If Najib launches Malaysia-US (Congressional) Caucus without PR MP representation, he is telling the whole world that his 1Malaysia concept is utter bunkum

It has been suggested on the twitter that it’s a bit too late to cancel the launching of the Malaysia-United States (Congressional) Caucus by the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak next Wednesday April 14, 2010 and that perhaps Pakatan Rakyat can send some of its Members of Parliament for the event.

 My twitter responses  yesterday were:

•	Not suggesting Najib put off trip 2US he can meet Obama but put off caucus launch programme which can only embarrass him n nation

•	No not too late Sure American countrprts will appreciate not bng dragged into maelstrom Msian partisan politics JJ shld take note

•	Question of saving nation/PM’s face or Nazri/JJ’s face Indeed a test of whether putting national interests above that of indvdls

•	As gatecrashers?Better things 2do Question whr BN can see what is national interest @alphaque .. perhaps PR can send some of your own there.

If the Prime Minister launches the Malaysia-United States (Congressional) Caucus without Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament representation, he is telling the whole world that his 1Malaysia concept is utter bunkum

I hope Najib would not embarrass himself and the nation in Washington by adopting lock-stock-and-barrel the perverted illogic of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz to “justify the unjustifiable” when trying to defend the exclusion of PR MPs in the Malaysia-US (Congressional) Caucus and the dispatch of two “independent” MPs to accompany the Prime Minister for the launch of the caucus or the Prime Minister and Malaysia would become the instant laughing stock in Washington cocktail circuit.

This is in fact an international test whether Najib is his own man as Prime Minister who dare to overrule his subordinates by putting national interests above party and individual interests, or whether he could be dragged by the nose by his coterie of advisers and spinmeisters which has spawned the “Umno Apco, Apco Umno” farce.

Pakatan Rakyat MPs would have fully co-operated with Najib to make the Malaysia-US (Congressional) Caucus a bipartisan success in helping to upgrade Malaysia-US relations.

Why did the Prime Minister spurn the PR MPs and place himself in the untenable position of discrediting his 1Malaysia concept and exposing himself to the serious charge that he is not acting  as a Prime Minister for all Malaysians when he goes abroad?

It is now in the hands of Najib whether he is prepared to save himself and the country  from an embarrassing international incident in his current trip to the United States by deferring the launching of the Malaysia-US (Congressional) Caucus to a later date when PR MPs could fully participate in it.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 April 2010, 10:44 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCs by 1Malaysia clinics – illegal?

By
Dr Anony

I refer to the reply given by Dr Nooraini Baba (NST, March 30th, 2010) in which she claimed that Assistant Medical Officers (AMO) can issue Medical Certificates.

She had then explained that the MCs issued by AMOs are not illegal, but just that they are invalid for the purpose of workers absenting themselves from work without pay under Section 60F of the Employment Act. In her reply, Dr Nooraini had quoted from the MEDICAL ACT 1971 (Act 50).

I would like to point out that there is NO provision under any Act of Parliament for the Medical Assistants who man the 1Malaysia clinics, to be referred to as “Assistant Medical Officers.” Instead, the

Medical Assistants are governed under the MEDICAL ASSISTANTS (REGISTRATION) ACT 1977 (Act 180), and they are thus properly referred to as Medical Assistants, and NOT as “Assistant Medical Officers.”

I would like to ask Dr Nooraini, whether the fact that 1Malaysia clinics are manned by Medical Assistants, is in violation of MEDICAL ACT 1971, specifically Section 33. (1) (f), which reads:

    ’33(1) Any person not registered or exempted from registration under this Act who –

        (f)  uses the term “clinic” or “dispensary” or “hospital” or the equivalent or any of there terms in any other language in the signboard over his place of practice in purported practice of medicine or surgery as a person registered under this Act; shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.’

Also, the fact that these Medical Assistants are running the “1Malaysia clinics” without supervision of Fully Registered Medical Practitioners, would mean that they are also in violation of the MEDICAL (INSTRUMENTS) (EXEMPTION) REGULATIONS 1986, specifically Section 4(1) which reads:

    ‘4. Condition of exemptions.

    (1) In the case of a registered medical assistant who is employed in a Government hospital, Government health centre or other Government institution for the care, treatment or rehabilitation of patients the exemption shall only apply if he is using any of the instruments specified in the Schedule in the course of

carrying out his duties in the Government hospital, Government health centre or other Government institution for the care, treatment or rehabilitation of patients under the supervision of the officer.’

For those who are uninitiated, the MEDICAL ACT 1971 prohibits Non-registered Medical Practitioners from using certain medical instruments, which are normally used in the practice of medicine and surgery. The MEDICAL (INSTRUMENTS) (EXEMPTION) REGULATIONS 1986 was enacted specifically to exempt Medical Assistants from the prohibition under MEDICAL ACT 1971 of using those medical instruments.

However, it is clear that MEDICAL (INSTRUMENTS) (EXEMPTION REGULATIONS 1986, Section 4(1) allows their exemption ONLY when these Medical Assistants are practicing under the supervision of doctors.

Of course, one may then dispute the interpretation of the words “under supervision of.” This then leads us to the Poisons Act 1952 (Act 366), in which the prescription and supply of Poisons are strictly governed (many medications dispensed at clinics are scheduled poisons and require the words “Ubat Terkawal” to be imprinted on the packaging.) Section 19 of Poisons Act 1952 (Act 366) reads thus:

    ’19. (1) Any poison other than a Group A Poison may be sold, supplied or administered by the following persons for the following purposes –

    (a) a registered medical practitioner may sell, supply or administer such poison to his patient for the purposes of the medical treatment of such patient only;

    (4) Any medical practitioner, dentist or veterinary officer who sells or supplies any poison or medicine containing a poison not prepared by him or under his immediate personal supervision shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.’ It is also in the very same Poisons Act 1952 (Act 366), that the interpretation of “immediate personal supervision” is clearly defined, in Section 2(2):

    ‘ (2) In this Act where anything is required to be done under the immediate personal supervision of any person it shall be deemed to have been so done if such person was at the time it was done upon the premises where it was done and available for immediate consultation by the person doing such thing’

As far as had been publicized in the media, these “1Malaysia clinics” are manned only by Medical Assistants, who therefore are NOT practicing under the “supervision” of any fully registered medical practitioner, as defined by law. Thus, I can only conclude that these Medical Assistants are practicing in violation of several laws.

Now, if these Medical Assistants are functioning in a capacity which is illegal, aren’t the certificates, including the Medical Certificates, which they issue, also illegal?

Furthermore, by allowing these Medical Assistants to practice illegally, aren’t their superiors in the Ministry of Health, also guilty of abetment, as defined under the PENAL CODE (Act 574), specifically Sections 107, which reads:

    ‘107. A person abets the doing of a thing who—

    (a) instigates any person to do that thing;

    (b) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

    (c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.’

It would thus seem to me that the entire concept and practice of “1Malaysia clinics” are illegal, and in violation of more than one law, and therefore in the absence of any repeal or amendment to the violated laws, all Medical Certificates issued by the Medical Assistants manning the clinics are therefore also illegal.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 April 2010, 8:19 am and is filed under
Health
,
Law & Order
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib’s first year in office, Part I

April 6th, 2010

by
Greg Lopez
·

Najib Razak became Prime Minister of Malaysia on 3 April 2009. With the nation in tatters and his reputation suspect, Najib was destined to either become one of Malaysia’s ‘greatest’ or ‘worst’ Prime Ministers. Greatest if he could reverse the excesses of the Mahathir years – when Malaysia became Mahathir’s personal fief – and put Malaysia back on strong democratic and economic footing ; worst if he accelerates Malaysia’s already weak fundamentals. One year on, the record suggests that he is likely to be Malaysia’s worst ever Prime Minister.

Najib Razak or APCO (the controversial communications firm he hired) proposed an ambitious ’slogan’ to distinguish his administration. The ’slogan’, ‘1Malaysia, People First, Performance Now’ (1Malaysia) is explained as a concept to promote national unity and eventually achieve Vision 2020 based on specific values. The irony is, according to Najib, the 1Malaysia concept is integrated with Barisan Nasional’s past policies – the very policies that saw BN thrashed at the 12th general election; which has made the BN and UMNO in particular, the most despised political party in Malaysia; which has been identified as the cause of Malaysia’s long term decline; and which clearly needs to be reversed if Malaysia wants to move out of the quagmire.

There is no 1Malaysia

Malaysia is polarised – in the Peninsular, it is split right down the middle between the supporters of PR and BN, between West and East Malaysia, between Malay and Islamic supremacist against the rest of Malaysia, between an elite minority that is privy to governmental largesse and those who suffer its consequences, and between the BN-led federal government and state governments, especially those led by the opposition – exclusively due to UMNO’s insistence on driving the national agenda to meet its needs for political survival rather than forging a united Malaysia. Althoughhe has inherited this 52-year legacy, there is nothing that Najib has done in the past year to reverse the trends. Instead, fearing for his own position in the party, he has flip-flopped on his signature policy.

Defending 1Malaysia

An abstract concept such as 1Malaysia, in order to be understood (especially to Malaysians used to institutionalised racism), must be clearly explained, implemented and defended. Furthermore, it must be seen to be implemented and be seen to be defended when challenged; so that Malaysians will understand the concept tangibly (most Malaysians do not understand the meaning of 1Malaysia). Najib has instead done the converse – the explanations are vague and contradictory, implementation have been more on form rather than substance and most critically when challenged – always by members of his party or race.

Najib’s tacit support for PERKASA – the Malay ultra right wing movement, his inability to reign in his own Deputy from spouting statements and acting contradictory to 1Malaysia (read here), to the simple fact that he allowed his special aide (Nasir Safar) to resign instead of sacking him for making derogatory remarks against non-Malays, all demonstrates clearly a fear of upsetting ultra right-wing Malays. Hence, Najib has failed to defend 1Malaysia when it mattered.  On April Fool’s day, Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin, stated that he is ‘…a Malay first and Malaysian second….’ contradicting Najib’s 1Malaysia which espouses Malaysians to think of themselves as Malaysians first before their ethnic, religious or geographical affiliations. Even more disappointing was the fact that he chose to defend his Deputy, and not reprimand him, lest he be seen as soft by UMNO (read here, here and here).

The most telling sign that Najib is set to become Malaysia’s worst ever Prime Minister is the increasing number of racial and religious hatreds perpetrated by Malay Muslims against other minorities. It is widely perceived that these acts are sanctioned at the highest levels of the UMNO echelon (read here, here, here and here). The fire-bombing of churches, the desecration of sacred symbols and the lackadaisical attitude and double standards demonstrated by government agencies in dealing with these serious matters only confirms suspicions that the 1Malaysia is nothing but spin.

Update 7 April 2010:
 Najib waffles on Al-Jazeera 101 East, noting that he is a Malay first, Muslim second and not uncomfortable being a Malaysian.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 April 2010, 9:40 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Overnight tweets – Chew Mei Fun, Rocky’s Bru and BN cybertroopers

What press freedom!MCA’s Star n Umno’s NST murdered story of ChewMeiFun’s resignation blacking out her most imp reason 4quitting all posts

09 April 2010 21:44

Sun rpt her reason http://bit.ly/973cvc If we accept leaders not good role models…negative msg our party accepts/condones such corruption

09 April 2010 21:52

ChewMF deserves praise 4resignation But does she realise she cannot accept any MCA posts so long as CSL is in MCA saddle with reason given?

09 April 2010 22:00

BN must b very desperate 2enlist Rocky’s Bru 2spin 4victory in HS http://bit.ly/cDrvYb I said “uphill battle” but never said BN will win

09 April 2010 23:03

@chongzhemin That comeback route is not open 2her if CSL is re-elected at MCA helm as the pivotal reason 4her resignation remains unaltered

09 April 2010 23:55

In Parliament yestrdy asked 4accountability 4millions ringgit 4BN cybertroopers here n elsewhere Will tolerate them 2provide comic relief

09 April 2010 23:58

These BN cybertroopers r so crude w finger thumb n other prints everywhere will not hesitate 2block them if they become coarse n vulgar

10 April 2010 00:01

@mpkotabelud Confession of delinquent MP who acts as if he MP in FT than Sabah interior Glad have jogged some sense of responsibility in2 u

10 April 2010 00:15

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 10 April 2010, 1:28 pm and is filed under
Twitter
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Nazri to make ministerial statement on why Pornthip “pressured” not to testify at TBH inquest

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz should make a ministerial statement in Parliament tomorrow on the scandalous and outrageous development in the Teoh Beng Hock inquest with the renowned Thai pathologist Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand “pressured” not to come to Malaysia to testify.

In an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, Pornthip said she would not appear for the Teoh Beng Hock inquest when it resumes on April 20 citing “political pressure” from the Malaysian government.

Pornthip told Malaysiakini that she was “advised” by high-ranking officials from the Thai Justice Ministry – where she is director-general of the ministry’s Central Institute of Forensic Science – not to go to Malaysia next week for the inquest.

She said the Justice Ministry had received information from the Thai Foreign Ministry that she may face problems should she go, including the possibility of being stopped from entering the country.

According to her, the Thai Foreign Ministry had received “signals” from the Malaysian government through “informal channels” suggesting that her presence at the inquest later this month would not be welcomed.

She said: “It was conveyed to me by certain senior Thai government officials that there has been political pressure from certain Malaysian government circles to block my presence in court, so much so that it might interfere with my current important forensic mission in southern Thailand.”

Pornthip, who is to testify on her findings of Teoh’s second post-mortem next Tuesday, said she was concerned that her involvement in the controversial inquest could impinge on her work in the three troubled southern Thailand provinces where thousands have died in a Muslim separatist insurgency.

Part of her on-going forensic work involved the need to go to Kelantan to investigate a case related to the killings in southern Thailand. According to Pornthip, she had tried to obtain permission to enter Kelantan in January this year but was denied entry to Malaysia on “a ‘signal’ from the authorities forbidding her from crossing the Thai-Malaysian border”.

With Porthip barred from the Teoh Beng Hock inquest, public confidence in the  Barisan Nasional government and MACC would plunge to a new all-time low as the overwhelming majority of Malaysians do not believe that Teoh Beng Hock committed suicide by jumping off the 14th floor of the MACC headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16 last year.

Nazri should also arrange for his ministerial statement on Pornthip barred from testifying at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest to be fully debated in Parliament.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 April 2010, 3:29 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I will submit an urgent motion to Speaker tomorrow to debate the establishment of a  Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct full investigations on whether Israeli agents had infiltrated Bukit Aman

(Speech by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang at the launching  of the DAP Tebing Tinggi mobile service centre in Ipoh on Sunday April 11, 2010 at 10 am)

I will submit an urgent motion to the Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Mulia Amin tomorrow to debate the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct full and comprehensive investigations on whether Israeli agents had infiltrated Bukit Aman – to replace four redundant and overlapping investigations announced by the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein on Friday.

For the past four weeks, the parliamentary  strategy of Najib government had been to totally stonewall any  accountability on the RM28 million public funds spent on  APCO and the international consultancy agency’s role in the conception of both 1Malaysia and One Israel until the debate on April 22 to refer the Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to the Committee of Privileges for misleading the House on the issue.

I fully agree with the general consensus in the country, as expressed by one letter to Malaysiakini, asking: “What’s wrong in saying 1Malaysia is a carbon copy of One Israel when there are similarities” and warning that suspending an MP just because the BN government does not agree with him is “a blatant abuse of power”.

The Barisan Nasional abuse of its simple majority in Parliament to harass and victimize Pakatan Rakyat MPs and leaders is most deplorable but the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should be forewarned that it is an overkill to penalize Anwar on the APCO and 1Malaysia issue for which he and the Barisan Nasional will have to pay dearly in terms of popular support.

The issue of whether Israeli agents had infiltrated the top echelons in Bukit Aman is however a different and separate issue from the APCO and 1Malaysia controversy and the Barisan Nasional front-bench in Parliament cannot use the same excuse to kick the ball to the April 22 debate on the motion to refer Anwar to the Committee of Privileges for answer and accountability.

The very fact that Hishammuddin had announced four agencies, namely the police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the National Security Council and a parliamentary select committee to conduct parallel but separate investigations is proof of the gravity of the matter – that it is not something which could be dismissed summarily as baseless rumours from thin air

.

It is however downright ridiculous and outrageous  to have four agencies probing into one  same matter.

Furthermore, given their past records, who would believe that the police, the MACC and the National Security Council could conduct any credible, independent and professional investigation, untainted by political considerations of the powers-that-be?

Would Hishammuddin agree to a parliamentary select committee for the probe should be one which could conduct really indepth and wide-ranging investigations, with the Home Ministry and Police undertaking to  release  all necessary documentation and evidence without hiding behind the Official Secrets Act under the guise of national security?

Would he agree and support the establishment of a Special Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate whether there had been Israeli agent infiltration of Bukit Aman, headed by a Pakatan Rakyat Member of Parliament, whether PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang or myself, with the Police and Government undertaking not to block or hamper inquiries whether  using Official Secrets Act or other ruses?

Nobody believes that Hishammuddin would agree to the establishment of a such a Parliamentary Select Committee with extensive powers to probe as to whether Israeli agents have infiltrated Bukit Aman.

That being the case, the only way to secure public confidence and ensure that the government’s reaction  is serious and in the national interest is to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry comprising respected, eminent and independent-minded Malaysians to conduct a full, comprehensive and indepth inquiry on whether Israeli agents had infiltrated Bukit Aman.

I hope Hishammuddin and Barisan Nasional MPs will not only support an emergency debate but also the proposal for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. This is a test whether the Najib Cabinet and Barisan Nasional MPs are prepared to act in the national interests, subordinating all party and personal interests.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 April 2010, 11:14 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Robert Fisk’s World: Malaya 1948: another shameful episode in Britain’s colonial past

THE INDEPENDENT

April 10, 2010

Some 24 innocent villagers were killed by Scots Guards in a pre-Vietnam My Lai

Tham Yong died 11 days ago. I bet there’s not a single reader who remembers that name, unless they happen to live in Malaysia or, like me this week, happened to be in Kuala Lumpur and to read the disgracefully weak-kneed report of Tham Yong’s demise in the capital’s equally disgraceful daily newspapers. A more grovelling, politically neutered, slovenly form of journalism outside Malaysia it would be difficult to discover, and it was typical that The Straits Times, once a serious journal of record (albeit of the colonial variety) decided to report the 78-year-old woman’s death from advanced cancer on page 18.

A bit odd. Because Tham Yong was the only surviving adult witness to the massacre of 24 innocent Chinese Malay villagers by 14 soldiers of the Scots Guards during what the British called the “Malayan Emergency”. This was when, in one of their very few successes in a guerrilla campaign, the British crushed the fighters of the Communist Party of Malaya who were struggling for 12 years to win what they called the “Anti-British War”.

The slaughter at the village of Batang Kali – the victims were rubber tappers and tin mine labourers – took place on 12 December 1948. Our colonial authorities insisted that the unarmed Chinese Malayan men were guerrillas who had tried to escape their captors and, in the giveaway words of a British police officer in Singapore, “the Scots Guards had been well placed, and the bandits just ran into their guns. Everyone was killed”.

Not quite. One villager played dead and escaped the massacre, which was described by The Daily Telegraph’s staff correspondent at the time as “the biggest success in any one day’s operation in one area since the declaration of the emergency”. In fact, one villager was executed the night before the murders; on the following morning, the Scots Guards soldiers shot the rest in the back at close range. This little pre-Vietnam My Lai has long been acknowledged. The People broke the story in Britain in 1970. Several soldiers admitted they lied under oath at the original British inquiry – which had dismissed all charges against the Scots Guards.

Ironically, one of the best accounts of the killings comes from Chin Peng, the still living communist Chinese Malay guerrilla commander, who went to London to research British government documents at Kew. In his huge memoirs (My Side of History, published in Singapore), he recalls the extraordinary Second World War resistance movement he ran with British agents – one of them was Spencer Chapman of The Jungle Is Neutral fame – and of how he was turned into the “Butcher of Malaya” by the Brits the moment he turned against his wartime colonial masters.

In Kew, Chin – real name, Ong Boon Hua – diligently unearthed the records of Malcolm MacDonald, Britain’s former colonial secretary and son of Ramsay, who turned out to have been quite an unpleasant man, stabbing successive British officials in the back after he became commissioner general for the Malayan Union and Singapore. I interviewed old MacDonald in 1978 – four years before his death – about his pre-Second World War handover of the Irish treaty ports to De Valera, and he seemed a gentle old man (they often do) as he fussed with a large teapot in his Sevenoaks sitting room. Churchill never forgave MacDonald for giving back the ports to the Irish three years before the start of the Battle of the Atlantic, and hated him almost as much for his Arab sympathies in Palestine before the war. At one point, MacDonald glowered at me, waved his finger, and said: “But you are living now in Beirut because I failed.”

MacDonald’s nemesis in Malaya, it turns out – and Chin’s, too, by his own account – was General Sir Gerald Templer, the ruthless, communist-hating British hero of the Second World War – he was wounded in the 6th Armoured Division – who was appointed to run the anti-insurgency war in Malaya. He was one of the supporters of Britain’s outrageous security laws – inherited from his days oppressing the Jews and Arabs of Palestine as the War Office’s 1946-48 director of military intelligence. Templer’s legacy is Kuala Lumpur’s Internal Security Act, which continues to neuter all Malaysian political life to this day.

I was delighted to discover from Chin that one of Templer’s greatest hates was Louis Heren, South-east Asia correspondent of The Times, whom Templer slanderously described as “typical of all communist muck” after the brilliant Heren had exposed the humiliating failure of a British military operation in Malaya. Under Templer’s poisonous influence, the British government tried to persuade Sir William Haley, editor of The Times, to move Heren – which Haley refused to do. And thank God for that – because more than a quarter of a century later, it was Heren – now foreign editor of The Times – who gave Master Fisk the job of Middle East correspondent on the same paper, encouraging me to accept the post because it would be “a splendid opportunity for you, with good stories, lots of travel and sunshine”. I still sometimes tell the ghost of the Great Louis that he was right – especially about the sunshine.

Yes, the shade of Palestine – or “Palestine” as we must call it now – darkens so many of our lives, including, indirectly, Chin Peng. Now 85, he originally fled to China and lives today in exile in Thailand because the Malaysian government, with whom he signed a peace treaty, refuses to allow him home on the grounds that he can’t produce his certificate of birth in Malaysia’s Perak state; impossible, of course, because – as the Malaysian government well knows – the state’s documentation was destroyed in the Second World War. The Internal Security Act, from Palestine to Templer’s Malaya to Malaysia, allows the structure of occupation to continue to operate.

Up to 10,000 died in the Malayan “emergency”, but even the Brits are still frightened of it. After the BBC took statements in 1992 from British soldiers who acknowledged the massacre at Batang Kali, there were calls for another public inquiry. No hope, of course. When the 15 surviving families of the dead sent the Queen a submission in 2008 – pointing out that the British soldiers’ evidence of the massacre has never been disputed – the British high commissioner to Malaysia, Boyd McCleary, replied to them with Blair-like oiliness. “In view of the findings of two previous investigations … and in the absence of any new (sic) evidence, regrettably we see no reason to reopen or start a fresh investigation.” Not much point in Boyd trotting off to chat to old Tham Yong, of course, because she’s now in her grave. “Regrettably”, indeed!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 11 April 2010, 7:33 am and is filed under
History
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP wants emergency Cabinet meeting on Dr. Pornthip’s claims

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
 | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, April 12 — The DAP has demanded that the Cabinet convenes an emergency meeting to discuss Thai pathologist Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand’s claims of “political pressure” which had forced her to pull out from testifying in the on-going Teoh Beng Hock inquest.

DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang said Dr. Pornthip’s claims of external pressure from Putrajaya that “could affect her work” in Thailand was a serious matter, which needed to be addressed immediately.

“The Cabinet should convene an emergency meeting to send a message that Dr. Pornthip be allowed to come and testify..to ensure her safety and well-being here and no pressure (from any parties),” said Lim at a press conference attended by Teoh family lawyer Gobind Singh Deo.

He also slammed Minister in Prime Minister’s department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz for accusing Dr. Pornthip of lying about allegations of political pressure, and stressed that Nazri should withdraw his statements and apologize.

“Nazri has made very serious statements when he said that Dr. Pornthip had lied during the inquest and she’s lying now, when she said that she had been pressured from coming to testify in the Teoh Beng Hock inquest.”

“How does Nazri know that it (Dr.Pornthip’s) statements are baseless? If Nazri is saying that he is privy to all, the MACC, government..Nazri should explain (how does he know),” said Lim.

Gobind berated Nazri’s actions and said that it was unbecoming of a de facto law minister to make such unsubstantiated claims.

“I agree. The conduct by Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz as de facto minister is unbecoming..Nazri should have not jumped to conclusions, investigate the matter first. There is no basis to allege that it is a lie without investigation. It is uncalled for for Nazri to call her a liar.

“If Nazri has proof, I challenge him to show proof,” said the Puchong MP.

The lawyer also stated that the matter needed to be brought to the highest legal authority of the land.

“The Attorney-General should intervene in the case. Nazri should consult the Attorney-General,” he said.

Gobind also revealed that  Teoh’s lawyers were considering several options in the case, and one was the possibility of citing Nazri for contempt of court.

“This is something that we will have to consult further. If he does not prove it, we will consider taking matters further.”

“We need to take it one step at a tome, give him (Nazri) an opportunity to respond. I challenge him to come to the inquest,” he added.

The Thai pathologist’s reported pull-out from testifying in the Teoh inquest next week due to political interference has raised fears among the Teoh family and the DAP that the case is being tampered with at the highest level.

The Selangor government has confirmed the Thai pathologist is not returning when the inquest resumes on April 20 but they want the coroner to agree to testimony via video-conferencing.

Dr Pornthip, 54, the director-general of Thailand’s Central Institute of Forensic Science, had reportedly pulled out from the ongoing case, claiming she was forced to do so because of “political pressure” from Putrajaya that could affect her work in southern Thailand.

However Nazri believes that Dr Pornthip is lying because she cannot defend her testimonial in the inquest.

The flashy Thai pathologist had testified in court here that Teoh’s death was “80 per cent homicide”, contradicting Malaysian pathologists who say the political aide could have fallen to his death or suicide.

Her second testimony will be crucial to the inquest, and to prove allegations that there was foul play in Teoh’s death.

Teoh, 30, had been questioned by anti-graft officers investigating claims his boss had misused state funds. He was found dead on July 16 last year, nine floors below the Selangor MACC’s office in Shah Alam.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 April 2010, 1:28 pm and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Matthias Chang: Martyr without a cause?

By
NH Chan

APRIL 11 — In the Sun newspaper of Friday, 2 April 2010 I came across this story:

Dr M’s ex-aide starts jail term for contempt

KUALA LUMPUR: Matthias Chang, former political secretary of ex-premier Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, was sent to prison after he refused to pay a RM20,000 fine for contempt of court.

Chang was served the committal order by the High Court before he was taken to Kajang prison.

The lawyer was cited for contempt of court on March 25 when he failed to apologise to the court during cross-examination in his defamation suit against American Express (Malaysia).

The committal order stated: “At about 2.30pm to day (March 25) … when the court refused your request to address the court as a witness, you lost your cool and walked out of the witness box and thereafter left the court during the proceedings. Your conduct is a contempt in the face of the court by virtue of Order 52 (1A) of the Rules of the High Court.”

Judge Noor Azian Shaari had ordered Chang to pay a fine of RM20,000 within seven days, in default [to serve a] month’s jail sentence.

The judge says that Chang had committed contempt in the face of the court.

I will first tell about how the law of contempt came into being. Then I will tell about how it had evolved into what it has become in modern times. But before that you may wish to know,

What is contempt in the face of the court?

If you have read my book How to Judge the Judges, 2nd edition, Sweet & Maxwell Asia, you will come across this passage on page 61:

Contempt in the face of the Court

If you attack the character or conduct of a judge it could be termed a contempt by scandalizing the judiciary. If you make the same attack in court or if you disrupt proceedings in court it is called contempt in the face of the court.

This was what the judge Noor Azian Shaari meant when she told Matthias Chang “Your conduct is a contempt in the face of the court.” Chang had disrupted court proceedings as a witness when he walkout in a huff.

The difference between contempt by scandalising the judiciary and contempt in the face of the court is that the latter is dealt with summarily, that is to say, done or made immediately and without following the normal procedures — this is the dictionary meaning. And this is how Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) put it in Cheah Cheng Hoc v Public Prosecutor [1986] 1 MLJ 299 (SC), at p 301:

The power of summary punishment is a necessary power to maintain the dignity and authority of the Judge and to ensure a fair trial. It should be exercised with scrupulous care and only when the case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt. As Lord Denning, MR said in Balogh v Crown Court [1974] 3 All ER 283, at 288:

“It is to be exercised by the judge of his own motion only when it is urgent and imperative to act immediately – so as to maintain the authority of the court — to prevent disorder, to enable witnesses to be free from fear, and jurors being improperly influenced, and the like …”

This power must be used sparingly but fearlessly when necessary to prevent obstruction of justice. We feel that we must leave the exercise of this awesome power to the good sense of our judge. We will interfere when this power is misused.

Now that we know what is contempt in the face of the court better than any other uninstructed person, we should not listen to a non-lawyer, like Che Det, giving pompous legal advice and telling-off the judge that “no one should be the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.” Doesn’t our former prime minister know that summary decisions are part of living in a civilized society? The umpire in a badminton match does it all the time, so does the referee in a soccer match and other sporting activities, but most of all, and he should know as he was a parliamentarian, the speaker of the House of Representatives or Legislative Assembly does it all the time at every sitting; they are all, to use his own words, “prosecutor, judge and executioner.”

Contempt in the face of the court means “the power of summary punishment to be exercised by the judge of his own motion only when it is urgent and imperative to act immediately” so as to prevent – as in the case of Matthias Chang — disruption of the court proceedings. This is a necessary power to be exercised only in the most pressing cases so as to deal with the circumstances or situations stated by Lord Denning in Balogh v Crown Office.

The history of this awesome power of the judges

But first let me relate the historical evolution of this awesome power of a judge at common law. I won’t say it is a draconian power because nowadays, that is, ever since 1936 – since Ambard v A-G for Trinidad & Tobago, a more tolerant attitude is taken by the common law towards critics of the judiciary.

On how the law of contempt came into being

At the beginning, before 1936, it was an excessively harsh power; one could say it was a draconian power. But why was it so? Because during the time of despotic kings of England, the king’s judges were lions under the throne of the king, and they were wielding the power of the king in the administration of the king?s notion of justice – do remember that the common law of England is entwined in the history of England. This was how Mr. Justice Wilmot (in an opinion which was not delivered because the prosecution was dropped) explained the purpose of this law in R v Almon 97 ER 94, 100 (1765):

The arraignment of the justice of the Judges is arraigning the King’s justice; it is an impeachment of his wisdom and goodness in the choice of his Judges, and excites in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations and indisposes their minds to obey them; and whenever men’s allegiance to the laws is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of justice, and, in my opinion, calls out for a more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction whatsoever; not for the sake of the Judges, as private individuals, but because they are the channels by which the King’s justice is conveyed to the people.

In 1788 in the case of R v Watson 2 Term Reports (Durnford and East) 199, 205 (1788) Mr. Justice Buller expressed similar sentiments:

Nothing can be of greater importance to the welfare of the public than to put a stop to the animadversions and censures which are so frequently made on courts of justice in this country. They can be of no service, and may be attended with the most mischievous consequences. … When a person has recourse … by publications in print, or by any other means, to calumniate the proceedings of a Court of justice, the obvious tendency of it is to weaken the administration of justice, and in consequence to sap the very foundation of the Constitution itself.

And how from such beginnings the law of contempt had evolved to what it is today

Despite the demise of the reign of despotic kings where it ended with the flight of King James II from the realm (James II was the last of the Stuart Kings of England, 1603-1714) – “the grandiloquent fear that criticism of the courts may endanger civilization” had continued right up to the early twentieth century. “The branch of contempt of court known as ‘scandalising the judiciary’ served to inhibit criticism of the courts by laymen. To a limited extent it remains a fetter on freedom of expression about judicial performance.” — see Pannick, Judges, page 109.

In R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36, 40, Lord Russell of Killowen CJ laid down the law of contempt in this way:

“Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a judge of the Court into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of court.”

This is nicely summed up by David Pannick in his book Judges, at page 110:

“The grandiloquent fear that criticism of the courts may endanger civilization has, in the twentieth century, continued to lead to the punishment of persons who have insulted members of the judiciary or impugned their impartiality.”

The book then goes on to say, pp 110-112:

English law remained unwilling to leave it to public opinion to assess whether criticism of the judiciary had any basis.

Mr Justice Darling was the presiding judge at the Birmingham Spring Assizes in 1900. Before the start of a trial for obscene libel, he warned the press that they should not publish indecent accounts of the evidence. After the conviction and sentence of the defendant in the criminal case, Mr. Gray wrote and published in the Birmingham Daily Argus, of which he was the Editor, an article [in which he described] how Mr. Justice Darling,

“ … filled in a pleasant five minutes yesterday. … Mr Justice Darling … [warned] the Press against the printing of indecent evidence. His diminutive Lordship positively glowed with judicial self-consciousness. … He felt himself bearing on his shoulders the whole fabric of public decency. … There is not a journalist in Birmingham who has anything to learn from the impudent little man in horsehair, a microcosm of conceit and empty-headedness. … One of Mr. Justice Darling’s biographers states that ‘an eccentric relative left him much money.’ That misguided testator spoiled a successful bus conductor.”

This splendid piece of invective effectively punctured the vain pretensions of Mr Justice Darling whose injudicious behaviour on the Bench was frequently a disgrace. …

Mr Gray’s prose was not appreciated by the courts. He was brought before the Queen’s Bench Division charged with contempt of court. He swore a groveling affidavit of apology, no doubt on sensible legal advice that otherwise there would be even more serious consequences for him. …

Lord Russell, the Lord Chief Justice, … gave a solemn judgment, noting that it was “an article of scurrilous abuse of a judge in his character of judge – scurrilous abuse in reference to the conduct of a judge while sitting under the Queen’s Commission, and scurrilous abuse published in a newspaper in the town in which he was still sitting under the Queen’s Commission.” He concluded that there was no doubt that the article amounted to a contempt of court. … he was fined 100 pounds and ordered to pay the costs.

The above case was reported in the Law Reports series as R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36, 39-42. This is the case where Lord Russell of Killowen had laid down the draconian law of contempt which had stifled criticisms of the judiciary in the early part of the twentieth century until the judgment of Lord Atkin inAmbard v A-G for Trinidad & Tobago ended it in 1936.

Here are a couple of examples of those pre-1936 cases:

i) In R v Vidal, The Times 14 October 1922 a dissatisfied litigant who believed that the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court was a party to a conspiracy against him walked up and down outside the Law Courts with a placard accusing the judge of being “a traitor to his duty.” He was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.

ii) In R v Freeman, The Times 18 November 1925 another dissatisfied litigant sent a letter to Mr. Justice Roche, who had decided a case against him, accusing the judge of being “a liar, a coward, a perjurer.” He was held of being in contempt of court.

But the tide of the pompous attitude of the judges in their own conceit and self-importance changed abruptly in 1936

At page 114 of David Pannick’s book Judges: “More recently, courts have emphasized that only in very exceptional cases will charges of contempt be brought against those who criticize the judiciary.”

Lord Atkin explained it in the Privy Council case of Ambard v A-G for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322, at p 335:

… whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong-headed are permitted to err therein; provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.

This case was decided in 1936, so it is embodied in our common law of contempt by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 which says:

(1) Save so far as other provision has been made or may hereafter be made by any written law in force in Malaysia, the court shall:

(a) in Peninsular Malaysia or any part thereof, apply the common law of England and the rules of equity as administered in England on April 7, 1956;

(b) in Sabah, apply the common law of England and the rules of equity, … as administered or in force in England on December 1, 1951;

(c) in Sarawak, apply the common law of England and the rules of equity, … as administered or in force in England on December 12, 1949, …

But tragically, to the many who have suffered at the hands of the judges, the blame has to be placed on our Supreme Court for being under the delusion that the common law of England on contempt was that as stated in R v Gray[1900] 2 QB 36 and they have applied it as the common law which applies in this country by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956. They were oblivious of Ambard v A-G for Trinidad and Tobago which was decided in 1936 and which has since then completely changed the way the common law world looked at the law of contempt of scandalising the judiciary.

The result that Ambard v A-G for Trinidad & Tobago has brought about is that all previous Supreme Court cases that depended on R v Gray were decided per incuriam (by oversight, failure to notice). The effect is that all those cases of contempt mentioned in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Attorney-General, Malaysia v Manjeet Singh [1990] 1 MLJ 167 have failed to apply the common law of England on contempt as it stood in 1956 – in other words, our courts by applying R v Gray, a 1900 decision, have consistently applied an obsolete law.

The judgment of Mohamad Yusuff SCJ at pp 177, 178 belies the mediocrity of the judgment itself. He said:

The Supreme Court has this far consistently applied the common law principle of contempt of court as seen in the judgments of these cases, viz: Arthur Lee Meng Kwang v Faber Merlin (M) Bhd & Ors [1986] 1 MLJ 193, Lim Kit Siang v Dato’ Mahathir Mohamad[1987] 1 MLJ 383 and Trustee of Leong San Tong Kongsi (Penang) Registered & Ors v SM Idris [1990] 1 MLJ 273. All these cases dealt with contempt in scandalizing the court. … the common law, as has been expounded, applied and decided by our courts after April 7, 1956, by virtue of the Civil Law Act 1956, has become part of our law. … On the law applicable to this case … as mentioned earlier, the principle of common law of contempt as stated in R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36 still applies in our country.

This judge and all the other judges who have decided the cases of Manjeet Singh, Arthur Lee, Lim Kit Siang and Leong San Tong Kongsi did not realize that R v Gray had been superseded by Ambard v A-G for Trinidad & Tobago. This judgment of the Privy Council as to the obsolescence of the offence of scandalising the judiciary has demonstrated that R v Gray is no longer good law. (Emphasis by LoyarBurok)

Therefore, the common law of England on the law of contempt of scandalising the judiciary as it stood in 1956 is Ambard v A-G for Trinidad & Tobago; the judgment of the Privy Council by Lord Atkin allows for criticism of the judiciary even in the ferocity of the language used. The common law of England on the law of contempt as administered in England in 1956 is not R v Gray (which is obsolete) but Ambard v A-G for Trinidad & Tobago.

Poor Arthur Lee, and poor Lim Kit Siang, and poor Manjeet Singh and poor Murray Hiebert (Murray Hiebert v Chandra Sri Ram [1999] 4 MLJ 321), they have all been convicted of the offence of scandalising the judiciary on an obsolete law.

Tragically, the obsolescence of the offence of scandalizing the judiciary has escaped the uninspired minds of our judges.

Mr Martin Jalleh has suggested that I be charged with contempt of court. I think it was an unreasonable request because such an event would put the entire judiciary in a quandary. Those cases, such as Arthur Lee, Lim Kit Siang, Manjeet Singh, and even Murray Hiebert are over, bar the shouting, ? the phrase is used when any controversial event is said to be technically settled but arguments about the outcome continue, albeit with little effect on the result: see Red Herrings and White Elephants, Albert Jack, Metro Publishing Ltd, London, 2004. I would suggest that it is best to let sleeping dogs (or should I say, lions) lie.

Even our former prime minister Tun Mahathir admitted in Che Det that when he gave his opinion that the judge should not be prosecutor, judge, and executioner in Matthias Chang’s case — he did so with trepidation. Actually, he has nothing to worry about. We are both on the same boat. Our defence is this:

By virtue of section 3(1)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956, the common law of Peninsular Malaysia is the common law of England as administered in England on April 7, 1956. The common law of England on the law of contempt of scandalising the judiciary as administered in England in 1956 is Ambard v A-G for Trinidad & Tobago which allows for criticism of the judiciary even in the ferocity of the language used.

This briefly tells the history and evolution of the law of contempt up to the present time.

We can now proceed to look at Matthias Chang’s case with a broader and better understanding.

How does the law of contempt in the face of the court apply to Matthias Chang?

As far back as in 1527 there is this tale of Sergeant Roo, “a great lawyer of that time, more eager to show his wit than to be made a Judge,” who had composed a satire on the abuses of the law for which Lord Chancellor Wolsey was responsible. The satire was delivered in the presence of the King. Roo was summarily dispatched to prison — see Judges by David Pannick, Barrister; Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, OUP, 1987, at page 105 to which he has also included the rider:

Nowadays a more tolerant attitude is taken towards critics of the judiciary. Nevertheless, lawyers and non-lawyers remain reluctant to emulate the critical approach of Sergeant Roo.

In times past — as I have explained in the history above — lawyers, “If they have suggestions for reform of the judiciary, or comments to make on judicial performance, they whisper them to each other over lunch in the Middle Temple or in professional journals remote from the public gaze. Such heresies are expressed cautiously, in deferential language.” – see Judges, pp 105, 106 where it also said:

In one case, after Lord Mansfield (Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, 1756-88) had given judgment for a Bench of four judges, he asked Sergeant Hill, who appeared for the unsuccessful party, to “tell us your real opinion and whether you don?t think we are right.” Hill replied that “he always thought it his duty to do what the Court desired and … he … did not think that there were four men in the world who could have given such an ill-sounded judgment …

More often, it is only in fiction that the conventions of politeness to judges are defied. The judges before whom John Mortimer’s Rumpole appears are perverse and malign. They are ignorant of the ways of the world. They are differential or rude to witnesses depending on the social status of those who have the misfortune to give evidence in their courts. … Only a barrister of Rumpole’s experience (and lack of ambition) can afford to reply in kind to the discourtesy emanating from that fictional Bench.

Ever heard of the expression “truth is stranger than fiction”? In this country we have experienced for real perverse and malign judges, not the fictional ones experienced by John Mortimer’s Rumpole.

In 1680, Nathaniel Redding accused two judges of “oppression” and was condemned in Court to pay the King 500 pounds and lie in prison till he paid it, seeNathaniel Redding’s Case, Sir Thomas Raymond’s Reports 376 n. (1680). Later that term the court remitted the fine and the sentence of imprisonment.

In the Matter of Thomas James Wallace (1866) LR 1 PC 283, a Nova Scotia lawyer wrote a letter to the Chief Justice complaining that “I can’t help thinking that I am not fairly dealt with by the Court or Judges.” He added that he “could also recall cases where the decision was, I believe, largely influenced, if not wholly based, upon information received privately from the wife of one of the parties by the judge. Is this justice?” Lord Westbury, in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, remarked that this “undoubtedly was a letter of a most reprehensible kind … a contempt of court, which it was hardly possible for the Court to omit taking cognizance of.”

I have found a case after 1936, it is R v Logan (1974) Crim LR 609. A man on being convicted shouted from the dock, that it was “a carve up”, was held to be a contempt of court.

But why am I telling this?

Was Matthias Chang charged with contempt for discourtesy to the Bench?

I should think so too. It was crass impertinence of him to behave in such an unruly manner towards a judge. As a lawyer he should know better than to be discourteous to the court.

If I remember correctly he was charged with disrupting the court proceedings while giving evidence as a witness by stomping out of the witness box in a huff and left the court because the judge refused to allow him to deliver a submission or speech from the witness stand.

The only modern case (post 1936) of disruption of court proceedings that I am aware of is the case of Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 QB 114 where the English Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against their sentence of imprisonment imposed on Welsh students who had disrupted court proceedings. Davies LJ said, at page 127:

On occasions one has the misfortune to encounter someone who makes a disturbance in court. Usually when that happens it is a case of a disappointed litigant who, from a sense of rage or disappointment at the result of his case, loses control of himself and gives vent to his feelings by an outburst either by word of mouth or physically.

In Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] QB 73, a young man was sentenced by Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson to six months’ imprisonment for contempt of court by planning to release laughing gas into the court to disrupt proceedings. He was released by the Court of Appeal because his conduct was not a contempt as he had not disrupted court proceedings. His plan was foiled by the police.

So now we know that the atrocious behaviour of Matthias Chang in court is a contempt in the face of the court. As he did not appeal against the sentence, could it be assumed that he was happy with the sentence of one month’s imprisonment?

Had he appealed, who knows, he could have succeeded following Morris v Crown Office.

I suppose he wants to be a martyr without a cause.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 April 2010, 9:53 am and is filed under
Court
,
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan slams DPM’s ‘small-fry’ remark

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal and Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani
 | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, April 12 — Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers have attacked Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s remarks that the interfaith committee set up by the Cabinet only consisted of “small-fry,” with Lim Kit Siang claiming it was an example of the government’s indecisive policies.

Muhyiddin had said this morning the lack of any legal powers vested in the committee meant it would not have any influence over the nation’s official religion.

In response to this, Lim, the DAP advisor, said that the DPM’s comments were “insulting” and “a put-down on the role of the inter-faith panel” announced by Minister in the Prime Minister’s department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon.

“This shows a big divide between proclamation and reality. When Tsu Koon announced the inter-faith panel, the impression given was that it was a major breakthrough,” said Lim.

The DAP man said that Muhyiddin’s ridiculing of the panel showed yet another sign of flip-flopping from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s administration.

Lim continued by saying the DPM’s statement appeared to damage the 1 Malaysia concept. “On one hand, sweet sounding promises are being made by Najib, but on the ground the actual action speaks otherwise.”

“It is flip-flopping. If Tsu Koon has any dignity left, throw in the towel and resign in protest,” said Lim.

The Ipoh Timur MP further claimed that Perkasa was controlling Umno to the extent that even Muhyiddin was following the whims and fancies of the Malay right-wing group, which opposes the committee.

“This also shows the power of Perkasa. Why is Muhyiddin so afraid of Perkasa which is regarded as a fringe, right wing extremist organisation? They seem to be able to rattle Umno to the extent it can make [the] DPM come out with such a statement.”

PAS central working committee member, Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, echoed the sentiments of his PR colleague.

“This is flip-flopping at its best, nothing more to describe it. Najib is seeping fast into Pak Lah’s greatest failure. Someone who dares not bite the bullet or take the bull by the horn.”

“The greatest obstacle for Najib is Perkasa and, of course, the man behind Perkasa, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad,” said Dzulkefly, who is also Kuala Selangor MP.

PKR MP Datuk Johari Abdul asserted that Muhyiddin’s statement showed Barisan Nasional’s lackadaisical attitude.

“What Muhyiddin said is unfortunate, and is a reflection of BN: not serious about handling religious talks, not brave enough to handle situations. At least with [the] inter-faith [committee] there’s a forum to handle [religious] matters.”

“This council is a big thing. Our racial composition is not 95 per cent Muslim. You have so many other races. Big things need big people with conviction. Not something you can sweep under the carpet,” said Johari.

The Cabinet agreed recently to form an inter-faith committee to foster religious understanding and harmony, damaged in recent months by religious conflicts such as the controversial “Allah” ruling.

It had earlier this year appointed Datuk Ilani Isahak to bring religious leaders to the table in an attempt to iron out such conflicts.

The idea for an inter-faith panel was first mooted in the early 1980s but was shot down following objections from Muslim groups such as the Islamic Development Department, better known by its Malay acronym Jakim.

According to sources, the objection was because an inter-faith council would place Islam, the nation’s official religion, on equal footing with the other religions.

This was the same objection put forward by Malay rights group Perkasa yesterday. Perkasa has demanded the Najib administration places its new inter-faith panel under the national Islamic Affairs Department, saying it rejected the entity in its current form.

Perkasa says it would tolerate the committee only if it fell under the guidance of Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, the Islamic Affairs Minister under the Prime Minister’s Department and not Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, who is currently the minister in charge.

Today, Muhyiddin refuted allegations and allayed fear expressed by Perkasa that the committee may threatened the sanctity of Islam and their faith.

Umno members, however, moved quickly to downplay Muhyiddin’s remarks.

“It is a good beginning, I don’t consider it as a set back because being a multi-racial country, there are certain constraints in progressing in this area.”

“It is not for solving the problem but to manage the problem. If there are things like this, you have got to manage the problem because it is about the relationship between the people. As such you do not want to cause disunity among Malaysians,” said Datuk Abdul Rahim Bakri, Kudat MP.

Another Umno member,Datuk Razali Ibrahim, said the focus should not be on what anyone said, but the bigger picture.

“It is a beginning for many other things. If we don’t do anything then they will get mad so it is a good beginning,” said Razali, who is Umno Youth Deputy Chief.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 April 2010, 5:24 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Labu and Labi Team of Najib and Muhyiddin (Part 3)

By
M. Bakri Musa

(
Third of Four Parts
)

The Ugly and Dysfunctional Mahathir-Anwar Pair

As leader, Mahathir is essentially a one-man team, a loner.  He exhibits the typical alpha-male monkey mode.  An alpha monkey could tolerate other males in the colony only if they were to submit to him, or be seen doing so.  Any hint of a non-deferring behavior or “dissing” would be dealt with quickly until the challenger is either driven out or fatally finished off.  Such leaders have little use for a deputy, partner, or a team.  Instead he needs a sidekick, in the manner of a Jim McMahon to Johnny Carson; someone to make the leader looks good and be the butt of his jokes.

            Consider Mahathir’s relationship with his first deputy, Musa Hitam.  It went well so long as Musa deferred to Mahathir, that is, by being submissive.  In the beginning, Musa was exactly that.  The moment he began to assert himself or received more attention than Mahathir, it marked the beginning of the end for Musa.

            The same dynamics governed Mahathir’s relationship with his third deputy, Anwar Ibrahim.  Like Musa, Anwar was only too willing to be Mahathir’s sidekick and to humor him, at least initially.  And why not; Anwar was handsomely rewarded, as seen by his rapid ascent in the party and government.  Mahathir never viewed Anwar as a threat seeing that he was very much younger and thus could patiently bide his time.  That scenario would have successfully played out to the end had Anwar not succumb to the impatient goading of his many impatient and greedy supporters.

            Mahathir’s alpha male traits were never more in display following UMNO’s highly contentious leadership convention of 1987 which saw Tengku Razaleigh nearly toppling Mahathir.  In the aftermath, Mahathir had to do what every alpha monkey male would, that is, get rid of its challenger.

            It did not surprise me that the deputies Mahathir was most comfortable with were Ghaffar Baba and Abdullah Badawi.  Both played the role of the sidekick only too well, especially Abdullah Badawi.  Unfortunately they, specifically Abdullah, only played the role, as Mahathir found out too late and much to his regret.

            Ghaffar Baba also played the second fiddle role exceptionally well, leading many to underestimate him.  His inability to speak English merely reinforced the public perception of his shortcomings; many also doubted his intellect.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  He had a formidable intellect; however being a kampong boy with no family connections, the best that he could aspire to was the Sultan Idris Training College.

            Not only was Ghaffar well endowed with innate intelligence, he was also “street smart,” but he skillfully hid both under his characteristic and very Malay humility.  Make no mistake, the late Ghaffar Baba could read the Malay psyche very well, a skill that Mahathir usefully tapped.  In that respect he contributed considerably to the partnership with Mahathir.  Ghaffar was no mere sidekick, as many saw him.

            With his vast understanding of the nuances of Malay culture, Ghaffar could have successfully fended off Anwar’s challenge, but Ghaffar knew that his party was in desperate need of new blood.  At the same time he did not wish to see the party that he loved so dearly be fractured by an intense rivalry at the top.  It was those noble considerations that made him gave way to Anwar, and not, as many believed, his fear of defeat.  Ghaffar exhibited class as well as courage in bowing out early in that tussle with Anwar; he put his party’s interest ahead of his own.  That is a rarity among today’s politicians.

            As for Abdullah, when a previously non-alpha male monkey takes over, it first instinct is to kill all the babies of the previous alpha male in an attempt to eliminate his predecessor’s genes in the colony.  This was what Abdullah did by ‘killing’ off Mahathir’s many ‘babies,’ his pet mega projects.

            Abdullah’s mistake was not realizing that Mahathir had not been ‘killed’ or banished from the colony.  That alpha monkey was still in the same jungle, imperiously perched high up on another tree, the Petronas Twin Towers.  He was still very much alive and influential.  Abdullah never knew what hit him when Mahathir unleashed his fury.

            Because he was essentially a one-man show, Mahathir’s legacy would be at considerable risk once he is gone.  We saw that already when Abdullah took over, only that he was so clumsy and inept.  Had Mahathir cultivated younger leaders a la Tun Razak to Tunku, or even a not-so-young but a capable one a la Razak to Dr. Ismail, Mahathir would have greatly enhanced the caliber of his leadership as well ensure that his legacy would endure.

             I predict that once Mahathir is gone, his long tenure would merit only an asterisk in our modern history, as Mao Zedong is to China’s.  Mao ruled for over a quarter of a century.  It would be a gross understatement to say that he had the greatest (though not necessarily positive) impact on China and the Chinese.  Yet today, if one were to ask the throngs of shoppers at Beijing’s many modern shopping malls who Mao was, the likely response would be, “Mao, who?”  Not too long ago they even threw his wife into jail.  Some legacy!

Sizing Up Najib and Muhyiddin

Najib is an aristocrat, the son of a former prime minister.  He comes from a modern nuclear family:  father, mother and the five sons, Najib being the oldest.  He had a privileged upbringing, including boarding school and university abroad.  Najib and his brothers had plenty of parental love, what with their stay-at-home traditional mother.  Even though the late Tun was a busy man, rest assured that with only five sons, he would remember and celebrate their birthdays.

            Muhyiddin is one of over four dozen children of a village alim with multiple wives.  It would be unlikely for his father to even remember Muhyiddin’s name, much less his birthday.  In dynamics, young Muhyiddin had essentially a fatherless childhood.  He attended the village school and later a small town high school, before proceeding to the local university.

            The wives they have chosen too are very different.  Najib’s current wife, his second, is the poster girl for extravagance and vulgarity, a Malaysian Imelda Marcos, except that Imelda had a weakness only for shoes.  Muhyiddin’s wife is the typical kampong girl; she views her job as being to be by his side; to be seen but never heard.

            It is easy to imagine Rosmah being actively engaged in her husband’s business.  I cannot even contemplate Muhyiddin seriously engaging his wife in serious matters.  He is the typical alpha kampong male; he knows what is best and his word rules.

            Their seven-year age difference means that Muhyiddin could not possibly succeed Najib in the usual transition process.  Muhyiddin is the older, so by the time Najib retires, Muhyiddin would be too old to take over.  The only conceivable way for him to get the top slot would be if Najib’s tenure were to be prematurely cut short, by unexpected death or sordid scandals.  Both are not remote possibilities.  Najib’s father died in his early 50s from leukemia, and that malady remains lethal even today.  As a timely reminder, many a Third World leader had succumbed to fatal “accidents.”

            Scandals would be the more likely career killer for Najib.  He certainly has some nasty ones hanging over him, from the brutal murder of the Mongolian model to his admitted conversations with Anwar Ibrahim’s alleged sodomy victim.  Then there are the steady streams of squalid incompetence during his tenure as Defense Minister, from stolen jet engines to newly-acquired submarines that would not dive.

            It does not escape everyone’s notice that far from defending Najib, Muhyiddin seems to relish his superior’s travails.  Worse, he does not even bother to hide his delight.

            In Malaysian politics, followers could sniff right away rivalries at the top.  They would then quickly realign their positions and shift their loyalties in the hope of latching onto the winning team.  The game would quickly degenerate into a sport of running down the opposing camps, with temporary alliances forged, broken, and then re-constituted to meet the quickly evolving dynamics.  Thus expect even more ugly revelations from all sides.

            This is already happening.  Many are shocked at the utter corruption and rottenness of the party and its leaders.  While such exposés would be bad for the party, they would be good for the country, especially considering that the next general election will only be a few years away.

            Many would conclude that the inevitable collapse of UMNO under Najib to be the fulfillment of the RAHMAN prophecy, the “N” of the acronym representing Najib.  I argue otherwise.  There is no alignment of the stars that would preordain such an outcome.  Rather what we have here reflects nothing more than Najib’s lack of leadership and the dearth of talent within UMNO.  Had Mahathir chosen Najib instead of Abdullah as his (Mahathir’s) successor, Najib’s and thus UMNO’s political demise would have come sooner.

            Were that to happen, my only regret would be to see the inglorious end to what was once an illustrious Malay institution – UMNO.  Tun Razak was one of the key personalities in setting it up.  It took only a generation to destroy what he had worked very hard to create and build.  It would the supreme irony that it would be his son who would be responsible for destroying UMNO.

            That would be quite a legacy.

Next:
Salvaging Najib

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 April 2010, 9:56 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Bakri Musa
,
Mahathir
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The trouble with titled beings

By
Kee Thuan Chye

COMMENT When Pakatan Rakyat took over a few state governments in 2008 I hoped, among other things, that the coalition would not recommend its elected representatives for datukships.

At a gathering hosted by the newly elected Sivarasa Rasiah and Elizabeh Wong to celebrate their electoral victories, I expressed this hope to both. I asked the same of Lim Guan Eng after he became Chief Minister. “We are not giving any titles,” he assured me. “I will try if possible to remain what I am.”

It hasn’t quite turned out that way.

Guan Eng himself has stayed true to his word but people under his watch, like Zahrain Mohd Hashim who has since become an independent MP, were presented awards. Sivarasa and Elizabeth are still without titles, but the Selangor Menteri Besar, Khalid Ibrahim, already a Tan Sri, was made a Datuk Seri last year. I was disappointed that Nizar Jamaluddin, not long after becoming MB of Perak, became a Datuk Seri.

Well, win some, lose some.

I can understand the desire to reward people for their contribution to the advancement of society, but must this be in the form of a title that serves to set the recipient apart from common folk? The French Revolution ignited the idea of equality for all; the idea of superior beings set apart from hoi polloi remains simply unacceptable in some societies.

Britain, a vestigial monarchy, still sustains an order of knights and dames of course, even though it is a democracy with sometimes socialist inclinations. The monarchy is the main reason for the continued practice, and the class system deeply entrenched in British society, with the ruling class still highly influenced by the aristocracy.

Fortunately, many Britons don’t take themselves too seriously. Few would consider it compulsory to refer to the rocker Mick Jagger as Sir Michael or the actress Judi Dench as Dame Judi. In fact, Jagger’s fans were disappointed that he accepted the title. The highly successful composer of musicals Andrew Lloyd Webber was made a peer in 1997, but if he were to insist on being called Baron Lloyd-Webber, he would be laughed out of not only the theatre but anywhere in Britain. Except perhaps in the House of Lords.

While the knights and dames of Britain wear their titles lightly, the same does not seem to apply with their Malaysian counterparts (although “knight” seems a misplaced description for any of our datuks or tan sris – how many have been convicted for corruption or criminal breach of trust?). A film credit for Jins Shamsuddin has to carry the honorific Tan Sri; the singer Siti Nurhalisa has to be acknowledged Datuk every time she is addressed or announced as a performer; and Lee Chong Wei is sometimes similarly addressed in news reports even though it sounds patently weird when he’s lost a badminton match. Our “knight” lost? Woe upon us!

So many datuks and tan sris take themselves so seriously they will throw tantrums or threaten action if you fail to acknowledge their titles in public. This seems unbecoming, placing more emphasis on the title than the content of character or of personal calibre. You may be an excellent engineer or judge, say, but if you have to depend on an honorific to define you, that’s rather pathetic.

Besides, it is public knowledge that not all titles are awarded to those who are deserving. Sometimes, it all boils down to connections. A majority of public servants, political leaders and civil service officials, seem to be automatically conferred.

On the list of 101 candidates standing in the recent MCA elections were 38 with titles: seven Datuk Seris and one Tan Sri among them. The titled lot accounted for 37.6 per cent of the total. If that seems absurd, look at the Cabinet: virtually everyone has a title. It is difficult to imagine the British Government similarly being run by a bunch of Sirs and Dames. As it is, their Prime Minister is just plain Mr Gordon Brown.

I know someone who has been awarded multiple datukships not because he provides a creditable service to society but apparently more because he knows how to suck up to people in government and royal circles. To some of his professional colleagues, his vocational conduct is repugnant. I refrain from saying “professional conduct” because his conduct is actually unprofessional and a bane to society.

It is also public knowledge that in Malaysia, titles can be bought. What value is such a datukship then? How well does it sit on someone rewarded for actual creditable service as on another who had paid out tons of money for one? So why should Malaysian society take these titles seriously?

In reality, most of us don’t, but we refrain from expressing ourselves out of politeness or fear of reprisal. Behind the backs of incompetent datuks, we snigger at their lack of calibre. Among ourselves, we privately pour scorn on datins. “Ya lah! That woman so aksi and demanding, always saying she’s so rich and powerful. Sure lah, she’s a datin what!”

This merely begets hypocrisy. Worse, it fosters an undercurrent of resentment against what is perceived to be an exclusive class of beings, and creates the fanciful notion that datuks and datins are endowed with glamour. Have you looked at some of them? The word “glamour” might wish it didn’t exist.

There’s little glamour to be perceived after having sat through the tedious ritual of addressing the titled beings at public events. The master of ceremonies must make sure protocol is followed: so, too, the people who subsequently make the speeches. There’s the Tuan Yang Terutamas and the Yang Amat Berhormats and the Yang Amat Berbahagias and the Yang Berhormat Mulias. The Yang Berhormats of those in public office and the Yang Berbahagias of those who are not. And don’t you forget which is which. Everyone goes through this rigmarole, distasteful because it sounds like grovelling. Must we appear such an obsequious people? It would be so refreshingly simple for all to be addressed as just “Para hadhirin”.

I hope those Pakatan Rakyat leaders still without titles remain so but if they become more entrenched in government who knows what might get into their heads? But I for one simply can’t conceive of a Datuk Nurul Izzah or a Datuk Seri Lim Guan Eng. Most unpalatable of all would possibly to be confronted — when and if he ever retires — with a Tun Lim Kit Siang!

He is a people’s icon. If he crosses over, it would be a monumental loss.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 12 April 2010, 2:42 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nazri’s defence of DPM peculiar, says Kit Siang

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kama
l | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, April 13 — DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang today slammed Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz’s defence of Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s “small-fry” remarks as a foot-in-the mouth justification.

The veteran lawmaker told The Malaysian Insider that Nazri’s defence of Muhyiddin’s statement was a “very peculiar protection” and pointed out that the issue was about whether importance is given to the inter-faith committee.

“Very peculiar protection. Reminds me of what Syed Hamid said. That you arrest the Sin Chew reporter to give her protection.”

“This is a nonsensical explanation. Either you give importance to the inter-religious committee or you don’t,” said Lim.

Nazri had defended Muhyiddin’s “small fry” remark, when describing the Cabinet’s inter-faith panel, saying that the deputy prime minister was protecting it from religious groups rather than reducing its role.

Muhyiddin had caused an uproar with his statement yesterday prompting the umbrella body of non-Muslim faiths to threaten a boycott of the inter-faith committee until he explains his remarks.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department explained that the “small fry” statement must be seen in the context of the Mufti of Perak’s objection to the committee.

Malay right-wing group Perkasa had also made similar objections.

“To say that they are small fries and do not have any power, I mean (this) is not something which is going to raise the esteem and important role that must be played by inter-faith panel … The DPM’s statement, Nazri’s foot-in-mouth justification has destroyed whatever credibility the panel can have,” added Lim.

Lim, who is Ipoh Timur MP said that the onus was now on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to decide on whether the 1 Malaysia concept was to be taken seriously.

“ I’m not surprised Ilani has asked for an explanation and I think there’s a need for the Cabinet, for Najib, to reassert himself to decide if the 1 Malaysia government transformation programme with regard to unity, in this case the role of religion, is going to be meaningful or another propaganda exercise.”

When asked about the boycott by the Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) on the Cabinet-mooted inter-faith panel, Lim stated he understood the reasons for their actions.

“I can understand their feelings, for even before meeting, it has been downgraded and humiliated by none other than the DPM, I don’t see any purpose in the continuation of such a creature.”

“ What must be established is an inter-religious organisation, fully empowered entrusted with the duty to propose ways to solve problems and promote interfaith understanding,” he said.

Besides that Lim stressed that the Minister in charge of the inter-faith portfolio, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon should quit.

“Tsu Koon should resign, unless he can regain public faith,” said Lim.

It is understood that the inter-faith panel chief, Datuk Ilani Isahak, has postponed all scheduled meetings of the inter-faith panel until the controversy over the DPM’s “small fry” remark, meant to describe the panel members, has been cleared up.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 13 April 2010, 3:17 pm and is filed under
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Barisan Nasional warned that they will lose Sabah as a “fixed deposit” if the basic rights and interests of Sabahans continue to be marginalized and discriminated

I regret that the Cabinet has neither taken Parliament seriously nor the long-standing problems and grievances of the people of  Sabah.

The Prime Minister’s Department has five Ministers apart from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister as well as five deputy ministers, but not a single one of  them rose in Parliament to answer issues about Sabah development neglect, whether during the winding-up of the debate on the Royal Address or during the committee stage debate on the Prime Minister’s Department on the 2009 supplementary estimates.

Just laid on the table is the 2009 annual report of Suhakam. A staple criticism of MPs and the civil society is the failure of Parliament to have any specific debate on the Suhakam annual reports in the past nine years.

I want to ask Barisan Nasional MPs whether they take the Suhakam annual reports seriously, as most BN MPs would not even open the Suhakam annual reports to read them.

For instance, in the latest Suhakam report on its activities in Sabah, various long-standing problems of Sabahans were referred to.

As example, on “Land Matters”, Suhakam dealt with land complaints and made recommendations, and I quote:

State Land

Complainants, usually villagers in rural areas, alleged that their applications for State land have not been considered, or have been ignored or rejected. They further alleged that the same plots were subsequently alienated to later applicants. More often than not, the latter occupy position of influence and authority or have close connections with decision makers.

Recommendations

Multiple land applications should not be entertained in respect of the same piece of land. The earliest application should be dealt with first. If it is rejected, the applicant should be notified and informed of the reason for rejection.

There should be transparency in the procedures and criteria used in approving applications for land. Awareness programmes should be organised to educate villagers on the land policy, procedures, processes and criteria involved in applications.

The Sabah Land Ordinance (Cap. 68) should be reviewed and amended to eliminateambiguity and confusion. A workshop could be held to bring together experts, complainants’ representatives and other interested parties to identify the changes required.

Forest Reserves

Complainants said they had been wrongfully evicted from their villages and that their houses had sometimes been burnt down by enforcement personnel, on the ground of trespass into a forest reserve. The villagers claimed that they had occupied the area for generations, as indicated by the presence of graveyards, fruit trees and other agricultural and commercial crops planted by them. They further claimed that they had been living there before the area was gazetted as a forest reserve.

Recommendations

If people have settled in an area before it was gazetted as a forest reserve, then the site occupied should be excised from the reserve.

In the event that people have indeed encroached into a forest reserve, then the State (ii) Government should consider treating it on a case-by-case basis depending on circumstances, such as the period they have been living in the area.

The State authorities should be humanitarian in taking enforcement action against alleged trespassers. Burning houses would lead to the perception that the Government gives higher priority to the forest than to human beings.

The Government should consider providing affected settlers an alternative site to be excised from a forest reserve. After all, Sabah has vast stands of forest. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of hectares have previously been excised for commercial agricultural development, mainly oil palm.

Enforcement should be quick and efficient against those deemed to be ‘squatting’ in a forest reserve. The authorities should not wait until people have settled on the site for many years before evicting them. In some cases, the oil palm they planted would be ready for harvesting. The relevant authorities should regularly monitor the situation and inform people as early as possible that they have trespassed into a forest reserve.

What is the position of the Federal and Sabah state governments to these recommendations by Suhakam.

Let me warn the Barisan Nasional government that they will lose Sabah as a “fixed deposit” if the basic rights and interests of Sabahans continue to be marginalized and discriminated decade after decade.

[
Speech (4) on the first 2010 supplementary estimates in Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday 13th April 2010
]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 12:16 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Najib to appear before Parliament when he returns to face MPs on his visit to United States

I have received the following assessment of a Malaysian in Washington on the visit of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, which raises many important questions.

The following is the assessment:

Assessment of a Malaysian in Washington on Najib’s visit to US

It is difficult indeed to make any serious assessment as there has been hardly anything substantive on the subject in the US media. All we have is what the Malaysian media are reporting. That said let me share some thoughts for what they are worth.

 My reading  is that much is being made of this visit. First and foremost, the Ambassador aided and abetted by the Malaysian media that is in tow, is painting a picture that is very sparing of the truth. For instance, they have made out that Najib was only one of two Asian leaders that met with Obama – the other being Hu Jintao. The truth was that Manmohan Singh and Gilani, the PMs of India and Pakistan , were there individually for sessions of between an hour and half and two. It would appear the Malaysian spinmeisters have redefined the borders of Asia in a revision of geography with the sub-continent not being part of Asia. Perhaps this is the input provided by the experts of APCO! Then there is the business of lunch with Vice President Biden – if our news media are to be believed, then Najib was the sole guest. The truth is stranger as he was one of a dozen leaders who lunched at the VP’s residence according to the NY Times.

As to the substance of the chat between Obama and Najib, the Readout issued by the White House is a pretty good summary according to those in the know. I have yet to see it reproduced in the Malaysian media. A close reading indicates that Najib virtually gave away the store with nothing substantive in return. For instance, he agreed with the US position as regards the need to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Remarkable indeed given that our Ambassador in Vienna was one of  5 that voted in favor of the Iranian position just a few months ago. This is a major shift in policy and it disassociates Malaysia from its conventional OIC and NAM position. Then there is the business of the Strategic Goods Act which was rushed through Parliament. This was under considerable pressure from the US after Malaysia stood exposed for trading in embargoed goods with Iran. Najib was also forced into admitting that Malaysia was taking action to curb human trafficking after having been listed in a recent Senate report that heavily criticized Malaysia. In terms of Malaysian aspirations and support for its positions, little was reported. For instance, no mention was made of the desire to revive the failed Free Trade Agreement; nor was there even a token  mention of the Palestine issue, a subject close to the heart of the Government. Were these issues raised? Significantly, neither the Embassy in Washington DC and nor the entourage  accompanying the PM have yet  put out a Malaysian version of the Readout. They have been largely concerned with issuing feel good releases with photos without addressing the substantive outcomes of this multi-million dollar junket.

Beyond what is contained in the White House Readout, I gather that the US side raised a number of issues including the canning of women who deviate from Islamic practices, growing racial polarization, the Anwar trial etc. Thus, the Malaysian side has been put on notice.

An overview — this was probably a good visit from Najib’s personal view as it raised his profile. He is seeking legitimacy as he struggles in the domestic context against a resilient  opposition, a badly split coalition and  a party that is increasingly turning right, led in that direction by Dr. M. The visit may gain him some personal momentary advantage. However it does not resolve the critical challenges he faces. More fundamentally, the visit demonstrated the lack of leverage he has at his disposal. He appears to have obtained nothing of substance from the US administration; this in turn will signal the US business community which will take note and act negatively in taking investment decisions in the near term.

Let wait to see if this assessment will be contradicted in the days ahead.

In view of many important issues involved, including those of policy and principle, I call on the Prime Minister to appear before Parliament when he returns to face MPs on his visit to United States to give full accounting of the results of his trip.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 3:54 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP wants government to explain APCO’s RM76m bill

By
Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
 | The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, April 14 — The DAP wants the Barisan Nasional (BN) government to explain why RM76.8 million (US$24.2 million) was paid to APCO Worldwide, the public relations consultancy engaged by the Najib administration.

DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang told reporters here in Parliament that a proper explanation was needed on why such an exorbitant amount of money was paid to the consultancy firm.

“A proper explanation should be given, at least at the committee stage (of the 2010 Supplementary Bill).”

“Why are millions being spent just for the purpose of the Prime Minister and the 1 Malaysia concept?” said Lim.

The government paid RM76.8 million to APCO Worldwide, the international public relations consultancy linked by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders to Israel, for its services from last July until June this year.

The amount was revealed yesterday by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, in a written reply to a question in Parliament from PKR MP, Chua Tian Chang.

Chua had disclosed this to reporters yesterday, and pointed out that the amount far exceeded the RM28 million mentioned by Nazri previously.

The minister’s written reply provided a breakdown of the fee paid by the government to APCO, starting from July 15, 2009 until June 4, 2010.

Nazri, when approached by The Malaysian Insider had praised APCO for successfully repairing Malaysia’s image in the United States, and credited the consultancy for Prime Minister Datu Seri Najib Razak’s meeting with US President Barack Obama as proof of its success.

“It will be more worthwhile for Najib to get his own ministers to say “Malaysian first, race second.”

“Every time I say this to BN MPs, they will run for their life, the backbenchers, Tsu Koon,” said the DAP’s Lim today.

Lim, who is Ipoh Timur MP, claimed that Najib should train his sights on fixing the credibility of his own Cabinet.

“This is disgraceful, Najib should focus more on the credibility of his 1 Malaysia team, otherwise the whole Cabinet should resign,” added the DAP man.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 3:18 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Good Governance
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Refer Lim Kit Siang to the Rights and Privileges Committee

P Ramakrishnan

13 April 2010

Barisan MP for Pasir Salak Tajuddin Abdul Rahman had alleged in Parliament on 6 April 2010 that Lim Kit Siang had served as a political officer to former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Tajuddin had also alleged that “a leader in Penang” was selling state secrets to Hong Kong and Singapore .

We can presume that he was referring to Lim Guan Eng, the Penang Chief Minister.

Kit Siang reacted by flatly stating, “This is not true, so he (Tajuddin) should be referred to the committee.”

Accordingly, Kit Siang moved a motion to refer Tajuddin to the Rights and Privileges Committee. But Tajuddin was adamant in his allegation and countered Kit Siang’s denial by claiming in the House, “I don’t like to lie or make slanderous statements with malicious intent. I am responsible for what I say.”

In responding to Kit Siang’s motion, Tajuddin took an uncompromising position. He stated, “If the House thinks I should be referred to the committee, no problem. I will take it. I’m prepared to face all the consequences. If you want to suspend me, go ahead but I believe in what I said.”

In this case, both of them could not be lying – but one of them definitely did. The question is: Who was lying?

When Kit Siang’s motion was put to the vote, it was defeated by 82 to 56 votes.

What was the implication of this voting?

Simply put, the Barisan Nasional MPs took a position that Tajuddin was telling the truth and that Kit Siang was lying. It meant that they did not believe Kit Siang’s denial that he did not serve as a political officer to Lee Kuan Yew. It meant that Tajuddin did not mislead the House but it was Kit Siang who was guilty of misleading.

This being the case, the BN MPs should refer Kit Siang to the Rights and Privileges Committee. They have no other course or choice except to compel the Rights and Privileges Committee to take action against Kit Siang for misleading the House. Failure to do so would imply that the BN dominated Parliament is trying to cover up a lie – worse still, it may be construed that Parliament is protecting a lie.

They must also take action to suspend Lim Guan Eng from Parliament because he has been accused of selling state secrets to foreign countries. This is a treasonable action and the person guilty of this conduct is a traitor to this nation. No traitor should be sitting in our Parliament.

The IGP, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, must give priority to investigating this serious allegation. He should drop all other cases and concentrate on this as a matter of urgency. The AG, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, must start framing charges against Guan Eng at once. The hands of the IGP and the AG have been strengthened by Parliament’s voting.

Both of them should spring into action now that they have Parliament’s backing.

Obviously, Tajuddin has the evidence to back up his allegations. That’s why he didn’t mind being referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee. This case, therefore, should be wrapped up in a jiffy.

If Parliament fails to act, then Tajuddin must publicly make his allegations outside Parliament because he has the evidence. Remember what he said: “I don’t like to lie…” In other words, he was telling the truth and that he has the evidence to back up his accusation.

Under the circumstances, would Kit Siang or Guan Eng dare to sue him? Even if they did, Tajuddin should be able to provide the evidence in the court of law and fix them for good.

We cannot have a liar and a traitor smugly sitting in Parliament, making a mockery of our democratic process.

Parliament, Tajuddin, the IGP and the AG all owe it to the nation to act in the national interest.

They must not fail us.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 14 April 2010, 6:11 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.