Anwar and his allies, had benefited from the state’s largesse. Days later, Mahathir announced that Daim would take over management of the economy. Anwar’s role was sharply curtailed. At a mention of Daim during an interview with BUSINESS WEEK on June 30, Anwar crossed his arms and visibly stiffened.
By the end of August, Malaysian stocks were down 80% from the previous year. On September 1, Mahathir shocked the world by imposing currency controls.
He told Anwar to resign by 5:30 p.m. the following day ”or I’ll humiliate you tomorrow,” according to former Anwar aides. He refused. ”I told him, ‘If you resign it’s like an admission of guilt,”’ Anwar’s wife Wan Azizah recalls saying the next day over a lunch where the food went uneaten. Anwar then went to his Finance Ministry office. At 5:30, the power went off at his official residence. At 7, Anwar received a letter from Mahathir saying he had been dismissed.
”I tried to work within the system,” Anwar told BUSINESS WEEK three days after his ouster. But now, Anwar acted like the outsider. He organized the biggest protest in Malaysia’s history on September 20, attended by up to 50,000 people, to call for reform. That day, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II was in town for the Commonwealth Games. Mahathir ordered Anwar’s arrest that night.
A week later, Anwar appeared in court, bruised from what he said was a police beating.
Whatever the verdict in Anwar’s trial, it is unlikely to end the momentum for reform kindled by his ouster. Clearly Malaysia’s reform movement has legs, although no one wants a repeat of the violence that devastated Indonesia during Suharto’s fall. It looks like the transition won’t be easy.
Mahathir seems intent on staying in power to safeguard the economic structure he spent 17 years building.
But even if Anwar vanishes from power, the questions he posed in this turbulent year will haunt his stern mentor for years to come.
MAHATHIR ATTACKS ANWAR IBRAHIM ON HIS BLOG
Cuba tengok apa yg dikomenkan oleh Margaret Thatcher pada tahun 1993. 5 tahun selepas komen ini, Anwar Ibrahim masih kekal jadi Menteri Kewangan sehinggalah 2 September 1998.
“…the Government’s policy has been to build a framework within which enterprise flourishes and foreign capital is attracted to invest in Malaysia. Particular praise is due to Dr Anwar Ibrahim, the Finance Minister, for the prudent monetary and fiscal policies which he has pursued, and indeed for making Malaysia such an open financial centre. If Finance Ministers could be transferred like star football players, I could think of several very much larger countries who would pay astronomic transfer fees to get him!”– Margaret Thatcher’s Speech to Citibank in Kuala Lumpur ( September 3, 1993)
The Iron Lady of Great Britain is unafraid to call a spade a spade. I remember the Late Tun Tan Siew Sin once remarked to the former National Westminster Bank Chairman–and later Bank of England Governor– Robin Leigh-Pemberton in my presence that (Baroness) “Mrs. Thatcher is the Only Man in the British Cabinet”. Tun Tan admired her for taking on and taming the Trade Unions, empowering the private sector, and dismantling the system of “milk and butter” socialism of Labour Prime Ministers, Clement Attlee and James Callaghan.
For your information, Prime Minister Thatcher was a disciple of Friedrich August von Hayek (author of “The Road to Serfdom”) and the economic soulmate of President Ronald Wilson Reagan who was influenced by Milton Friedman and his University of Chicago economists.
Thatcher’s comments on Anwar Ibrahim is a compliment since she herself had the brilliant and strong willed (Lord) Nigel Lawson as her Chancellor of the Exchequer and LSE’s urbane don Sir Alan Walters as her Economic Advisor. —Din Merican
Sorang dilantik jadi Penasihat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dan sorang lagi dicadangkan dijadikan Menteri Kanan. Adakah pertembungan seumpama 1998 akan berulang kembali?
“…the Government’s policy has been to build a framework within which enterprise flourishes and foreign capital is attracted to invest in Malaysia. Particular praise is due to Dr Anwar Ibrahim, the Finance Minister, for the prudent monetary and fiscal policies which he has pursued, and indeed for making Malaysia such an open financial centre. If Finance Ministers could be transferred like star football players, I could think of several very much larger countries who would pay astronomic transfer fees to get him!”– Margaret Thatcher’s Speech to Citibank in Kuala Lumpur ( September 3, 1993)
The Iron Lady of Great Britain is unafraid to call a spade a spade. I remember the Late Tun Tan Siew Sin once remarked to the former National Westminster Bank Chairman–and later Bank of England Governor– Robin Leigh-Pemberton in my presence that (Baroness) “Mrs. Thatcher is the Only Man in the British Cabinet”. Tun Tan admired her for taking on and taming the Trade Unions, empowering the private sector, and dismantling the system of “milk and butter” socialism of Labour Prime Ministers, Clement Attlee and James Callaghan.
For your information, Prime Minister Thatcher was a disciple of Friedrich August von Hayek (author of “The Road to Serfdom”) and the economic soulmate of President Ronald Wilson Reagan who was influenced by Milton Friedman and his University of Chicago economists.
Thatcher’s comments on Anwar Ibrahim is a compliment since she herself had the brilliant and strong willed (Lord) Nigel Lawson as her Chancellor of the Exchequer and LSE’s urbane don Sir Alan Walters as her Economic Advisor. —Din Merican
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
DR.MAHATHIR : Anwar Right Choice To Bankrup Selangor
Betul punya marah nampak Uncle Det kita ni, ni marah tentu sebab Anwar caj RM1 utk servis dia, bilaman Uncle Det caj $$$$$$ jadi Penasihat Petronas.
Tak ke bodoh dan nyanyuk punya statement. Kalau Anwar tak pandai nak urus ekonomi negara, pasai apa Uncle Det kekalkan dia sampai 8 tahun sebagai Menteri Kewangan.
Depa lupa nak masukkan kes Pewaja, baby projek Uncle Det....
'Anwar was your right choice too, Dr M'Nov 17, 09 7:54am'
It was you, Dr Mahathir, who made Anwar Ibrahim the finance minister in your cabinet and he was sacked for reasons other than failing as finance minister if my memory serves me correctly.'Dr M: Anwar right choice to bankrupt S'gor
Kanesin SVS Sappania Pillay: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, it was you who made Anwar Ibrahim the finance minister in your cabinet and he was sacked for reasons other than failing as finance minister if my memory serves me correctly. I am sure he would have learnt from his 'failure'.Ed: Hmm, and yet he was the right choice for finance minister under your administration.
I guess Mahathir always had the tendency to surround himself and his cabinet with people who 'didn't know anything' in relation to the offices they held.
SusahKes: Well, let's see Dr Mahathir. You were responsible for:
1) Awarding privatisation contracts at hugely inflated prices
2) Bailing out MAS by paying higher than market value for its shares
3) Using Petronas to bail out your son
4) The loss-making Paya Indah Wetlands/Sepang projects
5) The loss-making Putrajaya development
6) The loss-making Cyberjaya/MCS development
7) The huge Bank Negara forex trading losses (which you conveniently called 'paper losses')
8) Bailing out Proton and passing the mess back to the taxpayersI've only just mentioned the financial side.
What about the 'raid' you made on the judiciary?
What about the use of ISA/OSA? What about corruption?
Do you know how much of potential FDI we lost over the years because of the non-financial aspects of your dictatorship?
Aiyo, Dr M, don't 'pusing-pusing' la...
Victor Johan: Mahathir, when journalists seek your opinion, it does not mean that you should think they and the rakyat are stupid. Your reply only reflects who you are.In my opinion, your statement certainly reflects your mental state - you're uncomfortable with the progress that Anwar and other like-minded Pakatan Rakyat representatives are making in providing the rakyat with an alternative government come the 13th general election.Their success will certainly be your demise and those of the other BN reps - all the cans of worms and skeletons in the closets will be revealed. We need facts, not gutter-level political replies. You were prime minister and finance minister once, remember?
Friday, November 13, 2009
RASUAH : PENDEDAHAN TERBARU AHLI PARLIMEN PKR
Teks Ucapan Debat Bajet oleh YB Wee Choo Keong, Ahli Palimen Wangsa Maju, pada 5 hb November 2009.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,Saya berdiri untuk mengambil bahagian dalam debat Bajet 2010.Saya menyokong slogan “RAKYAT DIDAHULUKAN” yang disarankan oleh PM.
Akan tetapi, nampaknya ia adalah satu slogan kosong sahaja kerana campurtangan oleh “UMNOputras” dalam pentadbiran Kerajaan termasuk DBKL.
Contoh : Danau Kota Uptown Pasar Malam di Wangsa MajuAdanya 500 penduduk di kawasan Danau Kota, Wangsa Maju telah menandatangani satu petisyen untuk menentang terhadap Pasar Malam Danau Kota Uptown di Wangsa Maju di mana ia beroperasi setiap malam dari 10 malam hingga 4 pagi berhampiran dengan kawasan perumahan. Jam operasi ini adalah tidak pernah didengar dalam masyarakat tamadun mana-mana kecuali “Boleh Land” ini. Petisyen itu telah diserahkan kepada Datuk Bandar KL pada Julai 2009.
DBKL bukan setakat tidak mengambil tindakan untuk memindahkan pasar malam dari kawasan perumahan, dalam masa kini, DBKL telah meluluskan 30 gerai tambahan untuk UMNOputras. Adakah ini in line dengan slogan BN “Rakyat Didahulukan”?
Saya diberitahu bahawa UMNOputras ini telah menyewakan 30 gerai-gerai tambahan ini dengan sewaan RM1,000 setiap bulan.
Tukarlah slogan ini kepada “UMNOputras DiDahulukan”.
Tuan Yang di-PertuaPasar Malam yang beroperasi sehingga 4 pagi dalam satu kawasan perumahan adalah tidak boleh diterima kerana ia telah menyebaban pelbagai gejala sosial.
Indeks jenayah juga telah meningkat di Wangsa Maju.
Ia menyebabkan kesesakan lalu lintas. Kereta-kereta diletak di depan gate rumah menyebabkan masalah akses kepada penduduk. Ia juga menyebabkan pencemaran bunyi (bising – gangu kacau dan sebagainya) “noise pollution” di kawasan itu.
Fakta semua ini telah menyebabkan harga rumah di kawasan Danau Kota jatuh dengan banyak.
Saya ada terima banyak aduan dengan masalah dengan penjaja meletakkan kerusi dan meja di atas jalan awam di mana ia telah menimbulkan banyak masalah di Wangfsa Maju dan juga mengacam keselamatan awam.
Sudah ada satu contoh yang ketara di Selangor beberapa tahun lepas dimana orang awam di langgar dengan kereta dan mati.
Saya berharap DBKL mengambil tindakan dengan segara diatas perkara ini unutk kepentiongan orang awam.
Dengan melihat kesan tak sensitif oleh DBKL terhadap penduduk-penduduk di Danau Kota, slogan “Rakyat DiDahulukan” adalah satu slogan kosong.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Mungkin Datuk Bandar tidak berani untuk mengambil tindakan kerana UMNOputras adalah dalang sebaliknya.
Saya tahu bahawa Datuk Shafie Abdullah, setiausaha politik PM selaku Menteri Kewangan, yang sangat aktif dengan pentadbiran seharian DBKL.
Saya diberitahu bahawa dia adalah de facto Datuk Bandar KL.
KERUSI DAN MEJA DI LETAKKAN ATAS JALAN RAYA
Saya ada menerima banyak aduan mengenai dengan kerusi dan meja di letakkan atas jalan raya dan tiada tindakan diambil oleh DBKL.
Kegiatan ini mesti dihentikan dengan segara kerana ia menimbulkan banyak masalah kesesakan jalan raya dan menjejaskan keselamatan orang awam. Kita sudah ada bukti di Selangor bahawa orang awam telah dilangar oleh kereta dan mati.
Walaubagaimanapun, saya berharap bahawa Menteri Wilayah Persekutuan yang baru memberi penjelasan apakah tindakan untuk kepentingan rakyat akan diambil oleh DBKL untuk memindahkan pasar malam ini ke tempat lain yang jauh daripada kawasan kediaman dan kes kerusi danmeja telah diletakan di atas jalan raya.
Tuan yang di-Pertiua,Datuk Shafie Abdullah, Setiausaha Politik Kepada PMSaya mesti menarik perhatian PM melalui Dewan Yang Mulia ini bahawa kelakuan Datuk Shafie Abdullah adalah bertentangan dengan kepentingan PM dengan bercampur tangan dengan pentadbiran seharian DBKL.
Saya ingin menanya samada YAB PM ada memberi arahan kepada Datuk Shafie untuk mentadbir DBKL secara langsung atau tidak langsung untuk menjadikan Datuk Ahmad Fuad, Datuk Bandar KL sebagai seorang “puppet”nya.
Nampaknya Datuk Shafie ada banyak “free time” untuk memain politik di DBKL dan kawasan Wangsa Maju dan kawasan lain. Saya tahu dia memain politik “on the ground” kerana dia ada niat menjadi popular supaya dia mencapai matlamatnya untuk menjadi Menteri taka lama lagi.
Dia memang amat ambitious seperti Norza, bekas Setiausaha Politik Menteri Kewangan yang telah di tuduh di Mahkamah di Pahang kerana rasuah.
Saya berharap Datuk Shafie Abdullah, seorang UMNOputra, sila mengambil perhatian kedudukan sekarang sahabat karibnya, Norza.MR “POLITICAL TOLL”Saya telah dapat banyak “rumours” terhadap Datuk Shafie ini. Dia amat berkuasa kerana kedudukannya sebagai setiausaha PM selaku Menteri Kewangan. “This “Mr Political Toll” has been dropping PM name every corner of Malaysia.”, dengan izin.
Dia telah dapat satu gelaran yang hebat dan sesuai iaitu “MR POLITICAL TOLL”. Saya tak faham apa maksud “MR POLITICAL TOLL”. Toll jalan, saya faham! POLITICAL TOLL, saya tak faham. Samada maksud “Toll” ini adalah kutipan Toll untuk perjalanan ke pejabat PM atau Menteri Kewangan?
Kemungkinan YAB PM lebih faham atau teliti mengenai apa maksub gelaran “MR POLITICAL TOLL” yang telah dianugerahkan kepada Setiuasahanya, Datuk Shafie!.
Saya ingin memberi amaran kepada Datuk Shafie jangan bermain politik di DBKL – hand off DBKL let the officers do their work without interference. Keep your “Political Toll” to Kementerian Kewangan dan Pejabat Perdana Menteri. DBKL adalah untuk menjaga kepentingan wargakota di Wilayah Persekutuan dan bukan kepentigan politik “Mr Political Toll”, Datuk Shafie Abdullah.
Saya ingin memberi satu contoh yang amat jelas terhadap percampuran tangan dengan pentadbiran harian DBKL oleh Si Political Toll ini (Datuk Sahfie Abdullah).
Pengawai tinngi telah berjanji untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap struktur haram yang dibina oleh Restoran Rashatini di Seksyen 2, Wangsa Maju. Gerai penjaja ini adalah dibina di atas tanah kerajaan tanpa kebenaran dan telah menduduki atas kaki-lima (pavement) dengan tiada ruang untuk orang awam berjalan. Gerai itu memlebihi 10 kaki x 30 kaki yang dibenarkan dibawah undang-undang kechil DBKL.
Saya telah diberitahu oleh pegawi tinggi DBKL bahawa DBKL tidak boleh mengambil apa-apa tindakan sehingga DBKL dapat kebenaran daripada Mr Political Toll ini. Hebatnya kuasa Mr Political Toll ini sampai pegawai tinggi DBKL pun takut kepada dia.Kerana campur tangan politik “poltical interference” oleh Mr Political Toll sehingga hari ini (sudah 5 bulan) tiada apa-apa tindakan diambil oleh DBKL terhadap struktur haram tersebut.
Tuan Yang Di-Pertua,Berani saya cakap dengan terus terang bahawa “the 4th Floor Syndrome” masih wujud di Pejabat Perdana Menteri dan Kementerian Kewangan.
Saya fikir bahawa “4th Floor syndrome ini wujud pada zaman Kerajaan “Tertidur” sahaja. Saya berharap PM mengambil perhatian terhadap “Mr Political Toll” ini dan kuncu-kuncunya.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Saya bersetuju dengan PM semasa beliau menyatakan bahawa “Kerajaan meikul tanggungjawab besar untuk memastikan bahawa hasil Negara dinikmati oleh seluruh rakyat secara adil dan saksama.”
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Pentadbiran Suruhanjaya SekuritiUnico Holding Bhd (UHB) telah ditubuhkan untuk masyarakat orang Tiong Hua tetapi sarikat ini telah dipergunakan oleh pengrahnya, Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen an kuncu-kuncunya iaitu, Teoh Hock Chai @ Tew Hock Chai, Dr Yeong Cheong Thye @ Yeong Yun Chai, Lim Guan Teik untuk kepentingan mereka sendiri. Mereka telah mengabaikan masyarikat orang Tiong Hua.
Mereka mengunakan pelbagai taktik-taktik perniagaan kotor dan Unico Holding telah dijadikan sebuah syarikat persendirian Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen dan kuncu-kuncunya.Mereka ini adalah “corporate crooks” yang mesti di “flushed out from our corporate world” to protect members of the public from being cheated by these corporate crooks, dengan izin.
Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen Semenjak pertubuhan UNICO Holding Bhd, Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen selaku pengarah dari tahun 2000 hingga 2002 selepas diiystiharkan sebagai seorang bankrupt, sehingga sekarang, telah melanggar beberapa undang-undang termasuk
(i) Section 132 (1) Akta Syarikat 1965 dengan tidak melaksanakan kewajipan untuk kepentingan yang terbaik untuk Unico Holding Bhd, susidiarinya and syarikat-syarikat berkaitannya telah melanggar kewajipan fidusiarinya terhadap Unico Holding Bhd,
(ii) mengambil tindakan untuk memudaratkan kepentingnan minoriti di Unico Holding Bhd (iii) memasuki beberapa transaksi-transaksi parti berkaitan yang tidak dikemukakan kepada penguatkuasa dan
(iv) melanggar beberapa kesalahan-kesalahan termasuk insider trading melanggari Capital Market and Services Act 2007.Contoh yang amat jelas :Projek Di Xi-an Negara People Republic of ChinaDeposit Sungguh-sungguh (Earnest Deposit) / Pelanggaran Amanah Jenayah (Criminal Breach of Trusts)Pada 18.9.2009, ia adalah didedahkan dalam mesyuarat umum tahunan Unico Holding Bhd bahawa Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen telah mendapatkan satu pinjaman daripada Unico Holding Bhd, menerusi subsidiari Unico Holding Bhd iaitu Shanghai Orchid Garden Properties Development Co. Ltd berjumlah RMB10 juta dengan alasan untuk membayar deposit untuk mendapatkan satu projek pembagunan di Xi’an untuk Unico Holding Bhd.Tan Sri Ngan telah melanggari undang-undang dengan mendapatkan satu pinjaman peribadi daripada syarikat dan seterusnya, sampai sekarang, deposit tersebut itu adalah tidak dapat dikesan dan dana itu telah disalurkan kepada satu syarikat yang dikawal oleh Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen di Hong Kong, iaitu, Group 5 International Investment Ltd (“Group 5”). Pengarah-pengarah Group 5 adalah Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen, Lim Guan Teik and Yeong Cheong Thye. Ini adalah satu kesalahan “criminal breach of trust”.Saya juga difahamkan bahawa penipuan dan pelanggaran undang-undang yagn telah dilaporkan kepada Suruhanjaya Sekuriti tetapi sehingga kini tiada apa apa-apa tindakan diambil. Inikah “Rakyat DiDahulukan” oleh Kerajaan “1 Malaysia”?
Saya berharap bahawa YAB PM selaku Menteri Kewangan boleh memebri penjelasan apakah tindakan akan diambil oleh Suruhanjaya Sekuriti terhadap “corporate crooks” terebut demi menjaga kepentingan pemengang saham kecil di dalam Negara.
Kami menyeru pihak pihak berkuatkuasa, termasuk polis, Securities Commission dan Surahanjaya Syarikat Malaysia untuk mengambil tindakan trhadap “corporate crooks “ tersebut dengan segara. .
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Bagaimana kekayaan Negara dapat dinikmati oleh rakyat dalam keadaan yang adil dan saksama semasa dana Negara adalah dipersalahgunakan dan disedut keluar oleh individu atau syarikat-syarikat menggunakan dokumen yang tidak sah?
Ministry of Science, Technologies and InnovationsTechnoFund – Venturepharm asia Sdn BhdSebagai contoh, Kementerian Science, Technologies and Innovation (MOSTI) semasa berurus dengan TechnoFund juta-juta Rnggit telah diagihkan dengan tiada kawalan kepada syarikat penyelidikan palsu.
Venturepharm Asia Sdn Bhd (Venturepharm), satu syarikat yang dimiliki dan dikawal oleh Madam Grace Chen Oyan Yun Shai, yang berasal dari Taiwan.
Venturepharm menggunakan satu perjanjian palsu yang telah ditandatangani dengan XLW Inc di USA untuk membuat penyelidikan bio-feed. XLW Inc adalah tidak wujud. Dengan tiadanya proses pencarian dan siasatan yang sewarjanya, MOSTI telah memluluskan Technofund berjumlah RM5.36 million kepada Ventruepharm.
Dalam tempoh satu tahun, MOSTI telah membayar sejumlah RM2.3 million dengan tiada “due diligent”.
Saya telah memberi semua maklumat-maklumat yang terperinci termasuk Joint Venture agreement, emails dalam sessi Parlimen terdahulu berkenaan penipuan Venturepharm dan juga telah memberi bukti-bukti dokumen kepada Menteri MOSTI, sehingga sekarang, MOSTI belum mengambil apa-apa tindakan untuk mendakwa pengarah-pengarah Venturepharm atau mengambil apa-apa tindakan untuk menuntut wang rakyat sejumlah RM2.3 million yang ditipu oleh Grace Chen Oyan Yun Shai.
Apakah tindakan akan di ambil oleh MOSTI terhadap pengarah Venturepharm ia itu Grace Chen Oyan Yun Shai?Tuan Yang di-Pertua,Venturepharm Asia Bhd dan Madam Chen Oyan Yun Shai bukanlah menipu MOSTI sahaja ia juga ada terlibat dengan Kementerian Pelancongan.Saya menyeru Menteri Perlancongan untuk memberi penjelasan:
Memandangkan pembantu peribadi terdahulu Menteri, iaitu Madam Ivy See adalah seorang pengarah eksutif Daley PR, adakah ia mempunyai satu conflict of interest terhadap Menteri semasa memberi kontrak pengiklanan kepada Daley PR untuk kerja-kerja pengiklanan di China?
Apakah alasan-alasan tender pertama Malaysian Pavilion Project dibatalkan selepas Menteri mengambil jawatan sejak April 2009?
Apakah alasan-alasan sementara akhir bulan June 2009 Venturepharm telah dianugerahkan dengan kerja pembinaan Malaysian Pavilion di mana ia tidak mempunyai rekod dalam kerja pembinaan semasa Venturepharm telah didedahkan di Parlimen dengan terlibat dengan penipuan MOSTI untuk mendapatkan TechnoFund?
Adakah ia mempunyai apa-apa perbezaan (variation order) dengan jumlah RM10 to 20 million untuk Malaysian Pavilion project?
Sekian, terima kasih.Nota:Kerana masa tidak cukup, Speaker telah hadkan masa 12 minit untuk saya mengucap. Ada banyak isu-isu penting tidak boleh di bahas. Saya akan bahawa isu-isu yang belum di bahas kepada peringkat Perbahasan Jawantkuasa Parlimen dalam tempoh dua minggu lagi. Terima kasih.
Sumber - KLPos.com
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,Saya berdiri untuk mengambil bahagian dalam debat Bajet 2010.Saya menyokong slogan “RAKYAT DIDAHULUKAN” yang disarankan oleh PM.
Akan tetapi, nampaknya ia adalah satu slogan kosong sahaja kerana campurtangan oleh “UMNOputras” dalam pentadbiran Kerajaan termasuk DBKL.
Contoh : Danau Kota Uptown Pasar Malam di Wangsa MajuAdanya 500 penduduk di kawasan Danau Kota, Wangsa Maju telah menandatangani satu petisyen untuk menentang terhadap Pasar Malam Danau Kota Uptown di Wangsa Maju di mana ia beroperasi setiap malam dari 10 malam hingga 4 pagi berhampiran dengan kawasan perumahan. Jam operasi ini adalah tidak pernah didengar dalam masyarakat tamadun mana-mana kecuali “Boleh Land” ini. Petisyen itu telah diserahkan kepada Datuk Bandar KL pada Julai 2009.
DBKL bukan setakat tidak mengambil tindakan untuk memindahkan pasar malam dari kawasan perumahan, dalam masa kini, DBKL telah meluluskan 30 gerai tambahan untuk UMNOputras. Adakah ini in line dengan slogan BN “Rakyat Didahulukan”?
Saya diberitahu bahawa UMNOputras ini telah menyewakan 30 gerai-gerai tambahan ini dengan sewaan RM1,000 setiap bulan.
Tukarlah slogan ini kepada “UMNOputras DiDahulukan”.
Tuan Yang di-PertuaPasar Malam yang beroperasi sehingga 4 pagi dalam satu kawasan perumahan adalah tidak boleh diterima kerana ia telah menyebaban pelbagai gejala sosial.
Indeks jenayah juga telah meningkat di Wangsa Maju.
Ia menyebabkan kesesakan lalu lintas. Kereta-kereta diletak di depan gate rumah menyebabkan masalah akses kepada penduduk. Ia juga menyebabkan pencemaran bunyi (bising – gangu kacau dan sebagainya) “noise pollution” di kawasan itu.
Fakta semua ini telah menyebabkan harga rumah di kawasan Danau Kota jatuh dengan banyak.
Saya ada terima banyak aduan dengan masalah dengan penjaja meletakkan kerusi dan meja di atas jalan awam di mana ia telah menimbulkan banyak masalah di Wangfsa Maju dan juga mengacam keselamatan awam.
Sudah ada satu contoh yang ketara di Selangor beberapa tahun lepas dimana orang awam di langgar dengan kereta dan mati.
Saya berharap DBKL mengambil tindakan dengan segara diatas perkara ini unutk kepentiongan orang awam.
Dengan melihat kesan tak sensitif oleh DBKL terhadap penduduk-penduduk di Danau Kota, slogan “Rakyat DiDahulukan” adalah satu slogan kosong.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Mungkin Datuk Bandar tidak berani untuk mengambil tindakan kerana UMNOputras adalah dalang sebaliknya.
Saya tahu bahawa Datuk Shafie Abdullah, setiausaha politik PM selaku Menteri Kewangan, yang sangat aktif dengan pentadbiran seharian DBKL.
Saya diberitahu bahawa dia adalah de facto Datuk Bandar KL.
KERUSI DAN MEJA DI LETAKKAN ATAS JALAN RAYA
Saya ada menerima banyak aduan mengenai dengan kerusi dan meja di letakkan atas jalan raya dan tiada tindakan diambil oleh DBKL.
Kegiatan ini mesti dihentikan dengan segara kerana ia menimbulkan banyak masalah kesesakan jalan raya dan menjejaskan keselamatan orang awam. Kita sudah ada bukti di Selangor bahawa orang awam telah dilangar oleh kereta dan mati.
Walaubagaimanapun, saya berharap bahawa Menteri Wilayah Persekutuan yang baru memberi penjelasan apakah tindakan untuk kepentingan rakyat akan diambil oleh DBKL untuk memindahkan pasar malam ini ke tempat lain yang jauh daripada kawasan kediaman dan kes kerusi danmeja telah diletakan di atas jalan raya.
Tuan yang di-Pertiua,Datuk Shafie Abdullah, Setiausaha Politik Kepada PMSaya mesti menarik perhatian PM melalui Dewan Yang Mulia ini bahawa kelakuan Datuk Shafie Abdullah adalah bertentangan dengan kepentingan PM dengan bercampur tangan dengan pentadbiran seharian DBKL.
Saya ingin menanya samada YAB PM ada memberi arahan kepada Datuk Shafie untuk mentadbir DBKL secara langsung atau tidak langsung untuk menjadikan Datuk Ahmad Fuad, Datuk Bandar KL sebagai seorang “puppet”nya.
Nampaknya Datuk Shafie ada banyak “free time” untuk memain politik di DBKL dan kawasan Wangsa Maju dan kawasan lain. Saya tahu dia memain politik “on the ground” kerana dia ada niat menjadi popular supaya dia mencapai matlamatnya untuk menjadi Menteri taka lama lagi.
Dia memang amat ambitious seperti Norza, bekas Setiausaha Politik Menteri Kewangan yang telah di tuduh di Mahkamah di Pahang kerana rasuah.
Saya berharap Datuk Shafie Abdullah, seorang UMNOputra, sila mengambil perhatian kedudukan sekarang sahabat karibnya, Norza.MR “POLITICAL TOLL”Saya telah dapat banyak “rumours” terhadap Datuk Shafie ini. Dia amat berkuasa kerana kedudukannya sebagai setiausaha PM selaku Menteri Kewangan. “This “Mr Political Toll” has been dropping PM name every corner of Malaysia.”, dengan izin.
Dia telah dapat satu gelaran yang hebat dan sesuai iaitu “MR POLITICAL TOLL”. Saya tak faham apa maksud “MR POLITICAL TOLL”. Toll jalan, saya faham! POLITICAL TOLL, saya tak faham. Samada maksud “Toll” ini adalah kutipan Toll untuk perjalanan ke pejabat PM atau Menteri Kewangan?
Kemungkinan YAB PM lebih faham atau teliti mengenai apa maksub gelaran “MR POLITICAL TOLL” yang telah dianugerahkan kepada Setiuasahanya, Datuk Shafie!.
Saya ingin memberi amaran kepada Datuk Shafie jangan bermain politik di DBKL – hand off DBKL let the officers do their work without interference. Keep your “Political Toll” to Kementerian Kewangan dan Pejabat Perdana Menteri. DBKL adalah untuk menjaga kepentingan wargakota di Wilayah Persekutuan dan bukan kepentigan politik “Mr Political Toll”, Datuk Shafie Abdullah.
Saya ingin memberi satu contoh yang amat jelas terhadap percampuran tangan dengan pentadbiran harian DBKL oleh Si Political Toll ini (Datuk Sahfie Abdullah).
Pengawai tinngi telah berjanji untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap struktur haram yang dibina oleh Restoran Rashatini di Seksyen 2, Wangsa Maju. Gerai penjaja ini adalah dibina di atas tanah kerajaan tanpa kebenaran dan telah menduduki atas kaki-lima (pavement) dengan tiada ruang untuk orang awam berjalan. Gerai itu memlebihi 10 kaki x 30 kaki yang dibenarkan dibawah undang-undang kechil DBKL.
Saya telah diberitahu oleh pegawi tinggi DBKL bahawa DBKL tidak boleh mengambil apa-apa tindakan sehingga DBKL dapat kebenaran daripada Mr Political Toll ini. Hebatnya kuasa Mr Political Toll ini sampai pegawai tinggi DBKL pun takut kepada dia.Kerana campur tangan politik “poltical interference” oleh Mr Political Toll sehingga hari ini (sudah 5 bulan) tiada apa-apa tindakan diambil oleh DBKL terhadap struktur haram tersebut.
Tuan Yang Di-Pertua,Berani saya cakap dengan terus terang bahawa “the 4th Floor Syndrome” masih wujud di Pejabat Perdana Menteri dan Kementerian Kewangan.
Saya fikir bahawa “4th Floor syndrome ini wujud pada zaman Kerajaan “Tertidur” sahaja. Saya berharap PM mengambil perhatian terhadap “Mr Political Toll” ini dan kuncu-kuncunya.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Saya bersetuju dengan PM semasa beliau menyatakan bahawa “Kerajaan meikul tanggungjawab besar untuk memastikan bahawa hasil Negara dinikmati oleh seluruh rakyat secara adil dan saksama.”
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Pentadbiran Suruhanjaya SekuritiUnico Holding Bhd (UHB) telah ditubuhkan untuk masyarakat orang Tiong Hua tetapi sarikat ini telah dipergunakan oleh pengrahnya, Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen an kuncu-kuncunya iaitu, Teoh Hock Chai @ Tew Hock Chai, Dr Yeong Cheong Thye @ Yeong Yun Chai, Lim Guan Teik untuk kepentingan mereka sendiri. Mereka telah mengabaikan masyarikat orang Tiong Hua.
Mereka mengunakan pelbagai taktik-taktik perniagaan kotor dan Unico Holding telah dijadikan sebuah syarikat persendirian Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen dan kuncu-kuncunya.Mereka ini adalah “corporate crooks” yang mesti di “flushed out from our corporate world” to protect members of the public from being cheated by these corporate crooks, dengan izin.
Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen Semenjak pertubuhan UNICO Holding Bhd, Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen selaku pengarah dari tahun 2000 hingga 2002 selepas diiystiharkan sebagai seorang bankrupt, sehingga sekarang, telah melanggar beberapa undang-undang termasuk
(i) Section 132 (1) Akta Syarikat 1965 dengan tidak melaksanakan kewajipan untuk kepentingan yang terbaik untuk Unico Holding Bhd, susidiarinya and syarikat-syarikat berkaitannya telah melanggar kewajipan fidusiarinya terhadap Unico Holding Bhd,
(ii) mengambil tindakan untuk memudaratkan kepentingnan minoriti di Unico Holding Bhd (iii) memasuki beberapa transaksi-transaksi parti berkaitan yang tidak dikemukakan kepada penguatkuasa dan
(iv) melanggar beberapa kesalahan-kesalahan termasuk insider trading melanggari Capital Market and Services Act 2007.Contoh yang amat jelas :Projek Di Xi-an Negara People Republic of ChinaDeposit Sungguh-sungguh (Earnest Deposit) / Pelanggaran Amanah Jenayah (Criminal Breach of Trusts)Pada 18.9.2009, ia adalah didedahkan dalam mesyuarat umum tahunan Unico Holding Bhd bahawa Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen telah mendapatkan satu pinjaman daripada Unico Holding Bhd, menerusi subsidiari Unico Holding Bhd iaitu Shanghai Orchid Garden Properties Development Co. Ltd berjumlah RMB10 juta dengan alasan untuk membayar deposit untuk mendapatkan satu projek pembagunan di Xi’an untuk Unico Holding Bhd.Tan Sri Ngan telah melanggari undang-undang dengan mendapatkan satu pinjaman peribadi daripada syarikat dan seterusnya, sampai sekarang, deposit tersebut itu adalah tidak dapat dikesan dan dana itu telah disalurkan kepada satu syarikat yang dikawal oleh Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen di Hong Kong, iaitu, Group 5 International Investment Ltd (“Group 5”). Pengarah-pengarah Group 5 adalah Tan Sri Ngan Ching Wen, Lim Guan Teik and Yeong Cheong Thye. Ini adalah satu kesalahan “criminal breach of trust”.Saya juga difahamkan bahawa penipuan dan pelanggaran undang-undang yagn telah dilaporkan kepada Suruhanjaya Sekuriti tetapi sehingga kini tiada apa apa-apa tindakan diambil. Inikah “Rakyat DiDahulukan” oleh Kerajaan “1 Malaysia”?
Saya berharap bahawa YAB PM selaku Menteri Kewangan boleh memebri penjelasan apakah tindakan akan diambil oleh Suruhanjaya Sekuriti terhadap “corporate crooks” terebut demi menjaga kepentingan pemengang saham kecil di dalam Negara.
Kami menyeru pihak pihak berkuatkuasa, termasuk polis, Securities Commission dan Surahanjaya Syarikat Malaysia untuk mengambil tindakan trhadap “corporate crooks “ tersebut dengan segara. .
Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
Bagaimana kekayaan Negara dapat dinikmati oleh rakyat dalam keadaan yang adil dan saksama semasa dana Negara adalah dipersalahgunakan dan disedut keluar oleh individu atau syarikat-syarikat menggunakan dokumen yang tidak sah?
Ministry of Science, Technologies and InnovationsTechnoFund – Venturepharm asia Sdn BhdSebagai contoh, Kementerian Science, Technologies and Innovation (MOSTI) semasa berurus dengan TechnoFund juta-juta Rnggit telah diagihkan dengan tiada kawalan kepada syarikat penyelidikan palsu.
Venturepharm Asia Sdn Bhd (Venturepharm), satu syarikat yang dimiliki dan dikawal oleh Madam Grace Chen Oyan Yun Shai, yang berasal dari Taiwan.
Venturepharm menggunakan satu perjanjian palsu yang telah ditandatangani dengan XLW Inc di USA untuk membuat penyelidikan bio-feed. XLW Inc adalah tidak wujud. Dengan tiadanya proses pencarian dan siasatan yang sewarjanya, MOSTI telah memluluskan Technofund berjumlah RM5.36 million kepada Ventruepharm.
Dalam tempoh satu tahun, MOSTI telah membayar sejumlah RM2.3 million dengan tiada “due diligent”.
Saya telah memberi semua maklumat-maklumat yang terperinci termasuk Joint Venture agreement, emails dalam sessi Parlimen terdahulu berkenaan penipuan Venturepharm dan juga telah memberi bukti-bukti dokumen kepada Menteri MOSTI, sehingga sekarang, MOSTI belum mengambil apa-apa tindakan untuk mendakwa pengarah-pengarah Venturepharm atau mengambil apa-apa tindakan untuk menuntut wang rakyat sejumlah RM2.3 million yang ditipu oleh Grace Chen Oyan Yun Shai.
Apakah tindakan akan di ambil oleh MOSTI terhadap pengarah Venturepharm ia itu Grace Chen Oyan Yun Shai?Tuan Yang di-Pertua,Venturepharm Asia Bhd dan Madam Chen Oyan Yun Shai bukanlah menipu MOSTI sahaja ia juga ada terlibat dengan Kementerian Pelancongan.Saya menyeru Menteri Perlancongan untuk memberi penjelasan:
Memandangkan pembantu peribadi terdahulu Menteri, iaitu Madam Ivy See adalah seorang pengarah eksutif Daley PR, adakah ia mempunyai satu conflict of interest terhadap Menteri semasa memberi kontrak pengiklanan kepada Daley PR untuk kerja-kerja pengiklanan di China?
Apakah alasan-alasan tender pertama Malaysian Pavilion Project dibatalkan selepas Menteri mengambil jawatan sejak April 2009?
Apakah alasan-alasan sementara akhir bulan June 2009 Venturepharm telah dianugerahkan dengan kerja pembinaan Malaysian Pavilion di mana ia tidak mempunyai rekod dalam kerja pembinaan semasa Venturepharm telah didedahkan di Parlimen dengan terlibat dengan penipuan MOSTI untuk mendapatkan TechnoFund?
Adakah ia mempunyai apa-apa perbezaan (variation order) dengan jumlah RM10 to 20 million untuk Malaysian Pavilion project?
Sekian, terima kasih.Nota:Kerana masa tidak cukup, Speaker telah hadkan masa 12 minit untuk saya mengucap. Ada banyak isu-isu penting tidak boleh di bahas. Saya akan bahawa isu-isu yang belum di bahas kepada peringkat Perbahasan Jawantkuasa Parlimen dalam tempoh dua minggu lagi. Terima kasih.
Sumber - KLPos.com
CORRIDORS OF POWER RAJA PETRA ( KES DSAI )
Kalau dulu masa perbicaraan kita tidak begitu faham mengenai prosiding perbicaraan, kira maklumat Raja Petra nampak lebih jelas lagi.
DAY 2 - 25 MARCH 2003 ( PART 1 ).
Ummi confesses to being the architect behind the Anwar sodomy allegation; a purely fabricated charge
During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
In a new twist to the Anwar Saga, it was revealed that Ummi Hafilda Ali was the architect behind the accusation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan Abu Bakar. And, for this, she was disowned by her father just months before he died of a broken heart.
Christopher Fernando told the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court that Said Awang, the Director of the Special Branch, went to meet Azmin Ali, Ummi’s brother, who was then Anwar’s Chief Private Secretary, to solicit his (Azmin’s) assistance to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan.
What is most interesting by this revelation is that:
1. Said Awang went to meet Azmin BEFORE he met Anwar. Therefore, the allegation that Anwar had abused his position by summoning the Special Branch, and that he asked them to force Ummi and Azizan to withdraw the sodomy allegation, is a fallacy. In fact, it was not Anwar who summoned Said Awang to see him, but the Special Branch Director who took the initiative to meet Anwar.
2. The idea to persuade Ummi and Azizan to retract the sodomy allegation came from the Special Branch and not Anwar. During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
3. The Special Branch was fully aware that it was Ummi who was behind the sodomy allegation and that Azizan was merely the instrument to the whole thing. That was why they wanted Azmin, her brother, to try to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation.
This sheds light on the previous day’s proceedings where Fernando revealed that Azizan testified three times, under oath, that Anwar never sodomised him – an admission that took even the trial judge aback.
Fernando related how Said went to meet Azmin to request a meeting with Anwar Ibrahim. In the meeting with Azmin, Said asked him whether Ummi is his sister and Azmin confirmed so.
Said Awang then asked Azmin whether he was able to persuade his sister to withdraw the sodomy allegation against Anwar but Azmin replied that would be impossible as he no longer talked to his sister since the allegation surfaced.
The Special Branch was aware that Ummi was behind the accusation and was, in fact, the plotter of the whole thing. And, the period when this discussion with Azmin was going on, the Special Branch had not met Anwar yet.
Azmin then called the family together to discuss the issue. In all, three meetings were held that included Ummi herself.
Ummi at first denied she had written the letter to the Prime Minister accusing Anwar of sodomy. Azmin then advised his sister to steer clear of the conspiracy, and that was when she admitted this would be impossible to do as she had been promised money and contracts for her role and, in fact, money had already changed hands.
Ummi later confessed to her father her involvement in the conspiracy and that it was actually she who had written the letter to the Prime Minister. The father, a religious teacher, then disowned her and, soon after, died of a broken heart, never forgiving his daughter for what she had done.
It was clear, from the testimony in court, that Azizan’s letter to the Prime Minister had been written by Ummi. Ummi had confessed to this. Azizan, in turn, during the course of the trial, admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.
However, when the defence tried to bring up this very crucial bit of evidence during the trial, the trial judge disallowed it. The judge refused to allow the letter to be admitted as evidence or to allow Ummi to be called to court to testify.
Ummi’s role in this whole thing was clear and indisputable. The fact the sodomy accusation against Anwar was false was apparent. Just before he died, Ummi’s father wrote an open letter to Harakah, an opposition newspaper, explaining the whole matter and, in no uncertain terms, accused his daughter of involvement in the conspiracy to frame Anwar and of being the person who wrote the letter to the Prime Minister.
Had the judge allowed this crucial bit of evidence to be admitted, argued Fernando, it would have changed the entire complexion of the case and the judge would have been hard-pressed to find Anwar guilty.
Attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar of sexual misconduct charges; and Pak Lah is involved too
“There was an evil plot to secure a conviction through devious means,” said Christopher Fernando on the second day of Anwar’s appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court.
Fernando then told the court that attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar on sexual misconduct charges.
One such case was Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees, then one of Anwar’s speech writers, who was arrested and subjected to physical and mental torture to force him to admit he had a homosexual relationship with Anwar.
Fernando then took the court through the lengthy Affidavit signed by Dr Munawar on 7 November 1998 that detailed the experience he went through at the hands of the Malaysian police.
The torture he endured finally broke him and he admitted to the ‘crime’, which he later retracted in his Affidavit.
Fernando then brought the court’s attention back to the Manjeet Singh Dhillon matter that was raised in court yesterday to emphasis his point of yet another attempt to frame Anwar.
At this point, Fernando called upon the court to recommend a Royal Commission of Inquiry be established to investigate Manjit Singh Dhillon's serious allegation against Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad as this is a most serious matter affecting the administration of justice and the rule of law.
"If they are found not to be involved in extorting fabricated evidence, then their names will be cleared," said Fernando. "It will be to their benefit."
"If they are involved, then they ought to be brought to justice. That is the only way to resolve this pressing problem and to restore public confidence."
Clearly there was a concerted effort to frame Anwar. But these attempts were not confined to Malaysia. It also extended to the shores of the US as well, argued Fernando. One case in point was an incident involving Jamal Abder Rahman.
“We are trying to show a pattern, how witnesses were approached to give fabricated evidence and these efforts extended beyond the shores of Malaysia to the US,” said Fernando.
Jamal is an American citizen of Arab descent who operates a limousine service in Washington DC and had a contract to provide limousine services to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington.
In September 1998, soon after Anwar’s dismissal and subsequent arrest, a Malaysian Diplomat, Mustapha Ong, asked Jamal to declare that he had procured women and young boys for Anwar.
DAY 2 - 25 MARCH 2003 ( PART 1 ).
Ummi confesses to being the architect behind the Anwar sodomy allegation; a purely fabricated charge
During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
In a new twist to the Anwar Saga, it was revealed that Ummi Hafilda Ali was the architect behind the accusation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan Abu Bakar. And, for this, she was disowned by her father just months before he died of a broken heart.
Christopher Fernando told the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court that Said Awang, the Director of the Special Branch, went to meet Azmin Ali, Ummi’s brother, who was then Anwar’s Chief Private Secretary, to solicit his (Azmin’s) assistance to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation that Anwar had sodomised Azizan.
What is most interesting by this revelation is that:
1. Said Awang went to meet Azmin BEFORE he met Anwar. Therefore, the allegation that Anwar had abused his position by summoning the Special Branch, and that he asked them to force Ummi and Azizan to withdraw the sodomy allegation, is a fallacy. In fact, it was not Anwar who summoned Said Awang to see him, but the Special Branch Director who took the initiative to meet Anwar.
2. The idea to persuade Ummi and Azizan to retract the sodomy allegation came from the Special Branch and not Anwar. During the earlier trial, it was revealed that the Special Branch tried to convince Anwar to “take action” but that Anwar refused, until pressed further by the Director who said it was “for the sake of national security” before Anwar agreed that action be taken.
3. The Special Branch was fully aware that it was Ummi who was behind the sodomy allegation and that Azizan was merely the instrument to the whole thing. That was why they wanted Azmin, her brother, to try to persuade Ummi to retract the allegation.
This sheds light on the previous day’s proceedings where Fernando revealed that Azizan testified three times, under oath, that Anwar never sodomised him – an admission that took even the trial judge aback.
Fernando related how Said went to meet Azmin to request a meeting with Anwar Ibrahim. In the meeting with Azmin, Said asked him whether Ummi is his sister and Azmin confirmed so.
Said Awang then asked Azmin whether he was able to persuade his sister to withdraw the sodomy allegation against Anwar but Azmin replied that would be impossible as he no longer talked to his sister since the allegation surfaced.
The Special Branch was aware that Ummi was behind the accusation and was, in fact, the plotter of the whole thing. And, the period when this discussion with Azmin was going on, the Special Branch had not met Anwar yet.
Azmin then called the family together to discuss the issue. In all, three meetings were held that included Ummi herself.
Ummi at first denied she had written the letter to the Prime Minister accusing Anwar of sodomy. Azmin then advised his sister to steer clear of the conspiracy, and that was when she admitted this would be impossible to do as she had been promised money and contracts for her role and, in fact, money had already changed hands.
Ummi later confessed to her father her involvement in the conspiracy and that it was actually she who had written the letter to the Prime Minister. The father, a religious teacher, then disowned her and, soon after, died of a broken heart, never forgiving his daughter for what she had done.
It was clear, from the testimony in court, that Azizan’s letter to the Prime Minister had been written by Ummi. Ummi had confessed to this. Azizan, in turn, during the course of the trial, admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.
However, when the defence tried to bring up this very crucial bit of evidence during the trial, the trial judge disallowed it. The judge refused to allow the letter to be admitted as evidence or to allow Ummi to be called to court to testify.
Ummi’s role in this whole thing was clear and indisputable. The fact the sodomy accusation against Anwar was false was apparent. Just before he died, Ummi’s father wrote an open letter to Harakah, an opposition newspaper, explaining the whole matter and, in no uncertain terms, accused his daughter of involvement in the conspiracy to frame Anwar and of being the person who wrote the letter to the Prime Minister.
Had the judge allowed this crucial bit of evidence to be admitted, argued Fernando, it would have changed the entire complexion of the case and the judge would have been hard-pressed to find Anwar guilty.
Attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar of sexual misconduct charges; and Pak Lah is involved too
“There was an evil plot to secure a conviction through devious means,” said Christopher Fernando on the second day of Anwar’s appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court.
Fernando then told the court that attempt after attempt was made to frame Anwar on sexual misconduct charges.
One such case was Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees, then one of Anwar’s speech writers, who was arrested and subjected to physical and mental torture to force him to admit he had a homosexual relationship with Anwar.
Fernando then took the court through the lengthy Affidavit signed by Dr Munawar on 7 November 1998 that detailed the experience he went through at the hands of the Malaysian police.
The torture he endured finally broke him and he admitted to the ‘crime’, which he later retracted in his Affidavit.
Fernando then brought the court’s attention back to the Manjeet Singh Dhillon matter that was raised in court yesterday to emphasis his point of yet another attempt to frame Anwar.
At this point, Fernando called upon the court to recommend a Royal Commission of Inquiry be established to investigate Manjit Singh Dhillon's serious allegation against Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad as this is a most serious matter affecting the administration of justice and the rule of law.
"If they are found not to be involved in extorting fabricated evidence, then their names will be cleared," said Fernando. "It will be to their benefit."
"If they are involved, then they ought to be brought to justice. That is the only way to resolve this pressing problem and to restore public confidence."
Clearly there was a concerted effort to frame Anwar. But these attempts were not confined to Malaysia. It also extended to the shores of the US as well, argued Fernando. One case in point was an incident involving Jamal Abder Rahman.
“We are trying to show a pattern, how witnesses were approached to give fabricated evidence and these efforts extended beyond the shores of Malaysia to the US,” said Fernando.
Jamal is an American citizen of Arab descent who operates a limousine service in Washington DC and had a contract to provide limousine services to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington.
In September 1998, soon after Anwar’s dismissal and subsequent arrest, a Malaysian Diplomat, Mustapha Ong, asked Jamal to declare that he had procured women and young boys for Anwar.
Monday, November 9, 2009
THE NIZAR versus ZAMRY FEDERAL COURT APPEAL : An analysis of the judge involved
Teringat pula masa Tun Salleh Abbas menjadi Ketua Hakim Negera. Kes UMNO yang dibawa oleh Team N. YA Tun Salleh nak penuhkan korum seramai 9 orang. Akhirnya..... jatuh terduduk Tun Salleh Abas. Belajar & fahami.......
Surely a competent, unbiased and diligent thing to do is to assign this very important case to Judges who have not been involved in any of the ‘Perak Cases’ before -- so that the public would not view or perceive any bias on the part of the Judges, especially when the Judges who are now sitting have decided against Nizar (and in favour of Zambry) in one or two of the ‘Perak Cases’ before.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
When I was detained under Section 73(1) of the Internal Security Act in April 2001, my wife filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus. We lost the case so my wife then filed an appeal and eventually it went up to the Federal Court and was heard by a five-man bench as follows:
1) Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, CJ
2) Wan Adnan Ismail, PCA
3) Steve Shim Lip Kiong, CJ (Sabah & Sarawak)
4) Abdul Malek Ahmad, FCJ
5) Siti Norma Yaakob, FCJ
Halfway through the hearing, Wan Adnan died and I was asked whether I would like to ask for him to be replaced or go with the remaining four-man bench. If I insist that the dead Judge be replaced then the case would have to start all over again.
The Chinese say ‘four’ means ‘die’ but so much time had already been wasted and I did not want to go through the whole thing from the beginning. I agreed to take my chances and go with the four-man bench, which was actually quite dangerous if the decision turns out to be two-two with no fifth vote.
On 6 September 2002, the four-man bench ruled my detention illegal. Nevertheless, I had already been released by then so it was merely a ‘technical win’. But it was important because this meant that the court agreed that my detention was illegal and this would help in the event I get detained a second time some time in the future.
And, as suspected, I was detained a second time in September 2008. And, yet again, my wife filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus. And, yet again, the court ruled my detention illegal and freed me on 7 November 2008.
But this time there was a slight twist to the whole issue. The government decided to appeal against my release at around the same time that the government announced it would not appeal the Razak Baginda acquittal on the murder charge.
My lawyers requested a nine-man bench. We thought at best we would get a five-man bench. Seven Judges would have been good but we could live with five, like the last time in 2001-2002.
But the court turned us down. They would only give us a three-man bench. And when we asked on whose decision this was made we were told it was ‘an administrative decision’, whatever that means.
We were also not told who the three judges were going to be even though we asked. It was not until the morning of the hearing that we knew who the Judges were and one of them was certainly not acceptable because over the last 11 years I had insulted him many times and called him a slime-ball and a scumbag.
And considering what I had written about him -- and am still writing about him until today -- how can I be expected to get a fair hearing? Even I would send myself to jail based on what I had written about the Judge. And we objected to this Judge being in the Coram and asked that he be replaced.
But the Federal Court turned us down and refused to listen to our objections. The court insisted that the hearing proceed with the three Judges and I told my lawyers to walk out of court and boycott the hearing if the court refuses our request to replace that Judge who was clearly my ‘enemy’.
And that was when the court backed down.
My lawyers then filed an appeal in another court and this second court agreed that we had grounds to object to one of the members of the three-man bench. Then they suddenly ‘froze’ my case. After telling us not to waste any time and that they are going to proceed with my hearing immediately without further delay, they suddenly just went to sleep and for the last nine months we have heard nothing from the court.
It is apparent they realise they are not able to proceed with the hearing unless they agree to our request to change one of the Judges. But they do not wish to change the Judge. So this means they can’t proceed with my hearing.
So what do they do? If they do not proceed with the hearing, because they refuse to change the Judge, then they can’t get me back into Kamunting. Ah, but they can. If they can’t get me back into Kamunting by reversing the court decision to free me, they can always get me back by issuing a new detention order.
Just ignore the earlier detention order -- which is being contested and which the court has already declared null and which is being argued in court as to whether the three-man bench should be changed. It is already getting too messy anyway. Issue a fresh detention order and bypass the entire court process. After all, there are hundreds of other articles published in Malaysia Today that they can use as the justification for a fresh detention order.
And that was when I decided I have had enough of the Malaysian judicial system. I am prepared to fight them in court if they play fair. But to fuck around with the selection of Judges and then bury the hearing when they realise they are losing and then pursue me with a fresh detention order is pushing it a bit.
And that was when I decided to tell the court to go fuck itself. I am no longer going to entertain this charade and sham trial in a kangaroo court. They can’t keep moving the goalposts halfway through the game when they find they can’t win. And even after moving the goalposts and they find they still can’t win they declare game over and start a new game.
I am not as stupid as I look. And if the government thinks I am going to sit there while they play around with the judicial system and snigger behind my back then they got another think coming. Now it is I who am having the last laugh on them.
And now we see the same thing happening in the Perak Constitutional Crisis fiasco.
In the recent appeal in the Federal Court, a five-man bench sat to hear the case. The Coram was:
1) YAA Tan Sri Dato' Seri Alauddin bin Dato' Mohd. Sheriff (President of the Court of Appeal)
2) YAA Dato’ Arifin bin Zakaria (Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya)
3) YA Dato' Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin (Federal Court Judge) (appointed 5th September 2007)
4) YA Datuk Wira Haji Mohd Ghazali bin Mohd Yusoff (Federal Court Judge) (appointed April 2009)
5) YA Dato' Abdull Hamid bin Embong (Federal Court Judge) (appointed October 2009)
The Federal Court has nine Judges. In addition to this, the Chief Justice; President of the Court of Appeal; Chief Judge of Malaya and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak also sit in the Federal Court. So, in total, there are 13 Judges who sit in the Federal Court. They are, in order of seniority:
1) YAA Tun Dato’ Sri Zaki bin Tun Azmi (Chief Justice) - A
2) YAA Tan Sri Dato' Seri Alauddin bin Dato' Mohd. Sheriff (President of the Court of Appeal) - B
3) YAA Dato’ Arifin bin Zakaria (Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya) - B
4) YAA Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum (Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak) - A
5) YA Dato' Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin (Federal Court Judge) (appointed 5th September 2007) - B
6) YA Dato’ Sri Augustine Paul - C
7) YA Dato’ Hashim bin Dato’ Haji Yusoff - A
8) YA Datuk Gopal Sri Ram - A
9) YA Datuk Wira Haji Mohd Ghazali bin Mohd Yusoff - B
10) YA Dato’ James Foong Cheng Yuen - C
11) YA Dato’ Mohd Raus bin Sharif - C
12) YA Dato' Abdull Hamid bin Embong - B
13) YA Datuk Heliliah binti Mohd Yusof - A
The ones marked ‘B’ in green are the Judges in the recent Federal Court ‘Perak Case’. These are Judges who had always been involved in the other ‘Perak Cases’. The chart below provides all the Judges who have been involved, one way or another, in the other ‘Perak Cases’ in either the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court.
The ones marked ‘A’ in red have never been involved with any of the ‘Perak Cases’.
The ones marked ‘C’ have been involved in one or two of the ‘Perak Cases’.
It is not suggested that the Judges who have been involved in any of the ‘Perak Cases’ before ought not to hear the Federal Court appeal. They involve different issues. But the bigger issue here is the perception of the public. Surely a competent, unbiased and diligent thing to do is to assign this very important case to Judges who have not been involved in any of the ‘Perak Cases’ before -- so that the public would not view or perceive any bias on the part of the Judges, especially when the Judges who are now sitting have decided against Nizar (and in favour of Zambry) in one or two of the ‘Perak Cases’ before.
The questions, which the public now asks, are:
i) Why is the appeal not fixed to be heard before Judges who have not heard any of the ‘Perak Cases’ before (the ones marked ‘A’ in red)? Of course, Tun Zaki cannot hear this case because he has said he will not be involved in any cases involving UMNO. So the other four Judges could still hear this latest case together with another Court of Appeal Judge who similarly has not been involved at all. (Under the law, Judges of the Court of Appeal may sit in the Federal Court).
ii) When Tun Zaki said he will not get involved in any ‘UMNO cases’, does that mean he can still exercise his administrative power, i.e., the power of choosing the Judges to hear a case involving UMNO? Was he not the one who selected the Judges in this latest appeal?
iii) Why, in an important case involving Constitutional issues such as this, junior Judges are selected instead of more senior Judges?
iv) Would it not be more prudent, diligent, as well as competent, had the Court been convened with a seven-, nine- or even 11-man bench (or even 13) considering the constitutional ramifications of the latest appeal? This case has to review the Ningkan; Amir Kahar and Adegbenro v Akintola case. It brings long-lasting consequences to Malaysian politics and administration. It will define the function, power and discretion of the Sultan (as well as the Agong -- because the Federal Constitution has similar provisions as the Perak Constitution) in relation to a very important matter, i.e., the dissolution of the Assembly/Parliament. This case will be the causa celebrae for the future. It will set precedents. Even in two drug cases, a seven-man bench was convened.
a) ARULPRAGASAN SANDARAJU V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FEDERAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
TAN SRI DATO' SERI EUSOFF CHIN CJ TAN SRI DATO' LAMIN MOHD YUNUS PCA TAN SRI DATO' ANUAR ZAINAL ABIDIN CJ (MALAYA) TAN SRI DATO' MOHD AZMI KAMARUDDIN FCJ TAN SRI DATO' EDGAR JOSEPH JR FCJ DATO' PADUKA MOHAMED DZAIDDIN FCJ DATO' WAN ADNAN FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05-237-92] – 27.7.1996
b) PP V. TAN TATT EEK & OTHER APPEALS FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA AHMAD FAIRUZ CJ ; ABDUL MALEK AHMAD PCA ; HAIDAR MOHD NOOR CJ (MALAYA) ; STEVE SHIM CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK) ; SITI NORMA YAAKOB FCJ ; PAJAN SINGH GILL FCJ ; AUGUSTINE PAUL JCA [CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 05-40-2002 (W), 05-41-2002 (W), 05-68-2002 (P) & 05-70-2002 (P)] - 3 FEBRUARY 2005
The above cases are drug related cases, which concerns the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Dangerous Drugs Act. But it was deemed fit to convene a seven-man bench because of the ramifications of the case. Surely matters involving Constitutional issues should attract the same, if not more, amount of attention and concern so as to justify a full bench
Surely a competent, unbiased and diligent thing to do is to assign this very important case to Judges who have not been involved in any of the ‘Perak Cases’ before -- so that the public would not view or perceive any bias on the part of the Judges, especially when the Judges who are now sitting have decided against Nizar (and in favour of Zambry) in one or two of the ‘Perak Cases’ before.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
When I was detained under Section 73(1) of the Internal Security Act in April 2001, my wife filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus. We lost the case so my wife then filed an appeal and eventually it went up to the Federal Court and was heard by a five-man bench as follows:
1) Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah, CJ
2) Wan Adnan Ismail, PCA
3) Steve Shim Lip Kiong, CJ (Sabah & Sarawak)
4) Abdul Malek Ahmad, FCJ
5) Siti Norma Yaakob, FCJ
Halfway through the hearing, Wan Adnan died and I was asked whether I would like to ask for him to be replaced or go with the remaining four-man bench. If I insist that the dead Judge be replaced then the case would have to start all over again.
The Chinese say ‘four’ means ‘die’ but so much time had already been wasted and I did not want to go through the whole thing from the beginning. I agreed to take my chances and go with the four-man bench, which was actually quite dangerous if the decision turns out to be two-two with no fifth vote.
On 6 September 2002, the four-man bench ruled my detention illegal. Nevertheless, I had already been released by then so it was merely a ‘technical win’. But it was important because this meant that the court agreed that my detention was illegal and this would help in the event I get detained a second time some time in the future.
And, as suspected, I was detained a second time in September 2008. And, yet again, my wife filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus. And, yet again, the court ruled my detention illegal and freed me on 7 November 2008.
But this time there was a slight twist to the whole issue. The government decided to appeal against my release at around the same time that the government announced it would not appeal the Razak Baginda acquittal on the murder charge.
My lawyers requested a nine-man bench. We thought at best we would get a five-man bench. Seven Judges would have been good but we could live with five, like the last time in 2001-2002.
But the court turned us down. They would only give us a three-man bench. And when we asked on whose decision this was made we were told it was ‘an administrative decision’, whatever that means.
We were also not told who the three judges were going to be even though we asked. It was not until the morning of the hearing that we knew who the Judges were and one of them was certainly not acceptable because over the last 11 years I had insulted him many times and called him a slime-ball and a scumbag.
And considering what I had written about him -- and am still writing about him until today -- how can I be expected to get a fair hearing? Even I would send myself to jail based on what I had written about the Judge. And we objected to this Judge being in the Coram and asked that he be replaced.
But the Federal Court turned us down and refused to listen to our objections. The court insisted that the hearing proceed with the three Judges and I told my lawyers to walk out of court and boycott the hearing if the court refuses our request to replace that Judge who was clearly my ‘enemy’.
And that was when the court backed down.
My lawyers then filed an appeal in another court and this second court agreed that we had grounds to object to one of the members of the three-man bench. Then they suddenly ‘froze’ my case. After telling us not to waste any time and that they are going to proceed with my hearing immediately without further delay, they suddenly just went to sleep and for the last nine months we have heard nothing from the court.
It is apparent they realise they are not able to proceed with the hearing unless they agree to our request to change one of the Judges. But they do not wish to change the Judge. So this means they can’t proceed with my hearing.
So what do they do? If they do not proceed with the hearing, because they refuse to change the Judge, then they can’t get me back into Kamunting. Ah, but they can. If they can’t get me back into Kamunting by reversing the court decision to free me, they can always get me back by issuing a new detention order.
Just ignore the earlier detention order -- which is being contested and which the court has already declared null and which is being argued in court as to whether the three-man bench should be changed. It is already getting too messy anyway. Issue a fresh detention order and bypass the entire court process. After all, there are hundreds of other articles published in Malaysia Today that they can use as the justification for a fresh detention order.
And that was when I decided I have had enough of the Malaysian judicial system. I am prepared to fight them in court if they play fair. But to fuck around with the selection of Judges and then bury the hearing when they realise they are losing and then pursue me with a fresh detention order is pushing it a bit.
And that was when I decided to tell the court to go fuck itself. I am no longer going to entertain this charade and sham trial in a kangaroo court. They can’t keep moving the goalposts halfway through the game when they find they can’t win. And even after moving the goalposts and they find they still can’t win they declare game over and start a new game.
I am not as stupid as I look. And if the government thinks I am going to sit there while they play around with the judicial system and snigger behind my back then they got another think coming. Now it is I who am having the last laugh on them.
And now we see the same thing happening in the Perak Constitutional Crisis fiasco.
In the recent appeal in the Federal Court, a five-man bench sat to hear the case. The Coram was:
1) YAA Tan Sri Dato' Seri Alauddin bin Dato' Mohd. Sheriff (President of the Court of Appeal)
2) YAA Dato’ Arifin bin Zakaria (Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya)
3) YA Dato' Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin (Federal Court Judge) (appointed 5th September 2007)
4) YA Datuk Wira Haji Mohd Ghazali bin Mohd Yusoff (Federal Court Judge) (appointed April 2009)
5) YA Dato' Abdull Hamid bin Embong (Federal Court Judge) (appointed October 2009)
The Federal Court has nine Judges. In addition to this, the Chief Justice; President of the Court of Appeal; Chief Judge of Malaya and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak also sit in the Federal Court. So, in total, there are 13 Judges who sit in the Federal Court. They are, in order of seniority:
1) YAA Tun Dato’ Sri Zaki bin Tun Azmi (Chief Justice) - A
2) YAA Tan Sri Dato' Seri Alauddin bin Dato' Mohd. Sheriff (President of the Court of Appeal) - B
3) YAA Dato’ Arifin bin Zakaria (Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya) - B
4) YAA Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum (Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak) - A
5) YA Dato' Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin (Federal Court Judge) (appointed 5th September 2007) - B
6) YA Dato’ Sri Augustine Paul - C
7) YA Dato’ Hashim bin Dato’ Haji Yusoff - A
8) YA Datuk Gopal Sri Ram - A
9) YA Datuk Wira Haji Mohd Ghazali bin Mohd Yusoff - B
10) YA Dato’ James Foong Cheng Yuen - C
11) YA Dato’ Mohd Raus bin Sharif - C
12) YA Dato' Abdull Hamid bin Embong - B
13) YA Datuk Heliliah binti Mohd Yusof - A
The ones marked ‘B’ in green are the Judges in the recent Federal Court ‘Perak Case’. These are Judges who had always been involved in the other ‘Perak Cases’. The chart below provides all the Judges who have been involved, one way or another, in the other ‘Perak Cases’ in either the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court.
The ones marked ‘A’ in red have never been involved with any of the ‘Perak Cases’.
The ones marked ‘C’ have been involved in one or two of the ‘Perak Cases’.
It is not suggested that the Judges who have been involved in any of the ‘Perak Cases’ before ought not to hear the Federal Court appeal. They involve different issues. But the bigger issue here is the perception of the public. Surely a competent, unbiased and diligent thing to do is to assign this very important case to Judges who have not been involved in any of the ‘Perak Cases’ before -- so that the public would not view or perceive any bias on the part of the Judges, especially when the Judges who are now sitting have decided against Nizar (and in favour of Zambry) in one or two of the ‘Perak Cases’ before.
The questions, which the public now asks, are:
i) Why is the appeal not fixed to be heard before Judges who have not heard any of the ‘Perak Cases’ before (the ones marked ‘A’ in red)? Of course, Tun Zaki cannot hear this case because he has said he will not be involved in any cases involving UMNO. So the other four Judges could still hear this latest case together with another Court of Appeal Judge who similarly has not been involved at all. (Under the law, Judges of the Court of Appeal may sit in the Federal Court).
ii) When Tun Zaki said he will not get involved in any ‘UMNO cases’, does that mean he can still exercise his administrative power, i.e., the power of choosing the Judges to hear a case involving UMNO? Was he not the one who selected the Judges in this latest appeal?
iii) Why, in an important case involving Constitutional issues such as this, junior Judges are selected instead of more senior Judges?
iv) Would it not be more prudent, diligent, as well as competent, had the Court been convened with a seven-, nine- or even 11-man bench (or even 13) considering the constitutional ramifications of the latest appeal? This case has to review the Ningkan; Amir Kahar and Adegbenro v Akintola case. It brings long-lasting consequences to Malaysian politics and administration. It will define the function, power and discretion of the Sultan (as well as the Agong -- because the Federal Constitution has similar provisions as the Perak Constitution) in relation to a very important matter, i.e., the dissolution of the Assembly/Parliament. This case will be the causa celebrae for the future. It will set precedents. Even in two drug cases, a seven-man bench was convened.
a) ARULPRAGASAN SANDARAJU V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FEDERAL COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
TAN SRI DATO' SERI EUSOFF CHIN CJ TAN SRI DATO' LAMIN MOHD YUNUS PCA TAN SRI DATO' ANUAR ZAINAL ABIDIN CJ (MALAYA) TAN SRI DATO' MOHD AZMI KAMARUDDIN FCJ TAN SRI DATO' EDGAR JOSEPH JR FCJ DATO' PADUKA MOHAMED DZAIDDIN FCJ DATO' WAN ADNAN FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05-237-92] – 27.7.1996
b) PP V. TAN TATT EEK & OTHER APPEALS FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA AHMAD FAIRUZ CJ ; ABDUL MALEK AHMAD PCA ; HAIDAR MOHD NOOR CJ (MALAYA) ; STEVE SHIM CJ (SABAH & SARAWAK) ; SITI NORMA YAAKOB FCJ ; PAJAN SINGH GILL FCJ ; AUGUSTINE PAUL JCA [CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 05-40-2002 (W), 05-41-2002 (W), 05-68-2002 (P) & 05-70-2002 (P)] - 3 FEBRUARY 2005
The above cases are drug related cases, which concerns the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Dangerous Drugs Act. But it was deemed fit to convene a seven-man bench because of the ramifications of the case. Surely matters involving Constitutional issues should attract the same, if not more, amount of attention and concern so as to justify a full bench
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER : RAJA PETRA KAMARUDIN
Down to the memory lane, renung renungkan.........
Prosecution’s ‘star witness’ proven unreliable; admits Anwar never sodomised him.
Fernando then related the meetings another lawyer, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, had with the two Chief Prosecutors, one of whom is now the Attorney-General. In the meetings, the two prosecutors, Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad, used extortion and blackmail to try to get Manjeet’s client, Dato’ Nalla Karuppan, to fabricate evidence against Anwar.
Christopher Fernando, Anwar Ibrahim’s lead counsel, kicked off the appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court by telling the court that the prosecution’s case rested primarily on the evidence of Azizan Abu Bakar. The entire case, in fact, was based on the credibility of Azizan.
However, Fernando said, Azizan consistently contradicted himself during the course of the trial and, therefore, is an unreliable witness.
In fact, the court was told, not only should Azizan have been declared an unreliable witness, but he also should have been impeached and cited for perjury.
“Instead,” argued Fernando, “The learned judge held the witness to be credible, reliable and honest.”
“This witness is one of the most unreliable witnesses ever to have come before a court of law,” said Fernando.
“His evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and outright lies. He has given three different versions of what actually transpired.”
Fernando explained that in the first (corruption) trial, Azizan gave evidence that he was sodomised by Anwar but, in the second (sodomy) trial, he testified he was never sodomised by Anwar.
“He admitted not once, but three times that between the years 1992 and 1997 he was never sodomised by Anwar, and that was why he continued to visit Anwar. If not, he would have kept far away from Anwar.”
“He admitted this in the most unequivocal terms,” said Fernando. “The judge himself was taken aback.”
Fernando said the judge then asked him to repeat the question as maybe Azizan did not understand it. Fernando said he then asked Azizan a second time and, for the second time, Azizan admitted Anwar did not sodomise him.
“I then asked him third time just to make sure and to be fair to him,” said Fernando, “And, for the third time, he admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.”
“After several days, and during the re-examination, a leading question was asked by the prosecution which was most unfair and the judge ought to have rejected it.”
And the question was, “After 1992, were you sodomised again?”
“The defence objected to this question but the judge allowed the question to be asked,” explained Fernando.
“However, in response to this leading question, whether he was sodomised from 1992 to today (1998), Azizan, again, said he was never sodomised.”
“The judge himself made specific findings. On one occasion he said, “This witness says one thing today and another thing tomorrow”.”
The judge also said, “This witness is very evasive. He refuses to answer even simple questions”.”
“The judge himself found Azizan an unreliable witness.”
“It is mind boggling that, after making such a strong statement, the judge can turn around and say the witness is credible, honest and trustworthy.”
“The judge’s statement contradicts his own findings.”
Prosecution desperate; charges amended to fit witness’ testimony
The prosecution amended the charges against Anwar Ibrahim, twice, in a desperate attempt to fit it to the testimony of its star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar.
“The original charge was ‘one night in the month of May 1994’,” said Christopher Fernando, Anwar’s lead counsel.
“Then, it was revealed that the Tivoli Villa, the place the alleged crime was supposed to have been committed, had not been completed yet.”
“The prosecution found itself in a terrible dilemma. How could sodomy have taken place in a building that had not been completed?”
“So the charge was amended to ‘one night in the month of May 1992’,” explained Fernando.
But this date still could not fit Azizan’s testimony so, in a desperate attempt to salvage their case, it was again amended to “committed the offence of sodomy at 7.45pm between the month of January to March 1993,” argued Fernando.
“First 1994, then 1992 and, finally, 1993,” said Fernando to the court that had the spectator’s gallery by now in stitches.
“The significance of all this was lost on the judge. He was not able to appreciate what was happening.”
“Why the need to amend it to a date in 1993? They could not go backwards to 1992, or earlier, as the building was not even built yet. So the only way was to go forward.”
“Can anybody, without exception, answer a charge as vague as that, all of us included?” asked Fernando.
“One evening in 90 days! I cannot conceive of a more vague and uncertain charge - a most unfair charge.”
“The amendments to the charge are not Bona Fide.” “
The judge then asked, “You mean the amendments were Mala Fide?” to which Fernando replied, “Yes.”
“The charge was amended to fit Azizan’s testimony,” added Fernando.
Azizan, however, testified that he was never sodomised from 1992 onwards.
“He admitted not once, but three times that between the years 1992 and 1997 he was never sodomised by Anwar, and that was why he continued to visit Anwar. If not, he would have kept far away from Anwar,” said Fernando.
“Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah (the Attorney-General then) said, “We have all the records and evidence pertaining to Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s movements in and out of the country between 1992 and 1998’.”
“If you have all the records and evidence of Dato’ Seri Anwar’s movements, why not produce them? Why such a vague date in the charge?”
“The conclusion to this would be, the records and evidence did not show that Dato’ Seri Anwar was at the Tivoli Villa between January and March 1993.”
“These are trumped-up charges. It has to be. There are no two ways about it.”
“The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are followed every hour of the day for their own protection and the records of their movements are available.”
“The judge failed to invoke the provisions in section 114(g) of the Evidence Act against the prosecution for failing to produce evidence and records showing Dato’ Seri Anwar’s movements.”
“The records, if produced, would exonerate Dato’ Seri Anwar and would show he was never there (at the Tivoli Villa) during the 60 days (January to March 1993).”
Police coached Azizan on what to testify
It was the police that coached Azizan Abu Bakar, the prosecution’s star witness, on what to testify in court. Christopher Fernando said he had asked Azizan, “Did you tell the police you were sodomised in 1992?”
“Azizan replied that he cannot remember.”
“After further questioning, he then said he did not tell the police he was sodomised in 1992.”
“I then asked him, ‘who fabricated the evidence?’”
“And he replied, he does not know.”
“I further asked him, ‘did you tell the police you were sodomised in May 1994?’”
“He said a number of times that he cannot remember.”
“Finally, he admitted he did not inform the police he was sodomised in May 1994.”
The court was told that Azizan then revealed he was called up by the investigation officer, SAC Musa Hassan, in June 1999.
“I then asked him, ‘were you asked to change the date to 1993?’”
“And he replied, ‘yes’.”
“When asked, ‘who asked you to change the date’, he replied ‘police officer’. Finally, he admitted it was SAC Musa Hassan.”
“Shocking and chilling”; Evidence against Anwar was fabricated
“Shocking and chilling!” That was how Christopher Fernando described the conspiracy to fabricate evidence against the one-time Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Fernando then related the meetings another lawyer, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, had with the two Chief Prosecutors, one of whom is now the Attorney-General. In the meetings, the two prosecutors, Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad, used extortion and blackmail to try to get Manjeet’s client, Dato’ Nalla Karuppan, to fabricate evidence against Anwar.
The prosecutors threatened Dato’ Nalla with the death sentence unless he agrees to testify that he was instrumental in procuring women for Anwar.
Dato’ Nalla, however, refused, saying that, short of lying, there is no way he could do that.
They then continued to threaten both him and his family. At first they wanted him to implicate Anwar with two women, then three, then four, and finally they settled for five women, Fernando revealed. The prosecutors also admitted they were looking into matters on behalf of the Prime Minister.
On 25 August 1998, Manjeet filed an Affidavit in court with regards to this matter. On 13 October 1998, Manjeet met the then Attorney-General in the presence of the two prosecutors where the issue was raised.
The Attorney-General apologised for not taking action on Manjeet’s complaint while the two prosecutors remained silent and did not deny the allegation.
They also tried to blackmail another of Manjeet’s client, Dr Munawar Anees, to implicate Anwar with sexual misconduct.
“This shows the police not only tried to get Azizan to lie, but also Dato Nalla and Dr Munawar as well,” said Fernando.The court was told, Anwar did not leave office until 2 September 1998, yet the Attorney-General and Chief Prosecutors were already attempting to fabricate evidence against him long before then
Prosecution’s ‘star witness’ proven unreliable; admits Anwar never sodomised him.
Fernando then related the meetings another lawyer, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, had with the two Chief Prosecutors, one of whom is now the Attorney-General. In the meetings, the two prosecutors, Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad, used extortion and blackmail to try to get Manjeet’s client, Dato’ Nalla Karuppan, to fabricate evidence against Anwar.
Christopher Fernando, Anwar Ibrahim’s lead counsel, kicked off the appeal hearing in the Kuala Lumpur Appeal Court by telling the court that the prosecution’s case rested primarily on the evidence of Azizan Abu Bakar. The entire case, in fact, was based on the credibility of Azizan.
However, Fernando said, Azizan consistently contradicted himself during the course of the trial and, therefore, is an unreliable witness.
In fact, the court was told, not only should Azizan have been declared an unreliable witness, but he also should have been impeached and cited for perjury.
“Instead,” argued Fernando, “The learned judge held the witness to be credible, reliable and honest.”
“This witness is one of the most unreliable witnesses ever to have come before a court of law,” said Fernando.
“His evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and outright lies. He has given three different versions of what actually transpired.”
Fernando explained that in the first (corruption) trial, Azizan gave evidence that he was sodomised by Anwar but, in the second (sodomy) trial, he testified he was never sodomised by Anwar.
“He admitted not once, but three times that between the years 1992 and 1997 he was never sodomised by Anwar, and that was why he continued to visit Anwar. If not, he would have kept far away from Anwar.”
“He admitted this in the most unequivocal terms,” said Fernando. “The judge himself was taken aback.”
Fernando said the judge then asked him to repeat the question as maybe Azizan did not understand it. Fernando said he then asked Azizan a second time and, for the second time, Azizan admitted Anwar did not sodomise him.
“I then asked him third time just to make sure and to be fair to him,” said Fernando, “And, for the third time, he admitted that Anwar did not sodomise him.”
“After several days, and during the re-examination, a leading question was asked by the prosecution which was most unfair and the judge ought to have rejected it.”
And the question was, “After 1992, were you sodomised again?”
“The defence objected to this question but the judge allowed the question to be asked,” explained Fernando.
“However, in response to this leading question, whether he was sodomised from 1992 to today (1998), Azizan, again, said he was never sodomised.”
“The judge himself made specific findings. On one occasion he said, “This witness says one thing today and another thing tomorrow”.”
The judge also said, “This witness is very evasive. He refuses to answer even simple questions”.”
“The judge himself found Azizan an unreliable witness.”
“It is mind boggling that, after making such a strong statement, the judge can turn around and say the witness is credible, honest and trustworthy.”
“The judge’s statement contradicts his own findings.”
Prosecution desperate; charges amended to fit witness’ testimony
The prosecution amended the charges against Anwar Ibrahim, twice, in a desperate attempt to fit it to the testimony of its star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar.
“The original charge was ‘one night in the month of May 1994’,” said Christopher Fernando, Anwar’s lead counsel.
“Then, it was revealed that the Tivoli Villa, the place the alleged crime was supposed to have been committed, had not been completed yet.”
“The prosecution found itself in a terrible dilemma. How could sodomy have taken place in a building that had not been completed?”
“So the charge was amended to ‘one night in the month of May 1992’,” explained Fernando.
But this date still could not fit Azizan’s testimony so, in a desperate attempt to salvage their case, it was again amended to “committed the offence of sodomy at 7.45pm between the month of January to March 1993,” argued Fernando.
“First 1994, then 1992 and, finally, 1993,” said Fernando to the court that had the spectator’s gallery by now in stitches.
“The significance of all this was lost on the judge. He was not able to appreciate what was happening.”
“Why the need to amend it to a date in 1993? They could not go backwards to 1992, or earlier, as the building was not even built yet. So the only way was to go forward.”
“Can anybody, without exception, answer a charge as vague as that, all of us included?” asked Fernando.
“One evening in 90 days! I cannot conceive of a more vague and uncertain charge - a most unfair charge.”
“The amendments to the charge are not Bona Fide.” “
The judge then asked, “You mean the amendments were Mala Fide?” to which Fernando replied, “Yes.”
“The charge was amended to fit Azizan’s testimony,” added Fernando.
Azizan, however, testified that he was never sodomised from 1992 onwards.
“He admitted not once, but three times that between the years 1992 and 1997 he was never sodomised by Anwar, and that was why he continued to visit Anwar. If not, he would have kept far away from Anwar,” said Fernando.
“Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah (the Attorney-General then) said, “We have all the records and evidence pertaining to Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s movements in and out of the country between 1992 and 1998’.”
“If you have all the records and evidence of Dato’ Seri Anwar’s movements, why not produce them? Why such a vague date in the charge?”
“The conclusion to this would be, the records and evidence did not show that Dato’ Seri Anwar was at the Tivoli Villa between January and March 1993.”
“These are trumped-up charges. It has to be. There are no two ways about it.”
“The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are followed every hour of the day for their own protection and the records of their movements are available.”
“The judge failed to invoke the provisions in section 114(g) of the Evidence Act against the prosecution for failing to produce evidence and records showing Dato’ Seri Anwar’s movements.”
“The records, if produced, would exonerate Dato’ Seri Anwar and would show he was never there (at the Tivoli Villa) during the 60 days (January to March 1993).”
Police coached Azizan on what to testify
It was the police that coached Azizan Abu Bakar, the prosecution’s star witness, on what to testify in court. Christopher Fernando said he had asked Azizan, “Did you tell the police you were sodomised in 1992?”
“Azizan replied that he cannot remember.”
“After further questioning, he then said he did not tell the police he was sodomised in 1992.”
“I then asked him, ‘who fabricated the evidence?’”
“And he replied, he does not know.”
“I further asked him, ‘did you tell the police you were sodomised in May 1994?’”
“He said a number of times that he cannot remember.”
“Finally, he admitted he did not inform the police he was sodomised in May 1994.”
The court was told that Azizan then revealed he was called up by the investigation officer, SAC Musa Hassan, in June 1999.
“I then asked him, ‘were you asked to change the date to 1993?’”
“And he replied, ‘yes’.”
“When asked, ‘who asked you to change the date’, he replied ‘police officer’. Finally, he admitted it was SAC Musa Hassan.”
“Shocking and chilling”; Evidence against Anwar was fabricated
“Shocking and chilling!” That was how Christopher Fernando described the conspiracy to fabricate evidence against the one-time Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Fernando then related the meetings another lawyer, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, had with the two Chief Prosecutors, one of whom is now the Attorney-General. In the meetings, the two prosecutors, Abdul Gani Patail and Azhar Mohamad, used extortion and blackmail to try to get Manjeet’s client, Dato’ Nalla Karuppan, to fabricate evidence against Anwar.
The prosecutors threatened Dato’ Nalla with the death sentence unless he agrees to testify that he was instrumental in procuring women for Anwar.
Dato’ Nalla, however, refused, saying that, short of lying, there is no way he could do that.
They then continued to threaten both him and his family. At first they wanted him to implicate Anwar with two women, then three, then four, and finally they settled for five women, Fernando revealed. The prosecutors also admitted they were looking into matters on behalf of the Prime Minister.
On 25 August 1998, Manjeet filed an Affidavit in court with regards to this matter. On 13 October 1998, Manjeet met the then Attorney-General in the presence of the two prosecutors where the issue was raised.
The Attorney-General apologised for not taking action on Manjeet’s complaint while the two prosecutors remained silent and did not deny the allegation.
They also tried to blackmail another of Manjeet’s client, Dr Munawar Anees, to implicate Anwar with sexual misconduct.
“This shows the police not only tried to get Azizan to lie, but also Dato Nalla and Dr Munawar as well,” said Fernando.The court was told, Anwar did not leave office until 2 September 1998, yet the Attorney-General and Chief Prosecutors were already attempting to fabricate evidence against him long before then
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)