Zahid should not assume that although Pakatan Rakyat is opposed to IS and Islamic extremism, he has a  blank cheque to enact anti-terrorism laws without proper consultation with the Opposition and the civil society

Home Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi is mistaken if he thinks that although Pakatan Rakyat is opposed to Islamic State and Islamic extremism, he has a blank cheque to enact a spate of anti-terrorism laws without proper consultation with the Opposition and the civil society.

I am quite disturbed by Zahid’s complacency and cavalier attitude as reflected by his statement after the presentation of the spate of anti-terrorism bills like the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 (POTA)  that he is confident the opposition will back POTA and that rejection would most likely come from activists and human rights’ lawyers.

Up to now, in finalizing the spate of anti-terrorism bills, Zahid has never bothered to consult with Pakatan Rakyat MPs and the civil society or seek their views on adequate safeguards against abuses of far-reaching powers.

Zahid should realise that the Barisan Nasional has no monopoly of patriotism, that in fact the Barisan Nasional government is a minority government, getting the support of only 47% of the electorate and it is because of the undemocratic gerrymandering of parliamentary seats and unfair electoral practices  that Barisan Nasional continues to be the Federal Government.

However, in view of the fact that the Barisan Nasional is for the first time in Malaysian history a minority government, it is more beholden of the government to fully consult with the Opposition and the civil society before it enacts the controversial legislation in Parliament.

But the Barisan Nasional government has not taken note of these needs,  which is why the Minister should now seriously consider the proposal to refer to spate of seven anti-terrorism legislation to a Parliamentary Select Committee which can make a more detailed study of the proposed bills and make recommendations for the next parliamentary meeting beginning on May 18.

Despite assurances by Zahid that the threat of Islamic State (IS) and Islamic extremism in Malaysia is being kept under check, recent reports seem to indicate the contrary – with  Islamic State and Islamic extremism extending  their influence at various levels of society, including the civil service.

MPs are entitled to a full report by the police counter-terrorism division whether it is fighting a winning or losing war against Islamic State and Islamic extremism in Malaysia – particularly after the shocking praise given by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to the Islamic State in June last year.

Why has the Police Counter-Terrorism Unit failed to give regular updates to all MPs on the success or failures of its work?

The battle against terrorism cannot be won by just enacting anti-terrorism laws if the root causes for the radicalization and recruitment of youths into terrorist activities are not addressed.

This should be a special subject of debate and study by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Terrorism.

The Government must not dismiss concerns that the anti-terrorist legislation could violate  human rights and civil liberties completely unrelated to terrorist activities, especially in provisions excluding judicial discretion or judicial review, or in creating an illusion of judicial oversight when in fact there is none or reducing judicial officers to mere rubber stamps.

The revival of ISA powers of indefinite detention without trial, allowing a two-year detention which is renewable indefinitely,  is a most abhorrent and abominable provision  when there are no safeguards or provisions against their abuses.

The Home Minister must allow for a more consultative process with  PR MPs as well as the civil society before the spate of anti-terrorism bills are enacted to become the  law of the land.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 5 April 2015, 4:46 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Islamic state
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Excerpt #1:  Chicken Coop At Dusk

by Bakri Musa

6th April 2015

Malaysia’s Wasted Decade 2004-2014. The Toxic Triad of Abdullah, Najib, and UMNO Leadership

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad stunned his followers when he announced his resignation at his UMNO’s General Assembly in June 2002. He had been in office for over 22 years. The unexpected announcement triggered mass hysteria among his followers. Senior ministers and party leaders openly wept, and pandemonium broke out in the hall.

The scene resembled a chicken coop at dusk when the birds were settling down in their comfort zone when suddenly their head rooster flew the coop, or attempted to. The cacophony settled down and calm returned only after senior leaders cajoled Mahathir to delay his retirement until October 31st the following year, and he agreed.

That collective hysteria and mass crying were reflective of how dependent UMNO members were on Mahathir. He was their messiah, and now he was abandoning them.

Mahathir anointed Abdullah Badawi as his successor, and five years later Najib Razak took over from Abdullah. The handover from Mahathir to Abdullah went smoothly, with both formally dressed in their traditional Malay baju and samping sutra as they smiled and shook hands while exchanging the instrument of office in front of the King. The next day Prime Minister Abdullah awarded Mahathir and his wife the nation’s highest honor, the Tunship.

The shift from Abdullah to Najib five years later also went smoothly, at least on the surface, with beaming smiles all around. Prime Minister Najib also awarded Abdullah his Tunship, as well as one to his new wife who had no discernible service to the nation. That seeming cordiality and civility however could not mask the earlier intrigue and shadow plays engaged by both.

Abdullah and Najib may have been consumed with their own shadow play nonetheless there was no mistaking who was the master puppeteer. Mahathir directly picked Abdullah, and then forced Abdullah to choose Najib.

Soon upon assuming office, Abdullah sought a mandate and secured an overwhelming victory in 2004, eclipsing and embarrassing Mahathir’s less-than-stellar performance in 1999. Abdullah’s boys (his advisers were all males) made sure that no one missed the comparison. Being amateurs and new to the game, they treated their victory as the ultimate trophy and failed to capitalize on it.

They or rather their patron Abdullah paid dearly for that neglect. In the following election of 2008, his coalition suffered a humiliating setback. It was returned to power but with a hugely reduced majority at the federal level, while losing five states to the opposition.

Mahathir saw his error with Abdullah soon after the latter took office. Even Abdullah’s 2004 impressive electoral win did not persuade Mahathir otherwise. That victory however, blunted Mahathir’s withering criticisms, reducing him to a grumpy old man. With Abdullah’s subsequent electoral setback, Mahathir was emboldened and his criticisms gained traction, amply aided by Abdullah’s own inept performance. His forced ignominious resignation in October 2009 gave way to Najib, with enthusiastic support from Mahathir, at least initially.

Mahathir is a poor judge of talent and character. His initial enthusiasm for Najib, as with Abdullah, was misplaced and soon soured. When Najib subsequently suffered an even worse electoral humiliation than Abdullah in the May 2013 election, Mahathir ratcheted up his scorn for Najib, labeling him a “weak leader.” He openly expressed his regret for his earlier support for Najib and publicly rebuked him. To date, a much older and less vigorous Mahathir has yet to be successful in undoing his error with Najib. Malaysia remains cursed with Najib’s clueless and rudderless leadership.

Next: The Decay That Was Long in the Making

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 April 2015, 7:31 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Khalid’s failure after 48 hours to name police officers who had met Sirul in Sydney immigration detention centre and rebut the former corporal convict’s accusation that the top cop in the country had lied  is the top national embarrassment of the year

Malaysia is probably the first country in the world with the top cop who operates in the Internet time zone, who seems to be running the 130,000-strong Royal Malaysian Police from his twitter post, twittering immediate police commands to police subordinates to harass and investigate Opposition leaders and civil society activists for alleged offences under the Sedition Act and other laws affecting civil rights such as freedom of speech, expression and assembly.

As a result, the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar has established a reputation of being twitter trigger-happy and  earned the moniker of Twitter Cop, thereby raising  different expectations from previous IGPs.

In the past, the public expect the IGP to respond within a day to issues of national importance affecting the police.

However, under Twitter Cop who operates in the Internet time zone of 24/7/365, the public expects Khalid to respond with faster speed in line with the new Social Habit on the social media.

One recent survey shows that 32% of the respondents expect a brand, product or company to respond within 30 minutes through social media for customer support while a further 42% expect a response within 60 minutes.

Nobody is asking for a round-the-clock response from the police, but as  the foremost exponent  of the social media in the police force and even the entire Malaysian civil service, one would expect Khalid to be able to respond within the hour to any important developments affecting the police  on the social media.

Is this the case?

At 12.35 pm on Saturday, April 4, 2015,
 Malaysiakini
 uploaded its report quoting former corporal convicted of murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, Sirul Azhar Umar of accusing Khalid of lying when the Inspector-General of Police said he had sent his men to Australia to meet the convict fugitive.

This set the stage for what must be  the world’s first “circus” of an ordinary police corporal challenging the top cop of the nation and accusing him as a liar, with the top cop challenging the former corporal convict in retaliation but studiously avoiding the real question at issue!

But two full days or 48 hours have passed since Malaysiakini uploaded the report on Sirul accusing Khalid as a liar, and Khalid has belied his reputation as twitter-quick in his response in being unable to produce proof that it was Sirul who had lied by the very simple act of naming the police officer or officers who had met Sirul at the Sydney immigration detention centre, and the date or dates.

Khalid’s inability to debunk Sirul’s allegation of being a liar in the last 48 hours on twitter-time  would be equivalent to several weeks of silence in the pre-social media era.

Khalid’s failure after 48 hours to name police officers who had met Sirul in Sydney immigration detention centre and rebut the former corporal convict’s accusation that the top cop in the country had lied  is the top national embarrassment of the year

This is a shocking reflection on the efficiency, work ethic and professionalism of the top cop of the country.

Khalid should respond immediately and name the police officer or officers and the date or dates they had met Sirul at the Villawood immigration detention centre in Sydney or he must stand condemned as having lied when he claimed that police officers had met Sirul at  the Sydney immigration detention centre.

It is strange that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Noor Rashid Ibrahim, knew nothing about police officers sent to Sydney to meet with Sirul, as Noor had pleaded ignorance when asked on the matter, saying: “Ask the IGP. I can’t comment. I am not sure. Maybe the IGP has knowledge of it. I would not have known about it because I was focused on something else. This is out of my knowledge.” (
Free Malaysia Today 4.4.2015
)

The IGP has challenged Sirul, whom he rightly described as “a desperate man …resorting to desperate measures to save his life”, to “spill the beans, if he has any” of the Altantuya murder, raising the question whether Khalid was aware that there are “beans” to be spilled, not only from Sirul but also others.

It is time that Khalid himself make a clean breast publicly of what he know about the Malaysian crime of the century, the Altantuya murder!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 April 2015, 12:11 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
IT
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s Wasted Decade 2004 – 2014 – The Toxic Triad of Abdullah, Najib, and UMNO Leadership

By M. Bakri Musa

April 3, 2015

Library of Congress Catalog No: 2014914568

ISBN 13 978 1500776305 Indexed 308 pp; US $14.95

Now available on online stores like Amazon.com

Back Cover:

The tragedy of state-owned Malaysia Airlines (MAS) Flight MH370 that disappeared amidst mystery and without trace over the South China Sea on March 2014 exposed to the world the gross incompetence and lackadaisical attitude of Malaysian officials, from senior ministers dismissive of pleas from victims’ families to radar operators uncurious of strange intruding beeps on their screens. Malaysians have long endured these; their surprise was that the world was surprised.

These essays chronicle the continued erosion of Malaysia’s once reliable institutions, the corrosion of its economy through endemic corruption and crony capitalism, and the polarization of its citizens along race, region and religion. These are the crippling consequences of the toxic leadership of the triad of the vacuous Abdullah Badawi, rudderless Najib Razak, and the sclerotic ruling party, UMNO. Not an auspicious beginning as Malaysia enters the new millennium.

Malaysia’s flagship airline MAS is an apt metaphor. Formerly blue chip, it is now a penny stock; likewise the nation. As with the mystery of Flight MH370, Malaysia’s myriad problems remain unattended.

CONTENTS

Introduction                                                                   9

Part I: The Vacuous Abdullah Badawi                             18

Part II: The Rudderless Najib Razak                               94

Part III: The Labu and Labi Team of Najib and Muhyiddin 220

Part IV: The Dinosaur That Is UMNO                             246

The Future – Blue Chip To Penny Stock                        293

Acknowledgments                                                       301

Index                                                                          303

About the Author                                                         308

About the Author:

Bakri Musa is a surgeon in private practice in Silicon Valley, California. Malaysian-born and Canadian-trained, he left his native country in 1963. He keeps a close track of the social and political developments in Malaysia, including a 30-month stint as a surgeon there from 1976-78.

He has given presentations on Malaysian affairs at Stanford University’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, The University of Buffalo, and Rochester Institute of Technology. Apart from scientific articles in scholarly journals, his lay commentaries have appeared in mainstream Malaysian papers The New Straits Times and The Sun Daily. He was a long-time columnist for the on-line portal Malaysiakini (Malaysia Now) and a regular contributor to Malaysia Today and The Malaysian Insider.

Beyond Malaysia, his Op-Ed pieces have appeared in The New York Times, International Herald Tribune, and The Far Eastern Economic Review. He has also appeared on National Public Radio’s “Marketplace.” All eight of his previous books have been on Malaysian socio-political affairs, the latest, Liberating The Malay Mind, was released in 2013.

He is now completing his memoir, Cast From The Herd. Memories of Matriarchal Malaysia, chronicling growing up there. He maintains a blog that also serves as a repository of his essays at www.bakrimusa.com, and www.bakrimusa.blogspot.com as well as on Facebook.

Next Week: Excerpt #1. Introduction

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 April 2015, 7:49 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Curse of The Obsession With Single-Issue Politics

M. Bakri Musa

www.bakrimusa.com

6th April 2015

 We Malays are obsessed – and cursed – with the single-issue politics of
bangsa, agama dan negara
 (race, religion and nation). We have paid, and continue to pay, a severe price for this. Our fixation with those three issues detracts us from pursuing other legitimate endeavors, in particular, our social, economic and educational development. Perversely and far more consequential, our collective addiction to
bangsa, agama dan negara
only polarizes us.

            We, leaders and followers alike, have yet to acknowledge much less address this monumental and unnecessary obstacle we impose upon ourselves. The current angst over
hudud
 (religious laws) reflects this far-from-blissful ignorance. With Malays over represented in the various dysfunctional categories (drug abusers, abandoned babies, and broken families), and with our graduates overwhelmingly unemployable, our leaders are consumed with cutting off hands and stoning to death as punishments for thievery and adultery. Meanwhile pervasive corruption and endemic incompetence destroy our society and institutions. Those are the terrible consequences of our misplaced obsession with
agama
.

            If we focus more on earthly issues such as reducing corruption, enhancing our schools and universities, and on improving economic opportunities, then we are more likely to produce a just and equitable society. That would
mertabatkan
 (enhance the status of) our
agama, bangsa dan negara
on a far more impressive scale.

            Make no mistake, if we remain marginalized or if we fail to contribute our share, then it matters little whether Malaysia is an Islamic State or had achieved “developed” status, our
agama, bangsa dan negara
 will be relegated to the cellar of humanity. Our hollering of
Ketuanan Melayu
 (Malay Supremacy) would then be but a desperate and pathetic manifestation of
Kebangsatan Melayu
 (Malay Poverty).

A Historical Perspective

For the first half of the last century, our fixation was, as to be expected, on nationalism. Our forefathers were consumed with the struggle to be free from the clutches of colonialism, and the right to be independent. With
merdeka
a reality in 1957, the obsession then shifted from
negara
 to
bangsa
, from
merdeka
 to
bahasa
(language). Today with Malay language specifically and customs generally accepted as the national norms, our mania has now shifted to
agama
.

            While our passion for
negara
and
bangsa
had a definite and definable endpoint (independence and Malay as the national language respectively), what is the goal with our obsession on
agama
? ISIS Malaysia? And as for entry into heaven, only Allah knows that.

            We have forgotten, or are unaware in the first place, the price we paid for our earlier obsessions. Consider our nationalistic fervor of yore. While we Malays were consumed with treating the colonialists as white devils and fighting them, non-Malays seized every opportunity to work with and learn from them. In our smugness and misplaced sense of superiority we asserted that we had nothing to learn from those colonials and outsiders, blithely ignoring the obvious evidences to the contrary, just like the Japanese before the Meiji Restoration.

            As a result when independence came, non-Malays were much more equipped to take full advantage of that fact while we Malays were still consumed with endlessly shouting
merdeka
 and rehashing an established reality. A decade later we found ourselves marginalized while the non-natives were busy taking over opportunities left behind by the British. Then like a wild boar caught in a trap of its own making, we lashed out at everyone and everything, with ugly consequences for all.

            It took the brilliance and foresightedness of the late Tun Razak to first of all recognize the underlying pathology and then craft an imaginative and effective remedy.

            As for our struggle for independence, let me inject a not-so-obvious observation. Our
merdeka
 came less from the battles of our jingoistic warriors, more from British realization that colonialism was no longer chic. Indeed it became an affront to their sensibilities. I would be less certain of that conviction had our colonizers been the Chinese or Russians. The Tibetans and Chechnyans will attest to that.

            We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the British for another reason. They cultivated sensible leaders amongst us and dealt harshly with the radicals. Consequently we were blessed with post-independent figures like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak while spared the likes of Sukarno and Ho Chi Minh.

            Had we been less arrogant culturally and instead learned from the British, we would have been able to give full meaning to our
merdeka
. There was much that we could have learned from a nation that ushered in the Industrial Revolution and the Scientific Age.

Folly of The National Language Obsession

The May 1969 race riot should have taught us the obvious and very necessary lesson that we must prepare our people well so they could make their rightful contributions and not be left behind. It did not. Instead we shifted our obsession, this time to language.
Bahasa jiwa banga
 (Language the soul of a race), we deluded ourselves.

            With that we sacrificed generations of precious and scarce Malay minds to the altar of the supremacy of
Bahasa
. We also squandered what precious little legacy the British had left us, specifically our facility with English. Imagine had we built on that!

            Yes, Malay is now the national language, a fact affirmed by all. Less noticed or acknowledged is that while non-Malays are facile with that language they are also well versed in others, in particular English. Not so Malays, with our leaders eagerly egging on our fantasy that knowing only Malay was sufficient.

            With English now the de facto language of science, commerce and international dealings, not to mention the language of global consumers especially affluent ones, our Malay-only fluency is a severe handicap. We are lost or ignored abroad, or even in Malaysia within the private sector. Again we are being left out because of our misplaced obsession.

            The sad part is that we are only now just recognizing this tragic reality. Deputy Prime Minister Muhyyddin (who is also in charge of education) was stunned to learn that our students fared poorly in international comparisons. He is still stunned for he has yet to come up with a coherent solution.

Our Current Delusion with Religion

Judging from the current obsession with
hudud
, we have learned nothing from our earlier follies with
bangsa dan negara
.

            Faith is a personal matter. This is especially so with Islam. Our Holy Book says that on the Day of Judgment we would be judged solely by our deeds. We cannot excuse them based on our following the dictates of this great leader or the teachings of that mesmerizing ulama. Islam is also unique in being devoid of a clergy class. There is no pope or priest to mediate between us and Allah, or a prophet who died in order to expiate our sins.

            The now vociferous and overbearing ulama class imposing itself upon us is a recent innovation (
bida’a
) in our faith.

            As is evident, this obsession with
hudud
 does not bring Muslims together. Far from it!
Hudud
 also creates an unnecessary chasm between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam should bring us together.

            To Muslims the Koran is the word of Allah, its message for all mankind and till the end of time. That is a matter of faith. While
hudud
 is based on the Koran it is not the Koran. The present understanding of
hudud
 is but the version interpreted by the ancient Bedouins. It is the handiwork of mortals, with all its imperfections. We should not be bound by it but be open to more enlightened readings of the holy book.

            We paid dearly for our earlier obsessions with race and nationalism. What would be the price this time for our fixation with religion? Look at the Middle East today. Ponder Nigeria with its Boko Haram. Contemplate being under the brutal ISIS, the messianic Talibans, or the puritanical Saudis.

            We have yet to recover from our earlier follies with nationalism and
Bahasa
, yet we blithely continue making new ones with our current obsession on religion. The mistakes we make this time could well prove irreversible.

            Dispense with this public fixation with religion. Instead focus on
adil
 and
amanah
(justice and integrity), the tenets of our faith. We cannot be Islamic if we are devoid of both. This should be our pursuit, from eminent Malays to not-so-eminent ones, from Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

            If our leaders do not lead us there, then dispense with them and pursue our own path forward. Unlike the earlier colonial era, this time there is no superior power except for Allah to guide us find and groom enlightened leaders. We are on our own. As per the wisdom of our Koran, Allah will not change our condition unless we do it ourselves.

Bakri Musa’s latest book, Malaysia’s Wasted Decade 2004-2014. The Toxic Triad of Abdullah, Najib, and UMNO Leadership, has just been released. It will be available soon at major online outlets like Amazon.com.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 6 April 2015, 8:11 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Altantuya murder – the missing links

By Americk Sidhu

Malaysiakini

Apr 6, 2015

COMMENT
 This is the first time in 34 years I have actually found myself in agreement with former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his recent, although rather belated, queries in respect of the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder saga.

These questions make sense. These are the same questions a very large portion of the Malaysian population has been asking for over eight years now.

Khalid Abu Baka, our beloved inspector-general of police (IGP), has in the meantime, been performing backward somersaults trying to avoid the entire issue and instead, appears to have dedicated his entire career to tracking Twitter messages on social media.

‘Twitter Khalid’ has even had the audacity to threaten (which he is very good at) anyone who dares to bring up the issue of ‘motive’ in the grisly murder of an innocent female foreign national at the hands of two of Malaysia’s best trained commandos.

The excuse Khalid has given is that the Federal Court has made a decision and any questioning of the reasons behind that decision would be tantamount to contempt of court.

What Khalid has failed miserably to appreciate is the fact that no one is ‘questioning’ that decision. Everyone agrees the decision is correct.

However, it is the question of motive which has never been addressed in any of the three courts this murder trial has progressed through. In fact, evidence in respect of motive was never tendered by the prosecution.

Therefore, as far as I (and Mahathir) are concerned, it is still open season on motive.

So instead of terrorising twitterers, perhaps Khalid may see fit to revisit this issue with a little more fervour than he has shown in the past.

Despite the press releases being launched from the IGP’s office, none of them detract from the fact that convicted murderer Sirul Azhar Umar has categorically said no officer from the Polis Di-Raja Malaysia (PDRM) has visited him in Sydney to interview him.

If Khalid disputes this, all he has to do is release the names of those officers who ostensibly attended to Sirul (left) and the exact date and time they clocked in with the detention centre authorities. Inspector Tonny Luggan (the investigating officer in Altantuya’s case) says he was not sent to see Sirul in Sydney, so who was?

Khalid is also reported to have said that “Sirul’s remark showed the fugitive was doing his utmost to bring disrepute and cast doubt over the investigations into the murder case, his involvement and the criminal justice system”.

Yes. That is correct, because it is obvious to everyone that your investigations are incomplete.

As the current series of events appear to translate, Sirul is not disputing his involvement in the murder. All he is saying is that others were involved and they haven’t been brought to book so why should he take the rap?

One need not have successfully completed an in-depth course in criminal investigation at Pulapol (Malaysian Police Training Centre) to be able to decipher the glaring holes in this entire saga.

A cursory viewing of a couple of episodes of Miami Vice or CSI New York would suffice in providing a clue as to how the matter ought to have been professionally addressed.

The established facts

Azilah Hadri and Sirul have been convicted of the murder of Altantuya by the highest court in our land. This has therefore been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the circumstances, there can be no question that these two gentlemen were in fact responsible for lodging two bullets in this poor lady’s head and thereafter detonating some military grade explosives placed on her body causing it to be dissipated in the vicinity of some secondary jungle on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur.

Sirul, who has, rather astutely, sought refuge at the Villawood detention centre on the outskirts of Sydney, has candidly admitted he was acting under orders and that he has been made a scapegoat for others who had not been brought to court.

In other words, he has tacitly admitted to the crime and confirmed that there may have been others behind it.

The question is why would Sirul and Azilah (right) have done this for no apparent reason? The courts have been interested only in whether an offence of murder had been committed and not why it was committed.

The prosecution failed to seek or put forth an explanation.

This is really the question which the IGP can provide an answer to if he is so inclined. He certainly has the resources. As long as he possesses the will, he most certainly will find the way.

Khalid, for goodness sake, please, just do your job. At the moment the general public perceive inactivity on your part as yet another ubiquitous and notorious Malaysian cover-up.

May I suggest you simply haul up the following characters and ask them these simple questions:

Azilah
 – Why did you and Sirul kill someone you didn’t even know?

DSP Musa Safri
 (then aide de camp DPM Najib Razak) – What exactly did you tell Sirul and Azilah to do to that poor Mongolian lady and who exactly asked you to engage their services?

Nasir Safar
 (Najib’s special officer) – What were you doing driving around in front of Abdul Razak Baginda’s house on the evening of Oct 19, 2006, watching Azilah and Sirul abduct Altantuya?

PM Najib
 – Did you know that four of your staff were involved in this? If so, then why were they?

Deepak Jaikishan
(businessman with close ties to Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor – Who asked you to shut private eye P Balasubramaniam up and get him and his family out of Malaysia immediately after he released SD1 (first statutory declaration)? (This should be easy as Deepak has already confessed to all of this).

Rosmah
 – Was it you? If not, then who?

Johari Razak
(Najib’s younger brother) – Did you telephone senior lawyer Cecil Abraham on the evening of July 3, 2008 and ask him to prepare SD2 for Balasubramaniam to sign? If so why, and on whose behalf?

Cecil
– Did you receive a telephone call from Johari Razak on July 3, 2008 to prepare SD2? If so, did you?

Sunil Abraham
(Cecil’s son, who is also a lawyer) – Did you or did you not, assist your father in preparing SD2 and did you then personally deliver it to the Hilton Hotel, KL Sentral on the morning of July 4, 2008?

Zainal Abidin Muhayat
 – Were you a commissioner for oaths in 2008 and did you have your office at Zul Rafique and Partners, Lorong P Ramlee, Kuala Lumpur? If so, who sent you to the Hilton Hotel, KL Sentral on July 4, 2008 to attest the signature of one Balasubramaniam on SD2?

Nazim Razak
(another brother of Najib) – Were you and your wife at the Curve, Mutiara Damansara late in the night of July 3, 2008? If so did you meet one Balasubramaniam (right) next to the VW showroom?

And if so, did you or did you not, threaten Balasubramaniam to follow the instructions of one Deepak Jaikishan and leave the country with his family immediately, otherwise his family’s safety could not be guaranteed?

Najib
 – Did you instruct Johari and Nazim to arrange, respectively, for SD2 to be prepared and Balasubramaniam’s subsequent departure from Malaysia? If so, why was that necessary?

Hamzah Zainuddin
 (Umno MP for Larut) – Did you, in 2011, offer Balasubramaniam safe passage back to this country and a cash inducement if he pleaded guilty to affirming a false statutory declaration (SD1). If so, why and on behalf of whom?

Khalid, may I also suggest that you contact a senior investigation officer from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) by the name of Abdul Rahman Bachok. He is a very diligent officer and has the entire file on investigations into the circumstances under which Balasubramaniam affirmed SD2. I am sure he will lend you his file and assist you in any way he can.

I believe he is a little annoyed that his file has been closed by the Attorney-General’s Chambers. He had put a lot of effort into his investigations.

You may also care to contact the Brickfields police station and ask them why they have not followed up on the police report I lodged on July 8, 2008 in respect of Balasubramaniam’s disappearance. I have sent them reminders but there has been no response.

All the above ‘persons of interest’ and their answers to the questions posed may possibly assist in revealing a motive for the crime. Is there any reason why you, Mr IGP would be disinclined to pursue the matter further and if so what are those reasons?

AMERICK SIDHU is a senior lawyer and counsel for late P Balasubramaniam and his widow,  A Santamil Selvi.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 April 2015, 9:15 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hadi prepared to destroy Pakatan Rakyat with hudud private member’s bill although  BN will be ousted from power if it loses just two per cent of support in next general election

I was shocked and outraged to see the PAS President and MP for Marang, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s motion on private member’s bill on hudud implementatilon on the Dewan Rakyat Order Paper today.

This is the first time any leader or MP from DAP and PKR has sight of Hadi’s private member’s bill although Hadi had agreed and promised at the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council meeting on February 8, 2015 that any private member’s bill on hudud implementation must and will be presented to the PR Leadership Council first.

Today we see proof of this undertaking by Hadi on behalf of the PAS at the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council broken and violated.

Hadi’s word is not his bond and he has proved that he cannot be trusted with his promise, undertaking and commitment as PAS President.

This has destroyed the basis of co-operation and even the very accord in  the formation seven years ago of the Pakatan Rakyat, which was founded on the Common Policy Framework and the operational consensus principle that every decision in the name of PR could only be made with the consensus of all three parties and no one political party or party leader can veto or overrule the consensus reached by Pakatan Rakyat.

Hadi has violated this consensus principle more than once, the latest being his Feb. 8 undertaking and the PR consensus decision that any private member’s bill on hudud would first be presented to the PR Leadership Council.

Hadi’s private member’s bill motion on the Order Paper today also raises the question of where is the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s statement that UMNO/BN opposes Hadi’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation, which had suffered 18 days of “labour pains”.

Has the Prime Minister’s statement which MCA Ministers have claimed would be issued on March 20 itself suffered a “stillbirth”?

In consistently maintaining that hudud is not in keeping with the fundamental principles of the  Malaysian Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 resulting in the formation of the Malaysian federation and unsuitable for a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural Malaysia, DAP is not taking an anti-Islam position – as DAP fully accept Islam as the official religion of Malaysia with guarantees of freedom of religion for other faiths.

Are the first five Prime Ministers of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah anti-Islam because they also held to the principle that hudud is inconsistent with the Malaysian Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and unsuitable for a plural society like Malaysia?

A celebrated Malaysian surgeon in California and writer, Bakri Musa recently wrote about hudud in his recent blog,
“The Curse of The Obsession With Single-Issue Politics”
, where he said:

“Faith is a personal matter. This is especially so with Islam. Our Holy Book says that on the Day of Judgment we would be judged solely by our deeds. We cannot excuse them based on our following the dictates of this great leader or the teachings of that mesmerizing ulama. Islam is also unique in being devoid of a clergy class. There is no pope or priest to mediate between us and Allah, or a prophet who died in order to expiate our sins…

“…. this obsession with hudud does not bring Muslims together. Far from it! Hudud also creates an unnecessary chasm between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam should bring us together. To Muslims the Koran is the word of Allah, its message for all mankind and till the end of time. That is a matter of faith.

“While hudud is based on the Koran it is not the Koran. The present understanding of hudud is but the version interpreted by the ancient Bedouins. It is the handiwork of mortals, with all its imperfections. We should not be bound by it but be open to more enlightened readings of the holy book…

“What would be the price this time for our fixation with religion? Look at the Middle East today. Ponder Nigeria with its Boko Haram. Contemplate being under the brutal ISIS, the messianic Talibans, or the puritanical Saudis…

“Dispense with this public fixation with religion. Instead focus on adil and amanah (justice and integrity), the tenets of our faith. We cannot be Islamic if we are devoid of both. This should be our pursuit, from eminent Malays to not-so-eminent ones, from Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”

We have to accept that  Hadi is prepared to destroy Pakatan Rakyat with his hudud private member’s bill although  Barisan Nasional  will be ousted from power if it loses just two per cent of support in next general election.

This was the warning of the Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy UMNO President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin at the UMNO General Assembly last December where he admitted that a loss of two percent voter support will translate to Barisan Nasional being reduced from its 133 seats won in the 13GE in May 2013 to 103 federal seats, which is less than half of the 222-seat Parliament, comprising 68 UMNO seats and 35 non-UMNO seats.

A reduction of five per cent voter support would have slashed the total BN seats to 81, comprising 53 UMNO and 28 non-UMNO seats.

It is precisely this fear of losing Federal power that UMNO strategists and propagandists have manufactured various political conspiracies, the most successful of which has been UMNO’s “UG” (Unity Government between UMNO and PAS) conspiracy with the bait to PAS on Kelantan hudud implementation – which has virtually drowned out all the issues currently haunting UMNO and Najib – the 1MDB scandal; the GST implementation; the repressive laws;  Anwar Ibrahim’s five-year jailing; Mongolian Altantunya Shaariibuu’s 2006 murder and conviction of two former police commandos Azila Hadri and Sirul Azhar with motives neither established nor pursued; the new jet for PM; the lavish spending on wedding of Najib’s daughter and above all, Najib’s survival as Prime Minister and UMNO President with the open challenge by former Prime Minister Mahthir.

This is time for all to go back to the drawing board.

Malaysia is indeed at the political cross-roads.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 7 April 2015, 5:44 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


An open letter to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

By J.D. Lovrenciear

Free Malaysia Today

April 5, 2015

COMMENT

In thirty-odd years of writing (over 10,000 pieces in the media), I have never once written in the first person. But today, inspired by your open admissions and determined manifestations of recent weeks, I appeal to you, Sir, to put a stop to the reality of the day, i.e. that Malaysians are walking in shame in the eyes of the world community of professionals, honourable investors, and within the revered hallways of academia.

Tun, never has a nation in recent times had its citizens walk in such shame as is happening in Malaysia.

The unstoppable reports of corruption, extravagance, inept leadership, wastage and profiteering at the expense of nationhood, systemic attacks and compromises on our institutions of nationhood and the horrendous crime against Altantuya – all of these and many more that you are cognizant of have eroded the dignity, honour and reputation of this nation.

Yes, there is no perfect nation. But when Malaysians are forced to bow their heads and walk with so much shame, what do we do?

Sir, your paying of respect to the late father of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim re-ignites my hope in you. I am sure millions of Malaysians are also surprised by this most humbling act of yours. It can only come from a man who truly cares for the future of this nation.

Never mind about how much I (and certainly millions more) may dislike your style of leadership or love you as a leader who took Malaysia down and out through many dangerous rapids. The fact is your actions today speak louder with hope re-ignited.

Your bringing to the open the case of the Altantuya murder; your open admission of loss of faith and confidence in the current leadership of this nation under the helm of Datuk Seri Najib and his muffled and well-placed supporters; your no-nonsense stance towards 1MDB – these actions of yours, Sir, truly re-ignite a deep seated hope in all of us ordinary citizens who care enough for this country.

Sir, I humbly register this my appeal to you:

*If the nation needs redress, it has to begin with the Sodomy II charge against Anwar Ibrahim.

    *If the nation needs to redeem its honour, it has to begin with the Altantuya case.

    *If the nation needs to restore its benchmark as a country of people who know how to fight corruption, it has to begin with the stripping bare of all those individuals who have amassed profane wealth beyond their competitive salaries and generous perks paid out by the government.

    If national sovereignty is sacred to our future, we must review the GST and checkmate the Americanised TPPA. Our long history of being colonialised cannot be allowed to re-appear in any form in a nation where democracy and a constitutional monarchy was fought hard and won in 1957.

    If Malaysians are to rise from the sinking gutters of shame and walk tall, it is time to think outside the box of narrow political party fences and see the bigger picture of nationhood through a coalition of good men and women. Period.

In a nutshell, this nation, that crooks and villains swear to care for, while honourable, helpless citizens pray for a miracle of salvation, desperately needs a remedy. The dispensation, perhaps, is now well within your means, Sir.

Will you do the right thing, Sir, for in no uncertain terms, to stop Malaysians from walking down the slippery route of shame, it has to be a case of “It’s now or never”.

Thank you, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 April 2015, 2:11 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Putrajaya has no respect for judiciary, says Ambiga after Sedition Act changes

Elizabeth Zachariah

The Malaysian Insider

8 April 2015

The people need to understand how little respect Putrajaya has for the country’s judiciary, said former Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, after the government yesterday tabled amendments to the Sedition Act, which will also include refusing bail to those charged under the colonial-era law.

She said Putrajaya did not seem to care that the constitutionality of the act was being challenged in the court by academic Dr Azmi Sharom and as such, any amendments to it was “absolutely appalling”.

Azmi was charged under Section 4(1)(b) and Section 4(1)(c) of the Act over his comments in a news article titled “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told”.

Azmi then filed an application, saying that Section 4 was unconstitutional and violated Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. The case was referred to the Federal Court.

“The Sedition Act is being challenged by Azmi with the argument that it is unconstitutional and is, therefore, null and void,” she said in a forum titled “What is a moderate Malaysia for Malaysians?” in the capital city of Kuala Lumpur last night.

“And what does the government do before the decision by the court? They put in amendments. They don’t care what our federal courts have to say about the Sedition Act. To me, this is absolutely appalling.”

Ambiga, who is the patron of people’s movement Negara-ku, said Putrajaya had not discussed the amendments with any stakeholders, including civil society and the opposition, before tabling the amendments which were “extreme”.

“They have not given any time (for discussion). To me, this is all very extreme. Extreme measures being taken by the government to seal our lips.”

Ambiga also touched on the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota), which was passed in Parliament early yesterday after more than 14 hours of debate, calling it a law with “horrendous provisions”.

“It is not just the rehash of the ISA (Internal Security Act). They have added to it,” she said to a crowd of about 150.

“And this is very strange because it is more oppressive than the laws in countries where the threat of terrorism is worse. Besides, they arrested 17 people without the need of Pota. How much legislation do our authorities need, really?”

The former Bersih co-chair said despite Putrajaya’s assurance that the law would not be used against political dissent, there was no reason to trust the government’s promise.

“In light of all these, can we believe those who go to Parliament and say, ‘Oh we will not be using this against the politicians’. Can we believe that? In fact, can we believe anything they say?”

She was referring to the fact that in the last month, more than 100 people, including opposition politicians and activists, have either been arrested or investigated under the Sedition Act, Peaceful Assembly Act and the Penal Code.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had earlier given his assurance that the new law would not be used for political purposes, saying that the executive arm of the government would have no say in whether to detain an individual.

However, opposition lawmakers have poured water on Najib’s assurances, following his dismal track record of keeping promises.

This includes the promise Najib had repeatedly made to repeal the Sedition Act but later backtracked.

Ambiga said what was troubling was the fact that Putrajaya was practising selective prosecution, where certain groups or people were “completely exempt” from the law while others were hauled up for minor things.

“In fact, we are beginning to look ridiculous. Seriously ridiculous.

“What the government doesn’t realise is that extremism is not only about racial or religious extremism but it is also about an extreme abuse of power. Total and utter abuse of power,” she added.

Attacks on the press, the lawyer said, were also a sign that Putrajaya was becoming more desperate, referring to the arrests of two senior executives and three editors from The Edge and The Malaysian Insider under the Sedition Act over a report published on March 25, which said the Conference of Rulers had rejected a proposal to amend a federal law that would pave the way for hudud to be enforced in Kelantan.

“When they start muzzling the press, we really have a problem. Before we had issues with the publishing licences but now they arrest editors and keep them in prison overnight. What is the thought process that goes into that, really?

“These extreme measures taken to stifle views are not going to stop many of us but it will stop others. Some people will be afraid.”

However, all hope is not lost, Ambiga said.

“Our hope lies in the next generation. I can tell you, they are… I was very impressed. They are not buying everything that is being said to them.

“You may not feel it but there is hope.” – April 8, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 April 2015, 11:11 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Security must not come at the price of liberty, Suhakam tells Putrajaya

The Malay Mail Online

April 8, 2015

The government’s duty to ensure the country’s safety does not negate its responsibility to uphold citizens’ rights and the rule of law, the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) said in criticising Putrajaya’s decision to revive detention without trial.

While expressing support for government efforts to combat the risk of terrorism, the commission insisted that laws such as the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 (Pota) must still be consistent with local and international human rights standards.

“Although the government has an obligation to ensure that the constitutional rights of its citizens are protected by taking positive measures to counter threats of terrorism and extremism, the Commission reiterates that such measures must not pose disproportionate challenges to fundamental human rights and the rule of law, and jeopardise the principles of democracy,” Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, the chair of Suhakam, said in a statement yesterday.

Promises that Pota would not be abused to stifle political dissent also failed to appease Suhakam, which pointed out that the lack of oversight, transparency, and accountability meant that there were insufficient safeguards to prevent possible misuse of the law.

Among others, Suhakam highlighted the lack of judicial review over detention orders issued using the law as well as the prohibition of legal representation for individuals who will be held without trial, saying these were clear violations of fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

“In consideration of the above, the Commission calls on the government to be committed to upholding its international human rights obligations and urges for a revision of the Act, with full and meaningful consultations with all stakeholders, including the Commission,” Hasmy added.

The Pota was passed without amendment at the Dewan Rakyat at about 2.25am yesterday after a debate of more than 12 hours.

The Bill was approved after the ninth block voting, with the final voting favouring the government when 79 MPs from Barisan Nasional consented to the bill while 60 MP from Pakatan Rakyat rejected it.

Tabled in Parliament last Monday, Putrajaya’s proposed new law will allow authorities to detain suspected terrorists without bringing them to court for up to two years, with a Prevention of Terrorism Board (POTB) empowered to renew the detention order without limit.

Opposition lawmakers have claimed such provisions mirror that of the now-repealed Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 that had been specifically enacted to combat the Communist Insurgency of its times, but had later been used to silence political opposition to the establishment.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 April 2015, 9:07 am and is filed under
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sedition Act revisions worst ever attack on free speech, lawyers say

by Boo Su-Lyn

The Malay Mail Online

April 8, 2015

Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 that allow people to be jailed up to 20 years for their remarks is an attempt to stifle all dissent, according to lawyers who dubbed these the “most serious” attack on freedom of speech Malaysia has ever seen.

Civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan also questioned the denial of bail for suspects charged with sedition offences that cause bodily injury or property damage, saying that while prosecutors may try to justify this, it should be the courts’ discretion to decide.

“This Bill makes for a chilling read,” Syahredzan told Malay Mail Online.

“I would say that it’s the most serious assault on freedom of speech and expression that we have seen in this country,” the lawyer added.

Under the Sedition (Amendments) Bill 2015 that was tabled in Parliament yesterday, those who cause bodily harm or property damage with their sedition crimes will now face jail terms of between five and 20 years. Those convicted of general sedition crimes face imprisonment of between three and seven years.

The colonial era law currently imposes a maximum three-year jail term or maximum RM5,000 fine on first time offenders, and a maximum five-year jail term for repeat offenders.

But Syahredzan noted that the amendments to the Sedition Act do not define “bodily injury”, nor do they explain clearly how a seditious act is deemed to have caused bodily injury or damage to property under Section 4(1A).

“If for example, I am a pastor and I say something which has a seditious tendency and my church gets firebombed, it does seem that the elements of S. 4(1A) would be fulfilled, no?” he suggested.

Constitutional lawyer New Sin Yew said although Putrajaya has taken a step forward by decriminalising criticism of the government and the administration of justice in the Bill, it took two steps back by increasing punishments for sedition.

“The prohibition of bail has elevated sedition to the most heinous of crimes such as murder and terrorism,” New told Malay Mail Online.

He also pointed out that amid such amendments, intention remains irrelevant for a conviction under the law and anyone can be found guilty of sedition so long as remarks uttered or published are deemed seditious.

“Even a person speaking the truth can be guilty of sedition. You know the saying that the truth will set you free? Well, in Malaysia, it might put you in prison for 20 years,” said New.

The revisions to the Sedition Act seek to make it an offence to excite “ill will, hostility or hatred” on grounds of religion and race as well as to demand the secession of a state from Malaysia, while maintaining the prohibitions towards exciting disaffection against the rulers or questioning issues such as Bumiputera privileges.

“While there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, restrictions imposed cannot be so outside the grounds permitted under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and so wide and unreasonable that it renders the exercise of such freedom illusory and without real value,” Bar Council constitutional law committee chair Firdaus Husni told Malay Mail Online, referring to freedom of speech under Article 10.

“Such amendments will not in any way accommodate our multiracial and multireligious citizens to understand one another better and foster unity… Further, we already have in place laws providing for offences relating to religion under the Penal Code,” she added.

Constitutional lawyer Nizam Bashir said Section 9 of the Bill appears to contradict Section 3(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that affirms that there will be no censorship of the internet.

“So, I am unsure if officers authorised under the Communications and Multimedia Act would be acting within the parameters of that Act if an order is given under the proposed s. 9. This may require further thought or further looking into,” Nizam told Malay Mail Online.

Section 9 of the Bill states that a judge shall order the prevention of access to an online publication deemed to be seditious.

Putrajaya previously pledged to repeal the Sedition Act that critics say is used to stifle political opposition and dissent, but later announced in November last year that it will be retained and expanded instead.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 8 April 2015, 11:50 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After G25, prominent Sabahans tell Putrajaya to fight extremism

The Malaysian Insider

9 April 2015

Following in the footsteps of the 25 prominent Malays dubbed G25, a group of 47 Sabahans have sent an open letter to Putrajaya urging an end to extremism in the country, The Star reported today.

The group from Sabah raised concerns about Islamisation, attempts to convert natives of the state, polarisation, growing intolerance and federal government bodies asserting authority beyond their powers.

They said in their letter that “extreme and misguided actions in the name of Islamisation and religious intolerance is nothing but a threat to our national peace and stability”.

The group said they were concerned over the “aggressive Islamisation”, whether covert or overt, targeted at the natives in Sabah.

“Conversion ceremonies are being carried out under the guise of providing ‘financial assistance to poor natives and native school children’ especially those living in government hostels.”

Another concern raised was the National Registration Department’s move to label native Christians carrying the words “bin” or “binti” in their names as Muslims in their MyKads without their knowledge or consent.

“We are not against conversions out of free will but we condemn conversions through deceit, intimidation and bribery.

“We Sabahans know that at the heart of it all is an exercise to suppress the voice of the majority genuine non-Muslim Sabahans, and to degenerate our native population and our freedom of religion,” the group said.

Among those who signed the letter were former Sabah state secretary and Suhakam vice-chairman Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, former Sabah finance minister Datuk Mohd Noor Mansor, former senior civil servants Datuk Wilfred Lingham and Datuk Gregory Joitol and former state attorney-general Datuk Stephen Foo.

Other signatories included politicians, environmentalists, trade unionists and lawyers.

The signatories also said that government departments and bodies had been asserting authority beyond their legitimate powers for far too long, and that such unlawful and oppressive practices must cease immediately.

In the letter, the Sabahans also said there must be mutual tolerance and respect for others’ backgrounds and beliefs.

“Ideologies promoted by political parties and especially their leaders must be based on fairness, tolerance and respect for others.

“Politicisation of a particular religion for narrow partisan gains simply has no place in this pluralistic society of Malaysia,” they said.

The Star quoted lawyer Gayle Jokinin, who drafted the letter, as saying that the move came about after the group of 25 prominent Malays, dubbed G25, spoke out against extremism and the growing religious and racial divide in the country late last year.

The lawyer said a major concern among Sabahans was how the country was tilting towards extremism.

“Our founding fathers did not agree to any religion or race to be supreme over others,” Gayle told The Star, adding that this was being seen in some policies.

“We felt that it is only right to speak up,” she said.

In December last year, the 25 prominent Malays, consisting of former secretaries-general, directors-general, ambassadors and others, sent the government an open letter asking for a rational dialogue on the position of Islam in a constitutional democracy.

The letter came as race and religious relations worsened following the 2013 general election, which saw the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) pinning its losses on the Chinese minority, fuelled by Malay-Muslim groups seeking more puritanical Islamic laws across Malaysia.

“Given the impact of such vitriolic rhetoric on race relations and political stability of this country, we feel it is incumbent on us to take a public position,” Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, former Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands, said in a 19-paragraph statement issued on behalf of the 25 signatories.

Noor Farida, who was once director-general of the Foreign Ministry’s Research, Treaties and International Law Department, said she and the others “are deeply concerned about the state of the debate on many issues of conflict on the position and application of Islamic laws in Malaysia”.

“It is high time moderate Malays and Muslims speak out. Extremist, immoderate and intolerant voices as represented by Perkasa and Isma do not speak in our name.

“Given the impact of such vitriolic rhetoric on race relations and political stability of this country, we feel it is incumbent on us to take a public position and urge for an informed and rational dialogue on the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in Malaysia.

“More importantly, we call on the prime minister to exercise his leadership and political will to establish an inclusive consultative committee to find solutions to these intractable problems that have been allowed to fester for too long.

“We also urge more moderate Malaysians to speak up and contribute to a better informed and rational public discussion on the place of Islamic laws within a constitutional democracy and the urgency to address the breakdown of federal-state division of powers and finding solutions to the heart-wrenching stories of lives and relationships damaged and put in limbo because of battles over turf and identity.” – April 9, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 April 2015, 11:35 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In Sedition Act changes, detractors fear clampdown on calls for Borneo autonomy

by Boo Su-Lyn

The Malay Mail Online

April 9, 2015

KUALA LUMPUR, Apr 9 — Critics of Putrajaya’s proposed amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 claim the changes would not only criminalise calls for Sabah and Sarawak’s secession from Malaysia but may also be abused to punish those seeking more rights for the east Malaysian states.

Once the revisions to the Act are approved and gazetted by both houses of Parliament, analysts and lawmakers alike fear that authorities may choose to interpret any demand for greater autonomy in east Malaysia as prompting secession.

Universiti Malaysia Sabah senior anthropology lecturer Dr Paul Porodong stressed that it should not be considered secession for east Malaysians to call for a review of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 — the treaty upon which Malaysian federation was founded — press for greater state autonomy, or to demand more oil royalties.

“My worry is they’ll lump everything into secession and silence the voice of the people,” Porodong told Malay Mail Online.

“Autonomy and secession are two different things. If there’s a request to increase autonomy, that shouldn’t be interpreted as secession,” he added.

He noted that demands for increased autonomy for Sabah, for example, include removing interference from Putrajaya on the appointment of the Sabah chief minister, or giving top posts in federal departments in the state to Sabahans and Sarawakians.

“If it’s illegal for people to ask for secession, make sure it’s illegal for anybody in Malaysia to ask anyone to go away from Malaysia, like saying ‘Cina pendatang, go back to China’ or ‘pendatang India, go back to India’,” said Porodong.

Four volunteers with the outlawed Sabah Sarawak Keluar Malaysia (SSKM) movement were charged with sedition last month for possessing pamphlets allegedly propagating Sabah’s secession from the federation.

Local police are also hunting down a woman called “Doris Jones” for allegedly masterminding the Sabah and Sarawak secessionist movement.

The Sedition (Amendments) Bill 2015 tabled in the Dewan Rakyat seeks to amend Section 3(1)(b) of the principal Act to “make clear” that any call to demand secession for any states from Malaysia is seditious, although it admits that such demand is already seditious under the current definition.

The amendments also seeks to impose greater punishments for sedition crimes, such as jail terms between five and 20 years for acts that result in bodily harm or property damage, and between three and seven years for general crimes under the same law.

The colonial era law currently imposes a maximum three-year jail term or maximum RM5,000 fine on first time offenders, and a maximum five-year jail term for repeat offenders.

Penampang MP Darell Leiking from PKR said the amendments show the extent to which the Barisan Nasional (BN) government is willing to go to silence demands for more rights for Borneo states, when these rights are enshrined in the Malaysia Agreement and in the Federal Constitution.

“The Sedition Act amendment is aimed to deter Sabahans and Sarawakians from demanding their rights in MA63 and the Federal Constitution and I believe if passed, they will create fear by alleging every demand as secession!” Leiking told Malay Mail Online, using the initials for the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

“The demands by many of those who shout for leaving the federation is an accumulation of anger at the way Sabah and Sarawak had been relegated, or in the words of many BN MPs too, ‘dianaktirikan’,” the Sabah MP added.

Sarawak Association for Peoples’ Aspiration (SAPA) president Lina Soo told Malay Mail Online that the Sedition Bill violates the understanding of the formation of the Malaysian federation.

“It’s against human rights. The right to self-determination is the inalienable right of people of territory. Nobody can decide for you. Self determination is enshrined in international law,” the NGO head said.

Dr Arnold Puyok, senior lecturer at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak’s faculty of social sciences, told Malay Mail Online that the “use of deterrent laws will be ineffective in the absence of meaningful engagement”.

Putrajaya previously pledged to repeal the Sedition Act that critics claim have been used to stifle political opposition and dissent, but turned on its heel last year when it announced in November that the law will only be retained but expanded as well.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 April 2015, 8:29 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kelantan’s hudud breaks basis of secular Malaysia, Sarawak churches say

The Malay Mail Online

April 8, 2015

KUALA LUMPUR, April 8 — Kelantan’s hudud enactment violates the secular foundation upon which Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak had formed Malaysia, Sarawak churches said today.

The Kuching Ministers’ Fellowship (KMF), a network of church pastors and leaders in Sarawak, joined the Sabah Council of Churches in criticising the passing of the Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code II Enactment 1993 (amendment 2015) last month in the east coast state run by Islamist party PAS.

“The recently-passed Kelantan hudud enactment is in direct contradiction to the aspirations of founding fathers of our nation to keep Malaysia a secular state as evidenced in several historical documents that explicitly state this,” KMF chairman Pastor Daron Tan said in a statement.

“The introduction of hudud law is a fundamental breach and deviation from the expressed commitment to complete religious freedom, a key term underpinning the Malaysia Agreement signed in July 1963 between Sarawak, Sabah and Malaya,” he added.

Tan stressed that the criminal justice system remains under federal jurisdiction, as stated in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

“Any fundamental change to this package changes the very basis upon which the Christians in Sarawak also agreed to form Malaysia and it requires a thorough re-negotiation of the Federal Constitution,” he said.

Kelantan’s hudud enactment seeks to impose punishment under the Shariah courts on crimes like theft and robbery, which are already crimes under the civil penal code.

Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob speaks during the passing of the Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code II Enactment 1993 (amendment 2015) at the Kelantan State Assembly in Kota Baru March 19, 2015. ― Picture by Yusof Mat IsaKelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Yakob speaks during the passing of the Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code II Enactment 1993 (amendment 2015) at the Kelantan State Assembly in Kota Baru March 19, 2015. ― Picture by Yusof Mat IsaThe Sabah Council of Churches said last month that Kelantan’s plans to enforce hudud in the state amounts to a “betrayal” of Sabah’s trust when it agreed to form Malaysia with Malaya and Sarawak.

Two-thirds of Christians in Malaysia are Bumiputeras living in Sabah and Sarawak.

PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s two private members’ Bills to remove the legal blocks to the rollout of hudud in Kelantan have appeared in the order paper for the current Parliament session that ends Thursday.

The Bills seek to amend Section 2 of the Shariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355), which currently states that the Shariah courts have jurisdiction over Muslims with respect to the State List of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution that excludes criminal law.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 April 2015, 8:34 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Renegotiate Federal Constitution if Kelantan must have hudud

— Civil Society Organisations of Sabah and Sarawak

The Malay Mail Online

April 8, 2015

APRIL 8 — We — Civil Society Organisations of Sabah and Sarawak — hereby call for a thorough renegotiation of the Federal Constitution if Kelantan insists to enforce its Shariah Criminal Code II (1993) 2015.

We solemnly hold the following positions:

    1. In forming Malaysia with Malaya and Singapore in 1963, Sabah and Sarawak signed up for a secular federation, not a theocratic one where any religious criminal justice system may be in force in any part of the Federation.

    2. Religious freedom was amongst the top demands of Sabah and Sarawak in the Malaysia negotiations which produced the Inter-Governmental Committee Report and eventually the 1963 Malaysia Agreement. Sabah and Sarawak would not have been part of Malaysia if Shariah criminal law was an item in the negotiation.

    3. Secular justice system on crimes as a federal jurisdiction is part of the entire constitutional package embodied in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. Any fundamental change to this packaged deal requires a thorough renegotiation of the Federal Constitution.

    4. Sabahans and Sarawakians are legitimate stakeholders in the Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code II (1993) 2015 for if the enactment comes into force, these are amongst the consequences:

a.  If Sabahans and Sarawakians — regardless of faith — fell prey to thefts, robberies, homicides and bodily harms committed by Muslims, their cases will be tried in the Shariah court, and not Common law Court. [Section 2 of the Code]

       b.  Sabahans and Sarawakians will not have full testifying competence in Shariah Court if they are non-Muslim, women, under-aged Muslims or Muslims with questionable religious conducts. [Section 41 of the Code, and Sections 83 and 86 of Kelantan Evidence Enactment of Shariah Court 2002]

       c.  Sabahan and Sarawakian Muslims are accused of stealing or robbing of anything worth more than 4.45 gram of gold (about RM 620 at current price), they will be tried in Shariah Court and may face the punishment of amputation. [Sections 6-11 of the Code]

       d. Sabahan and Sarawakian Muslims who are convicted of adultery or sodomy in Kelantan may face death penalty by way of stoning. [Sections 12-15]

       e. Sabahan and Sarawakian Muslims who are convicted of drinking in Kelantan may face 40 to 80 lashes. [Section 22]

       f. Sabahan and Sarawakian Muslims who are convicted of heresy [irtidad or riddah] may face death penalty and forfeiture of all properties. [Section 23]

       g. Murderers of Sabahans and Sarawakians will escape death penalty when the prosecution cannot produce testimonies by two good adult male Muslims.

   5.  The first and foremost issue in Kelantan’s claim to enforce Shariah criminal law is not democracy, but sovereignty. As a sovereign nation, Brunei can enforce Shariah criminal law even though it is not a democracy. Even if the Code has been democratically deliberated, rather than concealed from prior public scrutiny, Kelantan has no constitutional competence to enforce the Code because Kelantan is not a sovereign country like Brunei. Sabah and Sarawak objecting to the Code is therefore not infringing Kelantanese’ democratic aspiration.

   6. If Kelantan is given the power over criminal justice under Article 76A — whether through a Government Bill or Private Member’s Bill — it will be a constitutional coup against the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, no less than advocacy of separatism. By skirting the need of a two-third parliamentary majority to amend the Ninth Schedule, a bill under Article 76A undermines the veto potential of the 57 parliamentarians from East Malaysia. It will effectively not just write off the status of Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners of Malaya, but even places Sabah and Sarawak as constitutionally inferior to one of Malaya’s states.

    7. If Kelantan insists to enforce its Shariah Criminal Code, then Malaysia needs to have a new Federal Constitution. To prevent a constitutional crisis that erodes the moral basis of Malaysia as a nation, we call upon the Federal Government or the Sabah and Sarawak state governments to convene a Malaysia Summit attended by all lawmakers and executive branch at the Federal and State levels to deliberate on a new Federal constitutional arrangement, whereby Sabah and Sarawak may have other rights devolved if Kelantan were to have its own criminal justice system.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 April 2015, 8:17 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Constitution
,
Islam
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tempers in Parliament as Putrajaya pushes through 4 bills late night

by Elizabeth Zachariah

The Malaysian Insider

9 April 2015

Tempers flared at the Parliament tonight as opposition lawmakers attempted to end the meeting at 11.30pm as the government tried to push through four more bills.

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo led the opposition charge and demanded sitting be suspended as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Wahid Omar attempted to wrap up the debate on the Malaysian Aviation Commission Bill 2015.

“It is not fair to debate four more bills tonight. And we finish at 4am. Tomorrow we have a very important Bill to discuss,” the DAP lawmaker said, referring to the amendments to the Sedition Act which is due for debate at tomorrow’s sitting.

“What is the urgency here? We cannot do it. We cannot debate it. We are not giving justice to the people.”

However, Deputy Speaker Datuk Ismail Mohd Said refused to allow this and asked the minister to continue, which prompted other opposition lawmakers to kick up a fuss and demand proceedings be ended.

Gobind and opposition members maintained their stand and this went on for a few minutes as the chair tried to rein in the shouting opposition deputies.

Angry Barisan Nasional lawmakers also joined in and shouted back, insisting that the remaining bills be debated tonight as willed by Putrajaya.

BN Ketereh MP Tan Sri Annuar Musa reminded the opposition that the motion for the sitting to continue until the eighth item on the order paper was debated, was endorsed earlier in the day at the end of question time.

He demanded to know why the opposition did not object when the motion was moved at the time.

At this juncture, Ismail, citing the Standing Orders, threatened to evict and suspend Gobind, Tian Chua (PKR-Batu), N. Surendran (PKR-Padang Serai) and Charles Santiago (DAP-Klang), if they continued speaking.

Gobind, however, shot back at the Deputy Speaker, telling Ismail not to threaten him.

“Don’t threaten me. To me, it doesn’t matter if you suspend me,” he said.

“But, Speaker, do you have any conscience? Outsiders do not know what bill is being debated at this time. Why do we have to continue with this?

“My question is this, if there is no basis to rush through the bills, then why?”

Despite more objections from other opposition MPs, Ismail said the sitting would continue.

At 11.57pm, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Shahidan Kassim moved a motion to stop the clock for the second time this week for the sitting to continue.

Stopping the clock is a parliament procedure in which a legislature literally or notionally stops the clock, usually for the purpose of meeting a constitutional or statutory deadline where parliament has to stop its days proceeding by midnight.

On Monday, Putrajaya stopped the clock to push through the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota), at 2.25am much to the chagrin of the opposition which was caught napping.

The final vote taken favoured the government with 79 from Barisan Nasional supporting it and 60 from the opposition against it, drawing an outcry from the public, which felt the opposition could have defeated the bill if all 86 Pakatan Rakyat MPs had been present.

At press time, the Dewan Rakyat was debating the Securities Commission (Amendment) Bill 2015.

The parliament is still to debate three more bills before suspending today’s sitting – the Capital Markets and Services (Amendment) Bill 2015, Retirement Fund (Amendment) Bill 2015 and Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Amendment) Bill 2015. – April 8, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 April 2015, 8:51 am and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why do we still need the Sedition Act?

by Boo Su-Lyn

Malay Mail Online

April 9, 2015

APRIL 9 — We are just five years away from our goal of becoming a developed nation by 2020.

Yet,in this day and age, we still have a law dating back from the colonial times guarding our speech and worse, the government is attempting to enhance punishments under the Sedition Act 1948.

People convicted of seditious speech can be imprisoned for up to 20 years under the proposed Sedition Act amendments, with a minimum jail term set at three years. No bail is allowed either.

Speech deemed to be seditious under the Sedition (Amendment) Bill 2015 involve issues of race and religion, secession, the rulers, and Bumiputera privileges, among others.

These are matters crucial to our democracy that Malaysians are prohibited from discussing freely.

The revised Sedition Act outlaws exciting “ill will, hostility or hatred” on grounds of race and religion, but such terms are extremely vague.

Would making a racist joke or satirising Jesus Christ be considered seditious? It would definitely offend some people, but to what extent do we interpret such offensiveness as creating “hostility”?

Race and religion, unfortunately, are so deeply institutionalised in Malaysia that it would take a miracle of sorts if we were to aim for developed nation status in five years’ time.

We have pro-Bumiputera economic policies although such policies were supposed to end decades ago, a dual legal system that has resulted in complex wrangles between the Shariah and civil courts, and now, attempts to introduce an Islamic criminal law that contradicts the Federal Constitution.

The problem is worsened when citizens are threatened with long jail terms for speaking about such issues.

When we question government policies that touch on race and religion, it will undoubtedly raise hackles among those who benefit from the status quo.

Will it generate “ill will”? For sure. Nobody likes losing power and privilege.

But if Malaysia really wants to join the ranks of developed countries like America, the UK or Australia, we must be open to discussing such issues that affect the administration of the country without the threat of imprisonment hanging over our heads.

On secession, Putrajaya would do well to follow the UK’s example in allowing Scotland to hold a referendum for independence. In the run-up to the poll last September, both sides were heard on key issues like oil and currency and Scotland finally voted to remain in the UK.

That’s what democracy is about.

Why do we need to use tyrannical force in retaining power, when such power can actually be kept through persuasive arguments and debate?

We must never forget that Malaysia is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

Sabah and Sarawak are territories in the Malaysian federation, each equal to the peninsula as a whole. Sabah and Sarawak residents surely have the right to discuss if they have been getting a fair deal in Malaysia and if independence will really benefit them.

On the rulers, suffice to say that we should remember Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy.

On Bumiputera privileges and the special position of the Malays, we should be allowed to discuss economic policies that affect ethnic minorities, especially since Malaysia is suffering from a brain drain.

There is no need for the Sedition Act, not when we want Malaysia to be a developed nation.

Developed nations provide space for dialogue and debate. Such discussions will inevitably anger some and probably lead to “hostility” or “hatred”, especially among people who have a stake in the issues that are being discussed.

But that’s what having a stand is about. We will feel strong emotions if others disagree with our stand.

The Sedition Act, unfortunately, doesn’t allow for real debates and discussions that people actually care about.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/boo-su-lyn/article/why-do-we-still-need-the-sedition-act#sthash.q36zVjgF.dpuf

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 9 April 2015, 8:45 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Constitution
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is the 1MDB a tragedy or a farce?

The Edge

Rakyat Times

10th April 2015

The Malaysian Government’s ambitious investment experiment, 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), has turned into a political and financial minefield for Prime Minister Najib Razak and his ministers.

In recent months, the debt-laden sovereign wealth fund has made domestic and international headlines with explosive allegations of corruption, widespread mismanagement of public funds, serious political misbehaviour and opaque corporate dealings.

The relentless attacks on 1MDB – which have included public disclosures of confidential e-mail trails highlighting opaque transactions for highly dubious investments – have not only come from the country’s feisty opposition, but also former premier Mahathir Mohamad, who in recent days has publicly called for Najib’s resignation.

“Najib is facing too many scandals, and there are no answers,” Dr. Mahathir told reporters last week, adding that if the country’s dominant party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), which – as the main partner in the Barisan Nasional (National Front) coalition – has helmed Malaysia since independence in 1957, wants to remain in power, then “I think they must change the prime minister”.

Writing Najib’s political obituary, however, may be a little premature, say several senior UMNO officials aligned to the UMNO president and prime minister.

They note that 1MDB has been the invisible pillar that has helped prop up the country’s entrenched patronage-driven political system by indirectly providing financial aid to a clutch of little-known foundations that have in turn helped Najib to fund election campaigns and funnel money to UMNO warlords to keep them loyal.

But the sovereign fund’s worsening financial position continues to send shockwaves over the Malaysian banking system and remains the most serious economic policy challenge for Najib’s administration.

‘Forced to scrap plan’

The most recent episode occurred late last month. Barely a week after appointing regional financial banking group CIMB Holdings to push ahead with the sale of the power-generation assets owned by the sovereign fund, the government was forced to scrap the plan.

That was because it threatened to trigger cross-default clauses in loan agreements that 1MDB had entered into with its international and domestic creditors, who are owed more than US$12 billion, potentially exposing the government to a major financial crisis.

“1MDB has brought governance issues in Malaysia to front of stage, and it now represents a serious contingent liability for the economy,” a senior fixed income asset manager with a Singapore-based foreign bank said.

1MDB is Najib’s brainchild and was set up shortly after he came to power in April 2009 with seed capital of 5 billion ringgit (US$1.37 billion) raised from a government-guaranteed bond issue. The fund was established to pursue strategic international investments, particularly in natural resources.

But the experiment appears to have gone horribly wrong. In just over six years, 1MDB has declared borrowings of over 46 billion ringgit on the back of an asset base of about 51 billion ringgit, made up largely of power-generation assets and potentially lucrative parcels of real estate acquired from the government at steep discounts to the market value.

According to senior administration officials, this dizzying build-up of debt has exposed the Malaysian government to roughly 23.5 billion ringgit in “implicit and explicit guarantees to 1MDB”. In most cases, this wouldn’t be a problem. Malaysia’s international credit worthiness ranks as one of Southeast Asia’s highest.

‘Toxic entity’

But mounting public scandal swirling around 1MDB has turned the sovereign fund into a toxic entity with serious reputational risks. That in turn has crippled its ability to raise new lines of financing and attract strategic investors as partners for its power-generation projects and property development plans. What’s more, its ability to service its debts has also gravely deteriorated, threatening serious volatility in Malaysia’s financial markets.

“The options going forward are very limited. Sell off the assets and pare down whatever debt you can is very much the plan,” acknowledges a senior foreign banker who has been involved in discussions with Finance Ministry officials on restructuring 1MDB. 1MDB has yet to publicly disclose its plans for a strategic business review, but financial executives involved in portions of its restructuring plan say the Najib administration is veering towards dismantling the fund over the next 12 months.

“The gradual winding-up is the overall plan, but a few things have to be put in place first,” says a foreign banker with knowledge of the restructuring. The main priority for 1MDB is reorganising its power assets, which bankers and investment analysts say were acquired at inflated prices and now suffer from the lack of capital to finance the expansion of existing power plants and develop new power-generating facilities.

The power-generation assets, now grouped in a wholly owned subsidiary called Edra Global Energy, cost 1MDB roughly 13 billion ringgit, financed almost entirely by borrowings. And bankers wonder whether the planned listing, which is slated for some time in June, will raise enough cash to cover these. 1MDB’s planned sale of its property assets shows more promise, financial executives believe.

The fund recently sealed an agreement with Australia’s Lend Lease to jointly develop 17 acres of land into a retail and lifestyle district worth an estimated US$2.15 billion. It would be part of a new financial hub called the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur.

Financial executives familiar with 1MDB’s restructuring plan say it proposes to retire borrowings of roughly 5 billion ringgit associated with the TRX development that its owes to three state-owned agencies through a debt-to-equity swap for the project. 1MDB’s roughly 450 acres of land in a separate planned development called Bandar Malaysia, just outside Kuala Lumpur, is also drawing strong interest from Middle Eastern and Chinese investors.

Its attraction is that it will house the main terminal for the planned multi-billion-dollar high-speed rail line linking Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. Financiers close to 1MDB say that companies such as China Rail Group Ltd. want to participate in the development project with the hope of snaring the rights to construct the lucrative cross-border rail network.

‘Looks good on paper’

The planned assets sales look good on paper, but bankers and property industry executives are sceptical that the properties would be able to fetch the high values that 1MDB and the Malaysian government hope to receive to settle the fund’s dangerous debt load.

For starters, the reputational troubles that cloak 1MDB could delay the asset disposal plan and force down prices. The timing is also poor. Malaysia, one of the region’s largest petroleum exporters, is grappling with last year’s plunge in oil prices and a ringgit that has weakened by more than 10 per cent against the US dollar over the last six months.

Bankers and financial executives fear the restructuring plan is unlikely to raise enough to resolve 1MDB’s US$12 billion debt load. If it can’t, the size of the hit that Malaysian taxpayers will have to bear in the winding-up of 1MDB could whip up a political storm for the Najib administration. Still, few analysts expect the scandal to cost the premier his job.

After all, Malaysia has a long history of spectacular government financial scandals, particularly during the 22-year premiership of former strongman Dr. Mahathir.

However, the coming months will be fraught as 1MDB’s restructuring plans emerge and are subjected to scrutiny by critics – and a public expecting to have to pick up the bill, but without a clue as to how much it will be. – The Edge Review

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 April 2015, 4:21 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Royal Commission of Inquiry into Altantuya’s  murder and conduct of  various authorities in the case is the only way to salvage  the credibility and repute of Najib and his premiership from the Mongolian albatross

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib has again denied any involvement in the 2006 murder of the Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu in a pre-reorded interview with TV3 yesterday.

This follows former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad joining the increasing chorus asking who have given the two former police commandos, Azila Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar the order to kill Altantuya.

On the murder of the Mongolian, Najib said he had sworn three times, including in a mosque in Permatang Pauh in 2008 that he did not know Altantuya and that he was not involved whether directly or indirectly.

Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah has also surfaced to Najib’s defence, stressing that police has cleared Najib of any involvement in Altantuya’s murder.

Abdullah said he was briefed about the case during his tenure and appeared convinced about the investigation’s outcome.

As Najib has reiterated that he did not know Altantuya and was not involved directly or indirectly in the Mongolian’s murder, why is Najib so resistant to the proposal for  full inquiry as to the motive of Altantuya’s murder, and in particular, who had given the orders to the two ex-police commandos to kill the Mongolian and blow up her body with military explosives?

Najib should not  tarry any further but take the decisive step to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Altantuya’s murder to establish the motives of the murder, who had ordered the two former police commandos to murder the Mongolian and blow up her body with military explosives, as well as the conduct of the various authorities, such as the police, the Attorney-General’s chambers and the judiciary, in failing to be fully diligent to get to the bottom of the Mongolian’s murder, particularly the motives for her murder.

Such a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Altantuya’s murder will be a great healing process for Malaysia, not only  to restore national confidence in the integrity and professionalism of national institutions, but also the international credibility and reputation of the Prime Minister and the rule of law in the country.

The issues that RCI should find answers include:

•	Who ordered Altantuya to be killed?

•	Who issued the military C4 explosive?

•	Who erased the immigration record of Altantuya’s entry into this country.

•	Why did the Police, the Attorney-General and the judiciary ignore the “elephant in the room” in the Altantuya murder case as it should be obvious that both Azilah and Sirul would not have killed the Mongolian whom they did not know without a mastermind who had the motive to direct them to do so.

The RCI could also get great assistance from senior lawyer Americk Sidhu, the  counsel for the late private investigator P. Balasubramaniam and his widow, A. Santamil Selvi, who recently listed out the  ‘persons of interest’ whose  answers to the questions posed about Altantuya’s murder may possibly throw light not only on the motives but the person or persons responsible for the Altantuya’s murder, viz:

“
Azilah
 – Why did you and Sirul kill someone you didn’t even know?

DSP Musa Safri
  (then aide de camp DPM Najib Razak) – What exactly did you tell Sirul and Azilah to do to that poor Mongolian lady and who exactly asked you to engage their services?

Nasir Safar
 (Najib’s special officer) – What were you doing driving around in front of Abdul Razak Baginda’s house on the evening of Oct 19, 2006, watching Azilah and Sirul abduct Altantuya?

PM Najib
 – Did you know that four of your staff were involved in this? If so, then why were they?

Deepak Jaikishan
 (businessman with close ties to Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor – Who asked you to shut private eye P Balasubramaniam up and get him and his family out of Malaysia immediately after he released SD1 (first statutory declaration)? (This should be easy as Deepak has already confessed to all of this).

Rosmah
 – Was it you? If not, then who?

Johari Razak
 (Najib’s younger brother) – Did you telephone senior lawyer Cecil Abraham on the evening of July 3, 2008 and ask him to prepare SD2 for Balasubramaniam to sign? If so why, and on whose behalf?

Cecil
 – Did you receive a telephone call from Johari Razak on July 3, 2008 to prepare SD2? If so, did you?

Sunil Abraham
(Cecil’s son, who is also a lawyer) – Did you or did you not, assist your father in preparing SD2 and did you then personally deliver it to the Hilton Hotel, KL Sentral on the morning of July 4, 2008?

Zainal Abidin Muhayat
 – Were you a commissioner for oaths in 2008 and did you have your office at Zul Rafique and Partners, Lorong P Ramlee, Kuala Lumpur? If so, who sent you to the Hilton Hotel, KL Sentral on July 4, 2008 to attest the signature of one Balasubramaniam on SD2?

Nazim Razak
 (another brother of Najib) – Were you and your wife at the Curve, Mutiara Damansara late in the night of July 3, 2008? If so did you meet one Balasubramaniam  next to the VW showroom?

And if so, did you or did you not, threaten Balasubramaniam to follow the instructions of one Deepak Jaikishan and leave the country with his family immediately, otherwise his family’s safety could not be guaranteed?

Najib
 – Did you instruct Johari and Nazim to arrange, respectively, for SD2 to be prepared and Balasubramaniam’s subsequent departure from Malaysia? If so, why was that necessary?

Hamzah Zainuddin
 (Umno MP for Larut) – Did you, in 2011, offer Balasubramaniam safe passage back to this country and a cash inducement if he pleaded guilty to affirming a false statutory declaration (SD1). If so, why and on behalf of whom?”

Najib must be pro-active and cannot continue to rely on his denial and his oaths if he is to convince the public and the world that he has absolutely nothing to do with Altantuya’s gruesome murder.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry into Altantuya’s  murder and the conduct of various authorities in the case is the only way to salvage  the credibility and repute of Najib and his premiership from the Mongolian albatross.

Will Najib dare to set up such a Royal Commission of Inquiry?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 10 April 2015, 3:02 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.