I am a Malay, is DAP for me?

 – Shukri Mokhtar

The Malaysian Insider

28 January 2015

“Religion” and “race” are two dangerous words. Since the dawn of time, men have used these two words to assert control the people, to gain power and self-benefits.

A question that you and I must critically ask ourselves, with everything that human beings have achieved until this day in the 21st century, why do we still fall for the same trick over and over again?

My humble answer is simple, it’s “Sapere aude!” (Dare to know). We as human beings are always in a state of cowardice, afraid of knowing the truth and do not have the urge to question our own belief.

Immanuel Kant in his theory of the “enlightenment” argues that enlightenment was man’s emergence from his self-immaturity and immaturity was self-imposed when it caused lies, not in lack of understanding, but in the lack of resolve and courage to use it.

From what is happening in our country, we need a better Malaysia. The great time has just begun, Malaysia has awoken for the better good.

Although Malaysians have never felt this much pressure of cost of living crisis, I know many below-average earning families in Kuala Lumpur happen to have two job just so that they can feed their families.

My friends will be shocked but my life-long teacher, currently a lecturer at a local Islamic university would be pleased of my swift stand in this country’s politics.

It was not the intellectuals who gave me the exposure or information that I needed to change, but I can tell you this came from an old man called “Pak Ngah”, who I helped to clean his home because of the recent floods in Temerloh, Pahang.

He was a rubber tapper and he said something that would change my life forever. “Oh, it will be three weeks at least, until I can continue to work” because he needs to clean out the mud that had entered his house and surroundings.

I asked him what he did for a living. “I’m a rubber tapper,” he replied.

That made me realise how unfair it is for an old man who is supposed to be retired since 1998 had to work until this day. Our country only works for the privileged few today, not most of the people.

It is a fact, not some assumption. Malaysians need justice, economic justice.

Malaysians had to suffer immensely because of inflation.

Why the people are being told there us a recovery and yet they are not feeling the benefits. When we look upon our situation, we should feel ashamed over how we live today because our country is rich.

It is about the people working so hard but not being rewarded.

It is about young people, who fear that we will have a worse life than our parents because of the inflation. Above the most mistaken view of all, is that a success of country only depends on a few people on the top and when they do well, everyone in Malaysia does as well.

These are the symptoms of a deeply unequal, deeply unfair, unjust country which we need to rise to the occasion to change this.

We all have the love of humanity in our heart, we cannot hate and will not hate, only the unloved will hate.

We need to rethink and revisit our stand, for how long will we be deceived?

Let us now unite because poverty knows no race, creed nor ethnicity. Beyond race, we need economic justice, beyond creed, we need social justice, beyond ethnicity. We need commitment to change the impossible.

A simple statistics on the disparity in Malaysia will be an eye-opener. Almost 80% of our workforce earn less than RM3,000.

Any household earning more RM15,000 comprises of the top 1% of the income bracket in Malaysia. Those earning RM5,000 and below represent 75% of households in Malaysia.

Now bear these statistics in mind and think about the slow rate of increase in household income which would not be able to cope with the recent price hikes of items, such as electricity tariff, toll, school bus fares and assessment rates.

An individual would require an income of RM4,000 to survive on Penang island, given its high rental and expensive daily goods.

Likewise in Kuala Lumpur, the day-to-day spending on necessity goods such as, chicken, mackerel, chilli is burdensome plus an average rental of at least RM700 a month, a household would need a minimum income of RM3,500 just to meet ends.

There needs to be public support for effective action for the poor, destitute and the forgotten. A centre-left approach in politics which calls for social equality that involves concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others should be welcomed as the way forward for our country.

Mind you, this approach is not an alien concept, Tun Abdul Razak himself reflected this in his social policies to deal with inequality where once upon a time, free education from primary school to university level was made available.

This perhaps could be attributed to the influence of the left-wing Labour Party which he joined while in the UK.

In terms of track record of political parties in Malaysia, the only party that still upholds the rakyat/people  in its cornerstone of its political ideology today in my belief is the DAP through its centre-left approach and emphasis on good governance, hence deserving the rakyat’s mandate.

Well, people would demand the reason for my statement. The answer again is a simple one, it is because I am a Muslim.

As a practising Muslim, I am instructed to uphold justice by God, after recognising that there’s no god but the one True God and Muhammad is the messenger of God.

The Quran, Surah an Nisa verse 139 “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a

Better Protector to both (than you)”.

In addition, Shakyhul Islam Ibn Tamiyyah, a great Muslim scholar in his book, al Hisbah fil Islam said “God al Mighty will help a just country even though the country is ruled by a non-believer”.

When DAP which was negatively portrayed as an anti-Muslim/Malay chauvinist party won over the state government of Penang after the 2008 elections, a series of success stories were recorded.

emember the closing statement of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng during the debate with Koh Tsu Koon, the former Gerakan chief minister on his pledge to eradicate hardcore poverty comparable with the zero poverty achieved by during great caliphate of Umar Bin Abdul Aziz.

Penang under DAP started to generate high revenues through tough fiscal decisions which led to the reputation of best financially managed state in years 2009, 2010,2011 as well as reduced debts by 95% from RM360 million in 2008 to RM 30 million in 2011.

The extra revenues earned was utilised by the state government to tackle poverty through the distribution of monthly allowances to the low-income earners.

This was as a result of the state government’s CAT model of governance which received international recognition after being praised by Transparency International for the anti-corruption measures.

In addition, for the first time an open tender system by the DAP state government which allows for a fairer distribution of wealth to the rakyat is highly commendable as opposed to just a closed-door tender to an elite few.

So do we still want to gamble? Do we still want lie to ourselves with false hope, telling ourselves that “don’t worry they’ll do better next time”.

Deep in our hearts, we all know the end result is. History if it is not learn and for a surety it will repeat itself.

Why not try DAP for a better Malaysia?

However, I still think that the DAP-led Penang government needs to do more in housing.

Good is not good but better is expected. Ordinary Penangites unable to afford a living with property prices soaring in Penang, the shortage of affordable housing remains a huge concern for people in the state.

Despite the move by the state government with the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) to initiate several projects which will deliver more than 22,000 units of affordable housing in the next five to 15 years, there is still a growing worry that this will not meet the demands of hardworking middle-class Penangites in the advent of lavish housing development across the island.

These housing projects are increasing rapidly catering only to the wealthy few Penangites and rich expatriates, abandoning the unfortunate to leave Penang island.

Lastly, you and I know and do not believe that is, life is so dear to be purchase by immorality and greed. If nothing in life is worth dying for, but when do this begin?

Just in the face of the oppressor or should Moses tell his people to submit in slavery under the rule of the pharaoh, or should Prophet Muhammad tell his followers to deny in the one True God after the Meccan

pagans has offered him money, status and women.

So when is the road to prosperity? Well, it is easy after all, you and I must have the courage to say to these people.

That there is a price that we will not pay, there is a point beyond which they must not advance. Nelson Mendela said “overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice”.

Let us lastly pledge ourselves ever to uphold our country. In our work and in our leisure, with such zeal and in such measure for our beloved Malaysia. – January 28, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 11:29 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Malaysian Dream
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kabinet harus tolak pendirian Rahman Dahlan

– Lim Kit Siang

The Malaysian Insider

28 January 2015

Mesyuarat Kabinet hari ini patut menegur dan menolak pendirian Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan (PBT) akan memburukkan lagi polarisasi kaum kerana ia bukan sahaja tidak benar, malah membuka ruang kepada penggantungan pilihan raya Dewan Negeri dan Parlimen pada masa akan datang.

Ini kali pertama dalam masa 50 tahun mana-mana menteri kerajaan Barisan Nasional mahupun Perikatan mengambil pendirian yang mengarut pelaksanaan pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan akan mengakibatkan polarisasi kaum yang lebih buruk, atau berkemungkinan mencetuskan semula rusuhan kaum 13 Mei seperti disebut Presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang yang mendapat sokongan pimpinan tertinggi Umno.

Pada Mac 2010, Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang dan Selangor mengutus 2 surat berasingan kepada Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya memohon supaya pilihan raya PBT dijalankan di negeri masing-masing.

Alasan mereka berbuat demikian untuk mengukuhkan demokrasi dengan memilih ahli-ahli majlis tempatan melalui pilihan raya dan bukan lantikan, yang akan menambah akauntabiliti, ketelusan dan urus tadbir yang baik.

Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak dalam satu reaksi pantas menolak permintaan ini, sambil menyatakan mengembalikan pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan akan mengakibatkan politik di peringkat kerajaan tempatan dan tidak akan memperbaiki perkhidmatan kepada orang ramai.

Beliau berkata tumpuan seharusnya diberikan kepada usaha memperbaiki perkhidmatan kepada orang ramai dan bukannya proses yang terlibat dalam memilih ahli majlis.

Tidak pernah ada yang menyebut tentang polarisasi kaum atau representasi kaum yang tidak seimbang dalam masa 50 tahun lampau sebagai sebab kenapa undi ketiga tidak boleh dikembalikan.

Kabinet bukan sahaja harus mengambil perhatian terhadap garis bahaya yang diambil Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan dengan mengaitkan pemansuhan pilihan raya PBT dengan masalah polarisasi kaum buat kali pertama dalam masa 50 tahun, ia mesti bertindak menegur Abdul Rahman atas kenyataan tersebut dan Kabinet yang menjauhkan diri daripada kenyataan tersebut.

Hujah Abdul Rahman yang pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan akan mengakibatkan rasa tidak senang dan kurang percaya antara kaum mesti ditegur keras oleh Kabinet hari ini, kerana kerajaan tempatan bukanlah mengenai politik kaum tetapi mengenai kualiti hidup yang lebih baik untuk semua pembayar cukai dengan suasana kehidupan yang selamat, efisien dan sejahtera untuk semua tanpa mengira kaum atau agama.

Sebab kenapa pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan digantung selama 50 tahun satu rahsia terbuka, dan tidak ada kena mengena dengan akauntabiliti, kecekapan atau urus tadbir kerajaan tempatan yang baik tetapi kerana ahli politik Barisan Nasional tidak yakin dengan pilihan raya secara demokratik, walaupun wujud banyak kelemahan dalam sistem pilihan raya, mereka masih boleh memenangi kepercayaan dan mandat para pengundi supaya terpilih menganggotai majlis-majlis kerajaan tempatan.

Amat memeranjatkan apabila selepas 50 tahun penggantungan/pemansuhan pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan, isu kaum kini mula disuntik sebagai satu faktor baru kenapa undi ketiga itu tidak boleh dikembalikan.

Jika alasan tersebut boleh diterima, maka ia juga boleh dipanjangkan sehingga memansuhkan/menggantung pilihan raya Dewan Negeri dan Parlimen, dan membunuh demokrasi di Malaysia.

Menteri de facto yang bertanggungjawab ke atas perpaduan negara, Tan Sri Joseph Kurup bertindak tepat mengatakan para ekstremis yang memainkan isu kaum dan agamalah yang merupakan musuh negara nombor satu: petualang yang bertanggungjawab terhadap polarisasi kaum dan agama yang semakin buruk di negara ini.

Malangnya, dalam ucapannya di persidangan Malaysia Strategic Outlook ke-17 itu, Kurup tidak bersedia untuk menyebut nama-nama musuh negara nombor satu ini, justeru mengecilkan kesan pengakuannya mengenai golongan ekstremis ini yang “menimbulkan ketakutan di dalam masyarakat, membahayakan perpaduan yang kita bina dan cuba merampas gaya hidup masyarakat Malaysia” serta “cuba melaksanakan agenda ekstremis dan sektarian mereka dengan berselindung di sebalik agama” yang boleh “mengakibatkan ekstremisme ganas”.

Momok 13 Mei dan politik perkauman terhadap pengembalian pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan tidak boleh dibenarkan timbul lagi.

Saya sesungguhnya percaya sekiranya Pakatan Rakyat tidak berkeyakinan ia boleh mencapai kejayaan besar sekiranya pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan dikembalikan, Pakatan harus berunding semula kerana ini bukan satu petanda baik bagi agenda besar untuk memenangi Putrajaya pada PRU14 nanti.

Berdasarkan bancian 2010, daripada 148 pihak berkuasa tempatan di Malaysia (yang terdiri daripada 3 Dewan Bandaraya, sembilan Majlis Bandaraya, 37 Majlis Perbandaran dan 99 Majlis Daerah), hanya dua atau tiga peratus daripadanya mempunyai majoriti Cina, iaitu Sibu (Cina 63.4%, Melayu/Bumiputera 35.7%, India 0.4% dan lain-lain 0.5%); Kuching Selatan (Cina 62.5%, Melayu/Bumiputera 36.4%, India 0.6% dan lain-lain 0.5%) dan Pulau Pinang (Cina 56.4%, Melayu 33.7%, India 9.5% dan lain-lain 0.4%).

Pihak berkuasa tempatan dengan majoriti Melayu melebihi 50% populasi adalah pada kadar 89.2% atau 132 daripada 148 PBT, dengan baki 13 lagi dengan kaum bercampur-campur, yang tujuh daripadanya dominan Cina dan enam lagi dominan Melayu.

Biro Pilihan raya Pakatan Rakyat patut mengadakan kajian tentang berapa banyak daripada 148 PBT ini yang boleh dimenangi Pakatan sekiranya ada pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan.

Sekiranya pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan diadakan, bolehkah Pakatan Rakyat mendapat majoriti besar dalam PBT di Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang dan Kedah?

Terdapat 12 PBT di Kelantan dengan populasi Melayu terendah sebanyak 92% di Kuala Krai sehinggalah yang tertinggi 97% di Dabong.

Terengganu pula memiliki tujuh PBT, populasi Melayu paling rendah seramai 95.% di Kemaman, dan yang paling tinggi, 99.7% di Setiu.

Pahang mempunyai lapan PBT. Selain Cameron Highlands yang mempunyai komposisi kaum bercampur-campur dengan Cina 42.8%, Melayu 33.7%, India 22.8% dan lain-lain 0.6%, populasi Melayu di tujuh lagi PBT berbeza-beza dari 57.3% di Bentong, 63.1% di Raub, 67.2% di Bera, 75.7% di Temerloh, 78.5% di Kuantan, 84.7% di Jerantut, 85.3% di Lipis, 95.7% di Maran, 95.8% di Rompin dan 96.9% di Pekan.

Bagi Kedah, 11 buah PBT mempunyai populasi Melayu seramai 63.6% di Kulim, 66.2% di Sungai petani, 76.9% di Alor Setar, 82.1% di Bandar Baru, 88.3% di Kubang Pasu, 89.7% di Pendang, 90.9% di Baling, 92.5% di Padang Terap, 92.6% di Langkawi, 92.8% di Sik dan 93.2% di Yan.

Biro Pilihan raya Pakatan Rakyat mesti mengkaji sama ada Pakatan Rakyat boleh menang majoriti 41 PBT di Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang dan Kedah di mana PBT dengan lebih 70% Melayu adalah 92% daripada jumlah PBT, manakala PBT dengan populasi lebih 90% Melayu adalah 67% daripada jumlah PBT.

Semua parti politik dan rakyat Malaysia wajar memberi perhatian terhadap deklarasi ke arah demokrasi dalam laporan Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja Athi Nahappan pada tahun 1968 mengenai pihak berkuasa tempatan yang mencadangkan supaya pilihan raya kerajaan tempatan dikembalikan:

“Ahli majlis yang dilantik tidak boleh menyuarakan kepentingan pembayar cukai secara efektif kerana mereka tidak melapor kepada pembayar cukai. Lantikan bukan gantian sebenar kepada perwakilan melalui pilihan raya. Pelantikan adalah tinggalan kolonial, dan bertentangan dengan ide demokrasi.” (Athi Nahappan 1968:99)

Isu-isu yang dipertaruhkan dalam mengembalikan ketiga adalah demokrasi, akauntabiliti dan urustadbir yang baik, dan tidak ada kena mengena dengan kaum. – 28 Januari, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 11:40 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Squabbling politicians leaving Malaysians without much leadership or hope

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

28 January 2015

Nearly two years after the last Malaysian general elections, both the ruling and opposition coalitions are imploding – one with internal leadership crises and the other with public quarrels over policies.

In the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN), Umno and MIC leaders past and present are tussling for influence and leadership, the MCA is largely irrelevant while Gerakan and PPP are absent.

On the other side, Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) DAP and PAS are crossing swords and PKR is just opposing everything with a street protest always a handy tool to keep it seen as championing a cause.

The big loser? Ordinary Malaysians.

 Never before has this country been so bereft of political talent, men and women of integrity, vision and empathy than today when it faces the twin crises of low commodity prices and currency.

The best example of this fact is Umno. Neither the Najib camp or the so-called Dr Mahathir/Daim camp inspire confidence or hope among most Malaysians. Both are stuck to courting a Malay heartland, leaving other Malaysians feeling disenfranchised in their own country.

Right now, the supporters of Prime Minister and Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak are in the midst of a psy-war against his critics, some resorting to the old party playbook of sex allegations and financial scandals to all-out cyber attacks.

While Tun Daim Zainuddin has been quiet, his former boss, Malaysia’s longest-serving prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has turned up the ante by offering caustic comments about a leadership he no longer supports.

For Najib, it is his leadership at stake. For Dr Mahathir and his supporters, it is Umno’s fate at the next general elections as the party and BN have collectively lost more votes in the last two federal polls.

If the trend continues, Umno’s nightmare of losing political and economic power to its former number two, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim becoming PM, might come true. In short, that is the analysis of Najib’s critics who say his political and economic policies have exacerbated Umno’s dwindling support.

The same is being played out in MIC, a party more concerned about itself than the shrinking Indian community it purportedly represents.

But in a coalition of mainly racial silos, the MIC and the BN parties that represent everyone else except Malays now have even less clout than the second biggest BN party, PBB from Sarawak.

One would think that the PR pact would take advantage of the infighting within BN parties to move forward and attract even more support after their successful run in Election 2008 and 2013.

Instead, that success has been more of a bane than a boon for the three parties in PR. PAS were not on the same page with PKR on the Selangor state government leadership change last year.

Both PKR and DAP are at odds with PAS over its insistence to introduce Islamic criminal laws, or hudud, in Kelantan. And now PAS has opened up another front – quibbling about DAP’s local government election plans.

Their presidential leadership council remains only in name as they have not met since the Selangor impasse over removing Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim as Menteri Besar last year.

Where does that leave Malaysians who face a year where purchasing power will be severely curtailed by a weak ringgit and the imposition of a consumption tax that will affect a wider pool of people than the more than one million registered taxpayers?

Where does that leave Malaysians facing a time when race and religion is taking over the public space for debate and discussions instead of issues of rule of law and good governance?

Where is the leadership and hope for Malaysians in the next few years to focus as a nation in a souring economy when its politicians are more interested in keeping their jobs and influence?

And in the short term, can Najib avoid the fate of his predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who left office after incessant internal criticisms? And can PR escape the fate of its predecessor, Barisan Alternatif, that self-destructed over hudud?

The real question is, are there leaders out there who think more about Malaysia than just their time in office? – January 28, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 12:29 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bill Gates Also Worries Artificial Intelligence Is A Threat

Eric Mack

Forbes

1/28/2015

Aside from founding Microsoft, Bill Gates is known as an all-around smart guy who has put his money where his mouth is when it comes to saving the world. It would seem that this makes his opinions worth considering when he tells us that he, like fellow brainiac Stephen Hawking and Tesla Motors founder / Iron Man inspiration Elon Musk, fears that artificial intelligence could pose a threat to humanity.

In a Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) session on Wednesday, Gates echoed the concerns expressed over the past year by Hawking, Musk and others that something vaguely resembling the science fiction scenarios from the Terminator and Matrix franchises could come to pass if the potential of artificial superintelligence is not taken seriously.

“I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well,” Gates wrote. “A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned.”

Earlier this month, Elon Musk put down $10 million of his own money to fund an effort to keep artificial intelligence friendly. Gates and Musk both have an interest in ensuring that artificial intelligence not only stays friendly, but stays viable (e.g. – public sentiment and lawmakers don’t turn against the basic notion of smart networks and devices), given that it’s likely to play a role in the future of not only Microsoft, but also Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla.

Personal interests aside, Musk and Gates could just be right about the threat posed by artificial superintelligence. When the guys most likely to benefit from a new technology see a need for it to be put on a leash, there’s probably something worth worrying about.

To really understand the potential threat Musk and Gates are talking about, I highly recommend reading Nick Bostrom’s recent book, “Superintelligence,” which lays out the entire artificial superintelligence landscape – including threats posed. Musk has referred to and recommended it in the past and it seems to be the primary foundation for much of the recent concern over A.I.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 January 2015, 7:27 am and is filed under
IT
,
science/technology
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysian Cabinet probably the worst in Malaysian history – acting like the traditional three monkeys with eyes that see not, ears that hear not and mouths that speak not

The Malaysian Cabinet Edition 2015 is probably the worst in the 58-year Malaysian history – acting like the traditional three monkeys with eyes that see not, ears that hear not and mouths that speak not.

Did the Cabinet repudiate and reprimand the Urban Well-being, Housing and Local Government Minister, Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan for his irresponsible and reckless statement that the restoration of local government elections could worsen racial polarization when supporting the equally bizarre statement by the PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang that the restoration of the third vote could cause a repeat of the May 13 race riots?

Abdul Rahman is the most irresponsible Local Government Minister in the nation’s history for no other Local Government Minister had ever made such a statement in the past 50 years since the suspension of local government elections on March 1965 on the ground of threat from Indonesian Confrontation.

And yet nobody in Cabinet dared to confront him and propose that the Cabinet should reprimand him and dissociate itself from the Local Government Minister’s irresponsible and reckless remarks on the restoration of local government elections.

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had dismissed the previous Cabinet as “half-past six” and former Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin had shown utter contempt of what he described as “deadwood” Ministers.

But the present Cabinet of Ministers are worse than being “half-past six” and “deadwood” when they could completely lock themselves off from a series of  far-reaching developments in the country, like:

•	Abdul Rahman’s irresponsible rationale about worsening racial polarization if the third vote is restored;

•	Home Minister Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi’s gross breach of Ministerial propriety,  code of conduct and even violation of Official Secrets Act when he wrote the infamous letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) vouching for the character and integrity of an alleged gambling kingpin Paul Phua standing trial in Las Vegas, Nevada for illegal gambling, contradicting the earlier Malaysian police account to FBI – without the consent or knowledge of the Inspector-General of Police, the Foreign Ministry, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister.

•	The latest crackdown against university students and academicians, like the refusal to renew the contract of the University of Malaya deputy vice chancellor Professor Dr. Mohd Hamdi Abdul Shukor because of his refusal to support UMNO and the punitive action against the UM8 student leaders in the University of Malaya for organising a political talk while Malaysian educational standards, primary, secondary and tertiary, continue to head south!

•	Continued crackdown against freedom of expression, latest example being police raid  of the office of Malaysiakini’s cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar Hague, better known as Zunar, in  police  investigations under the Sedition Act – demonstrating the remorseless process of  selective prosecution by the Attorney-General and selective police investigations under the Sedition Act, attracting the concern of a lengthening list of countries and organisations about human rights violations, latest being the Canadian Foreign Minister, John Baird.

•	The increasing cases of deaths in police custody, with the Seremban Coroner’s Court verdict yesterday that the death of police detainee, P. Karuna Nitha, 42, engineer, two years ago in the Tampin police lock-up was the result of assaults by both policemen and other lock-up detainees.

Has the Cabinet ever discussed the Open Letter to the Prime Minister by the 25 Eminent Malays, and the snowballing support from Malaysians regardless of race, religion and region, on the need for government action to foster national unity by taking a strong and uncompromising stand against extremism, intolerance and bigotry?

Malaysians do not want a Cabinet which is not prepared to adopt a  hands-on approach and responsibility on the great and critical issues of democracy, good governance, human rights,  educational excellence and national unity.

Malaysians do not deserve a “half-past six” Cabinet of deadwood Ministers!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 January 2015, 12:40 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Human Rights
,
Malaysian Dream
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Restoration of local government elections was a DAP  issue in the Oct 1968 Segamat Utara by-election where Musa Hitam was first elected MP

A commentator  Hafidz Baharom in his article
“On Local Council Elections”
 in
 The Malaysian Insider
 yesterday asked:

“Why is the DAP suddenly asking to call for local council elections. Have they run out of friends in the NGOs to place on the local councils?

“To be frank, the timing for the call for local council elections is highly suspect particularly at a time when half the country is trying to recover from floods; an economic ‘non-crisis’; and a government trying to reduce spending”.

I will fully agree with Hafidz that at a time when “half the country is trying to recover from floods; an economic ‘non-crisis’; and a government trying to reduce spending”, it would be highly suspect for the DAP “to suddenly…call for local council elections”.

Except that the DAP had not been “suddenly calling for local  council elections” at a time when the country was trying to recover from the worst floods catastrophe within living memory.

The restoration of local council elections to return the third vote to the people of Malaysia had been the objective of the DAP since the DAP’s establishment close to five decades, but in recent months, DAP has not made an issue of the restoration of third vote, which only returned to the national limelight after the controversial statement by the PAS President, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang that the restoration of local government elections could lead to May 13 race riots.

The restoration of local government elections had in fact been a DAP issue in the Segamat Utara parliamentary by-election in Johor in October 1968 where Tun Musa Hitam was first elected as Member of Parliament – later to rise up the political ladder to become Deputy Prime Minister before becoming  the first scalp collected by Tun Dr. Mahathir, forcing Musa out into the political wilderness.

Looking at my old records, this is what I said at a Segamat Utara by-election rally in Buloh Kasap on Oct. 15, 1968:

“When the government suspended local council elections in March 1965, in the midst of Indonesian Confrontation, the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman gave a categorical assurance to Parliament and the nation that once peace conditions had been restored, local council elections would be held.

“The Tunku and the Alliance have broken their word to the nation.

“The Indonesian Confrontation has ended for about three years but local council elections are still suspended.

“To justify the continued suspension of local council elections, the government said it was waiting for the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Workings of Local Councils headed by Datuk Athi Nahappan, MIC Vice President.

“When this Commission was announced, everyone suspected it was meant to delay the return of local councils to the democratic control of the ratepayers. The government has succeeded in doing this for about three years and no one knows for how long more.

“The public was promised, variously through the Tunku, Khaw Khai Boh and even Datuk Athi Nahappan himself, that the report would be out, at first, in December 1966, then early 1967, then mid-1967, then end of 1967, then early 1968 and so on.

“But to date, the report is still a mystery.

“The Alliance government should seriously consider setting up a Commission of Inquiry to inquire what happened to the Athi Nahappan Report.

“There is no doubt that the delay is motivated purely by political considerations – the Alliance is afraid of having local council elections, because they know in towns like Segamat the Alliance will suffer a terrible defeat in Opposition hands.”

I made that  speech on restoring the third vote 47 years ago, and not just recently.

In fact, during my speech to the Pantai DAP Branch in Selangor  on 7th May 1968, I called for a five-point democratisation, including “DEMOCRATISE local government by immediately holding local council elections”, stressing that “The suspension of elections stifles grass-roots democracy, the fountain of democratic education for all villages and townspeople on the meaning and workings of the democratic process.”

My arguments for the restoration of the  third vote, to promote grassroots democracy in the towns and kampongs remain valid today.

At present, there are 148 local authorities in Malaysia, comprising three City Halls, nine City Councils, 37 Municipal Councils and 99 District Councils.

Assuming each local authority has  25 elected councillors if the third vote is restored, this would mean there would be a total of 3,700 elected councillors in the country.

If Pakatan Rakyat is to have any hope of  capturing Putrajaya in the 14 General Elections which would be held in less than three years, PR should have confidence of  winning 60-70% of the seats, which means electing some 2,200 to 2,600 PR Councillors – or each PR party having from 740 to 900 elected councillors, who will gain useful experience as grass-roots leaders and, who knows, among them will be future leaders of the country like Jokowi of Indonesia, Erdogan of Turkey or Ahmadnejad of Iran.

The 2010 Census reported that out of the 148 local authorities, 89.2% or 132 have Malay majorities of over 50% of the population, only two per cent or three of  the local authorities have Chinese majorities, while the balance of 13 having a plurality of races with seven Chinese dominant and six Malay dominant.

From the table of breakdown of the 148 local authorities,  Johor, Malacca and Negri Sembilan are states where  the three Pakatan Rakyat parties will be main beneficiaries to have local government elections.

Eleven of the 15 local authorities in Johor have Malay majorities, namely Pasir Gudang (91.4%);  Mersing (77.5%), Kota Tinggi (74.6%), Tangkak (59.8%). Pontian (58.7%), Yong Peng (56.7%), Simpang Renggam (55.9%), Johor Bahru (54.1%), Muar (54.0%) and Kulai (50.2%).

Four local authorities have a plurality of races, with two Malay dominant, namely Kluang (Malays 47.1%, Chinese 42.6%,Indians 9.9%, Others 0.5%) and Segamat (Malays 49.9%, Chinese 43.1%, Indians 6.6%, Others 0.4%) while two are Chinese dominant,Johore Bahru Tengah (Chinese 47.2%, Malays 38.8%, Indians 13.4%, Others 0.6%) and  Labis (Chinese 42.4%, Malays 39.2%, Indians 18.2%, Others 0.2%).

Seven of the eight local authorities in Negri Sembilan have clear Malay majorities – Rembau (81.1%), Kuala Pilah (72.7%), Nilai (63.2%), Jempol (58%), Jelebu (59.5%), Port Dickson (52.4%) and  (Seremban (50.9%). Tampin is the only local authority in the state with a plurality with Malay dominant, namely Malay 49.6%, Chinese 31.8%, Indians 18.2%, Others 0.3%.

Both of Malacca’s local authorities have Malay majorities – Alor Gajah (77.5%) and Melaka Bandaraya Bersejarah (60.6%).

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 29 January 2015, 5:51 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Four lies which UMNO front organisations and cybertroopers have been spreading about the DAP on the “third vote” issue in past week which must be debunked

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar has today ordered the police to investigate a Twitter user for claiming that the disappearance of flight MH370 was a conspiracy and not an accident.

In a text message to Malaysiakini, Khalid said that the twitter user’s message was “disturbing” and had “bad intentions”.

“We are trying to calm down the next-of-kin. So if you don’t know what’s really going on with MH370, don’t just shoot your mouth off and say something senseless which is uncorroborated by evidence,”
 he said.

At 11.12 am today, a Twitter User put up a message on my Twitter account alleging that I had caused the May 13 race riots and that on May 12, 1969 I had said:
“Melayu Balik Kampong. Melayu sekarang tiada kuasa. Sekarang kita Cina sudah control.”

This was an utter lie and falsehood as I was not in Kuala Lumpur on May 12, 1969. In fact, I was not in Kuala Lumpur from May 11 – 13, 1969 as Special Branch records can prove.

This mischievous and evil tweet is not the first of its kind, but the latest of a mountain of lies and falsehoods against DAP leaders by UMNO cybertroopers fomenting hatred, intolerance and extremism which will destroy Malaysia’s multi-racial and multi-religious fabric if not checked.

Khalid cannot be unaware of such dangerous tweets as  I had publicly  denounced such chicanery and dastard abuses of the social media several times before.

Why hasn’t Khalid instructed the Police against such Twitter users among the army of UMNO cybertroopers whose only mission is to spread and foment lies, hatred and extremism in Malaysia?

Does Khalid wants me to furnish proof of such mischievous Tweets before he would take action?

There is a strange phenomenon in the past week among the UMNO front organisations and cybertroopers since the shocking statement by the PAS President, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang that the restoration of local government elections could cause another May 13 race riots.

This has been followed by a systematic and co-ordinated attack of  DAP leaders through the social media by UMNO front organisations and the  UMNO army of  cybertroopers.

Basically in the past week, the  UMNO front organisations and cybertroopers have been spreading four lies about the DAP on the “third vote” issue which must be debunked:

THE FIRST LIE
 is their allegation that DAP is seeking full control of the country through the restoration of the third vote, suggesting that it was a post-13GE grab for political power by the Chinese at the expense of the Malays – even suggesting that DAP was well advanced for such “Chinese grab for political power” as 60 per cent of the state assembly seats in the country are already under the DAP control.

Such lies could be immediately exposed as most preposterous and utter nonsense if reason and common sense are allowed to shine on them, for they suffer from three fatal mistakes –

(i)	 DAP does not control 60% of the state assembly seats, as all the three Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PKR and PAS did not even win 50% of the total state assembly seats in the 13th General Election. The total number and percentage of state assembly seats won by the three PR parties in the 13GE are 229 seats or 45% of the total of  505 state assembly seats in the country.

(ii)	The DAP had never been a party for the Chinese or any one race or religion, as right from our establishment 49 years ago, DAP had been committed to the goal of being a party for Malaysians of all races and religions. In fact, DAP is the first Pan-Malaysian political party in Malaysia, with branches in all the states in the country.

(iii)	Restoration of local government had been the objective of DAP ever since our formation in 1966. I made at least two major speeches in Parliament on the restoration of local government during the three-year resumption of Parliament from 1971-1974 – my first term as an elected MP.

THE SECOND LIE
 – that the restoration of local council elections would benefit the Chinese at the expense of the Malays, ignoring the local government restructuring and the process of Malay urbanization in the past five decades, resulting in Malaysia  having 148 local authorities, about 90% of which have Malay majorities of over 50% of the population, while only two per cent or three of the 148 local authorities have Chinese majorities, leaving a balance of 13 with plurality of races, seven of which are Chinese-dominant and six Malay-dominant.

THE THIRD LIE
that DAP was “communist” and “chauvinist” in wanting local government elections. Local government elections are also held in Indonesia, Turkey and Iran. Are the UMNO front organisations and cybertrooper suggesting that Presidents Jokowi and Erdogan and former Iranian President Ahmadnejad or Indonesia, Turkey and Iran are “communist” and “chauvinist”?

THE FOURTH LIE
 that DAP had unilaterally and arbitrarily sought the restoration of the third vote in violation of Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework, when in fact, the restoration of local government elections was in both the Pakatan Rakyat national manifesto and the Selangor PR state manifesto for the 13th General Elections.

In March 2010, the Selangor Mentri Besar and the Penang Chief Minister wrote separate letters in the name of the respective PR state governments to the Election Commission asking it to conduct  local government elections in their respective states, which was opposed by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

All Malaysians, who believe in the new politics of honesty and truth, must repudiate the politics of lies, dishonesty and hate, and must help to expose and debunk these Four Lies about the restoration of local government elections which UMNO front organisations and cybertroopers are desperately trying to spread in the past week.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 January 2015, 3:35 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hurt and angry, MH370 families reject ‘death’ announcement

by Mazliza Mustafa

The Malaysian Insider

29 January 2015

Malaysia’s declaration of flight MH370 as lost in an accident and the death of its passengers and crew is a “cover-up and an attempt by the government to close the case quickly”, family members and relatives of those on board say.

“They have no guts to announce it right to our face,” said a passenger’s family member, Mohd Sahril Shaari of the televised announcement made by the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) this evening.

“Not only that, where was the transport minister? Where (was) the prime minister? They don’t feel that this is a priority?

“Apparently not, as the person who made the announcement was only the Department of Civil Aviation director-general,” said Sahril who was present at the scheduled press briefing earlier in the afternoon which was cancelled at the last minute.

He said he “knew the government was going to announce something bad” after the briefing, initially scheduled for 3.30pm, was abruptly called off.

Instead, a live telecast of director-general of DCA Datuk Azharuddin Abdul Rahman’s announcement, was later made behind closed doors without the media and next-of-kin present.

Sahril’s cousin, Mohd Razahan Zamani, was among the 239 passengers and crew members on board MH370 when the plane disappeared from radar screens over Vietnamese airspace, less than an hour after it took off from Kuala Lumpur, en route to Beijing on March 8, 2014.

Sahril further said that the government was also being insensitive as the minister in charge was not present when the announcement was made.

“It looks like we are not important any more. (The government) just wants to close the case, to shut us from asking any more questions and to issue the death certificates. They even declare it to the media without telling us first. Where is the priority?”

He said other families that he had spoken to also expressed unhappiness with how the news was broken to them.

“If they said this is to help the family, they would have done it earlier. Why now? We are not after the money. What we want is the truth,” said Sahril.

Syafinaz Hasnan, whose brother was on board the plane, said she could not accept the declaration of an accident.

“To announce this as an accident is not correct. Accident with what? It just an excuse to declare it so they can make an announcement on the deaths,” she said.

She said that the government should have informed the next-of-kin earlier and separately, instead of through a public announcement.

“Where is the sincerity? Afraid of backlash? They said that they will take care of our feelings and our interest. It appears otherwise.”

Lokman Mustafa, however, said he could accept the death of his sister who was on the plane, but added that he would find it difficult to explain to his mother, especially without concrete evidence.

“I can take it – dead, lost. But to tell this to my mother, they have to come up with something more. There’s no fuselage, there’s no debris, there’s nothing. There’s more mystery to it. I still puzzle as how they can declare it an accident,” said Lokman.

Lokman’s sister Suhaili and her 19 colleagues were employees of semiconductor company Freescale Malaysia and were on their way to Beijing for a one-month course on MH370.

Among her colleagues on the same flight were Safuan Ramlan, 33, and Muzi Yusop, 50, both senior managers.

Lee Kim Fatt, who lost his wife, said he could understand the need for the government to announce the plane as lost and all on board dead, but he was angry with the manner the announcement was handled.

“I am angry as to how the news was broken to us. I cannot accept that my wife is dead. If they say this can help some in getting some financial things done, I do get it. But I need the proof that my wife is no longer alive,” said Lee.

Malaysia today declared that flight MH370 was lost in an accident, and that all its 239 passengers and crew members on board were dead.

Azharuddin, when making the announcement today, said the government acknowledged that the declaration would be difficult for the next-of-kin.

“It is, nonetheless, important that families try to resume normal lives, or as normal a life as may be possible after this sudden loss. Without in any way intending to diminish the feelings of the families, it is hoped that this declaration will enable the families to obtain the assistance they need, in particular through the compensation process.” – January 29, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 January 2015, 6:06 am and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Is declaration one step closer to ending search?’

by Hamzah Nazari

The Rakyat Post

Jan 29, 2015

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 29, 2015:

The wife of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 crew member Patrick Francis Gomes is asking if the announcement by the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) is a step towards ending the search for the missing aircraft.

Jacquita Gonzales found fault with the announcement for many reasons, among them that DCA director-general Datuk Azharuddin Abdul Rahman referred to various airline conventions in his speech.

She wanted a promise to be made that the search will continue.

Azharuddin today announced that the Malaysian government had classified the MH370 incident as an accident with no survivors, although the search will continue.

“You (Azharuddin) said the search would go on, but for how long?” Jacquita asked.

From her understanding of what Azharuddin said, Jacquita said it seemed like the search would only continue as long as it was practical, possibly only until May this year.

“After that, who is going to conduct the search? If they follow the convention, they can terminate the search whenever they want.

“Give us an assurance that it will continue until the plane is found.”

Jacquita  said it also seemed like the DCA was absolving itself of responsibility and did not seem to consider the families despite the wording of the speech because it was made public first.

“It’s over and done with for them. It’s like washing off hands for them.

“Such a nice statement; it must have been written earlier.

“Where was the promise that we would be informed first?

“We’ve been trying to find out about this announcement since the 27th, but people said they didn’t know anything or that they would let us know when in actual fact, they’ve been planning all this.

“To learn about this on television… To declare my husband is dead…

“That is not the right way to do things. You know what they call the TV? The idiot box.”

Apologising for disrupting the earlier press conference, Jacquita said they should have at least called.

“I’m sorry I attended the session today and they cancelled it because they didn’t want to upset us.

“How many family members are here in Malaysia? Is it hard to call us in person?

“They cancelled the press conference due to unforeseen circumstances. I guess the families were the ‘unforeseen circumstances’.

“I feel like I’m the general public. We are the family members.”

The DCA had initially scheduled a press conference at their headquarters in Putrajaya at 3.30pm today.

However, it was called off at the last minute after members of the media as well as MH370 next of kin gathered there.

It was then replaced with a live television broadcast over RTM1 where Azharuddin made the announcement.

Meanwhile, Malaysian Airlines System Employees Union (Maseu) executive secretary Mohd Jabbarullah Abd Kadir opined that at least, from a legal standpoint, the announcement would resolve matters.

“It was a good way to settle legal issues. They will keep looking till they find it; that is separate.

“But at least it means the family members can receive compensation.

“We support that part,” he said, also noting that the family members did not seem happy with the announcement.

Regarding any assistance that Maseu might be able to provide, Mohd Jabbarullah said they would need to discuss the announcement first.

“Now that it’s like this, we will discuss it in our exco. We have to give assistance where we can.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 January 2015, 5:38 am and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MH370 kin say on ‘rollercoaster’ of emotions after DCA cancels presser

by Ida Lim

Malay Mail Online

January 29, 2015

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 29 — Families of passengers and crew aboard flight MH370 were left reeling after the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) abruptly cancelled a hastily called media briefing on the still-missing plane.

Jacquita Gonzales, the wife of inflight supervisor Patrick Gomes, said family members found out from reporters today that the DCA was planning on giving a media update, despite having tried on their own to get updates since two days ago.

“It’s not right, we are going through a rollercoaster. One minute this, one minute that, our emotions are whacked right now. We don’t know what to say, what to feel.

“I think for the cabin crew’s family, again a rollercoaster, what do you want to announce, please put us at peace. Tell us, don’t beat around the bush, we are bright, you know,” she told reporters.

Yesterday, Voice370 – the self-styled support group for families of those on board the missing plane – addressed rumours that the Malaysian authorities’ would make a major announcement about the flight, saying they will not accept such declarations from Putrajaya without physical evidence of the plane’s fate.

Gonzales today said that it would be better for the authorities to be honest and frank with the families, as there is little for them to go on at the moment.

“You tell me what’s the actual meaning of loss and missing, between these two, then we’ll know how to feel.

“Right now, we are lost too. We are also lost,” she added.

When asked about a possible declaration that the plane was lost, Gonzales insisted that all those on board wanted to return home.

“I’m sure my husband wants to come home. Anybody who gets lost, they want to come home.

“My husband did not go and not want to come home. He has got a lot to look forward to. Even Intan’s husband also wants to come home. All the families want to come home,” she said, ahead of the DCA’s announcement this evening that the MH370 was an “accident” and all those on board were presumed dead.

Intan Maizura, 33, who was holding a toddler in her arms, was present with the sister of her husband Rain Hasnan – a cabin crew member of MH370.

On March 24 last year, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak confirmed that the missing MAS jetliner MH370 “ended” its journey in the southern Indian Ocean, but stopped short of saying that the Boeing 777 aircraft had crashed into the vast ocean.

Yesterday, news agency Reuters reported Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Aziz Kaprawi as saying the DCA will release an interim report on the investigation into the missing plane on March 7, a day before the one-year anniversary of the plane’s disappearance.

Retired Australian Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, who had led Australia’s response to MH370 and downed flight MH17 in Ukraine, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday that it was possible that the missing plane might never be found in the deep waters of the vast ocean.

Flight MH370 disappeared on March 8 last year, dropping off radar coverage not long after taking off from the Kuala Lumpur International Airport en-route to Beijing.

There were 239 passengers and crew on board the plane that remains missing till today, with no indication as to its resting place despite months of searching.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 January 2015, 6:23 am and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MH370: Nine things we will never know about the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines plane

Rose Troup Buchanan

Independent

29 January 2015

Authorities declared the flight’s disappearance an ‘accident’ today, but promised that the search would remain a ‘top priority’

Malaysian officials have confirmed that although the search for missing flight MH370 will continue, the disappearance of the aircraft has been labelled an “accident”, effectively drawing a line in the sand over speculation.

But for those fascinated by the mysterious disappearance of the plane, this means that there are many things we will – probably – never know.

1. Where is the plane now?

Obviously, this is the million-pound question. And one which Malaysian authorities have seemingly admitted they may never find. Although they had stressed that searching for the missing aircraft will remain a “top priority” – approaching a year after the plane’s disappearance, hope is fading.

The most recent searches have focused on a swath of ocean off the western coast of Australia. Despite the use of sophisticated sonar equipment, and aid from governments including China, nothing conclusive has turned up.

The search area has expanded massively to include the territory of a dozen countries The search area has expanded massively to include the territory of a dozen countries

2. Why were the plane’s communications systems disabled?

MH370’s transponder, which communicates with the ground, was shut down as the plane travelled from Malaysian air traffic control to Vietnamese controlled airspace.

There does not appear to be any rational explanation for this, with some aviation experts labelling the pilot’s decision to do so “extraordinary”. Fingers have been pointed towards malicious intent, either on the behalf of the pilots or of an unknown ‘outside’ player in the scenario.

Realistically, it is impossible to know and with the continued absence of the plane’s black box we will probably never know the final moments in the cockpit.

3. Why was the plane’s disappearance not spotted immediately?

As mentioned, the plane’s was shut down during the flight, but this appears to have gone unnoticed until much later.

One possible reason for this is simply human error – Malaysian air control would have handed over to their Vietnamese counterparts and simply forgotten about it.

4. Why did the plane make a sharp left turn?

Conspiracy theories abound on this question. Military logs show the plane turned west, deviating from its planned flight path, shortly after the plane’s transponder had been switched off and the last ACARS (the system used to communicate with the ground) datalink transmission had been sent.

One theory, suggested by aviation blogger Chris Goodfellow, claims that the sharp left turn came after the aircraft’s communications were knocked out in some kind of catastrophe.

According to Mr Goodfellow, the actions of the pilot – in the situation – would be to turn towards the nearest safe airport, possibly Paulau Langwaki.

5. Was the plane hijacked?

Since 9/11 all airlines have fitted their cabin cockpits with reinforced ‘bulletproof’ doors designed to prevent exactly such a hijacking.

Realistically, it is unlikely anyone would be able to get into the cockpit once these doors had been closed – moreover the pilots should have been able to issue a distress call had it happened.

There are times when the doors are open, which allows for the possibility of a hijack, or even if passengers had been invited into the cockpit – as the co-pilot of MH370 was shown to have done previously.

6. Did the pilots have something to do with the possible crash?

Extensive searches were carried out on both pilots’ homes and backgrounds – and turned up nothing conclusive. But there is equally nothing to disprove it.

There have been occasions when pilots are believed to have carried out suicidal thoughts: Egypt Air flight 990 (1999) and Silk Air flight 185 (1997) are both considered to be examples of this.

7. Was the entire event just a series of fluke chances and bad luck?

We love a good conspiracy but there is a chance that the flight disappearance is the result of a series of accidents, disabling parts of the plane in stages.

For example; a fire could have caused the communications to be knocked out but left the plane broadly intact. Later, there could have been gradual decompression which would have caused hypoxia, incapacitating the crew and passengers, until the crasH.

8. Would passengers have known something was happening?

It depends on what happened previously. If the events leading up to the plane’s crash were hostile, then it is fair to expect that many passengers were aware that something was wrong.

However, given the time the plane appears to have disappeared – middle of the night – there is a chance many passengers would have been asleep and would have been unaware of the events unfolding around them, especially if the possible crash was just a fluke series of accidents.

9. Did the plane crash land?

It has been estimated that the plane still had enough fuel to fly another 2,200 miles from its known location after its communication devices were turned off. This leaves a dizzyingly large area – and roughly 634 runways where it is possible for an aircraft of that size could have landed.

Other suggestions – mostly from that most verifiable of sources ‘The Internet’ – claim the flight could have landed on a deserted island somewhere. This plays into conspiracy theories suggesting the flight was hijacked and later touched down somewhere.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 January 2015, 6:07 pm and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“Where is the Transport Minister and Prime Minister?” encapsulates the heart-rending cries of despair and outrage of bereaved families of 239 passengers/crew of MH 370  at the continued bungling, insensitivity  and lack of respect shown to them by Malaysian authorities

“Where is the Transport Minister and Prime Minister?” encapsulates the heart-rending cries of despair and outrage of the bereaved families of 239 passengers/crew of MH 370 at the continued bungling, insensitivity  and lack of respect shown to them by the Malaysian authorities.

There is no answer to the outrage of a family member who said: “They have no guts to announce it right to our face”, for it was the truth.

Clearly, the Malaysian authorities have not learnt very much from their series of blunders and failures  in the mishandling of the MH 370 disaster since the disaster of the disappearance of the MAS jetliner on March 8 last year, in particular  to treat the bereaved families with respect, whether with regard to the latest updates on the missing plane or government’s intention or plans.

Why didn’t the authorities first inform and consult the bereaved families before making any official announcement  yesterday that MH 370 was “an accident” and all 239 passengers and crew on board presumed to have lost their lives?

What is worse, the Malaysian authorities were involved in a “cat-and-mouse” game with the bereaved families who had been trying to find out about the announcement since January 27, but those in authority would not let them know  anything although in actual fact they were planning it; and the cancellation of the earlier scheduled press briefing  yesterday when family members were present resulting in the Director General of the Department  of Civil Aviation Datuk Azharuddin Abdul Rahman making the announcement in a live telecast behind closed doors without the media and next-of-kin present.

All these  were not disaster management practices at their best and one is reminded of the disaster management failures in  the worst floods catastrophe in living memory in Malaysia only last month!

The greatest fear and concern of the bereaved families is that the Malaysian authorities, in particular the Department of Civil Aviation, were absolving themselves of responsibility for the MH 370 disaster and were taking the first steps towards ending the search for the missing aircraft.

The absence of the Prime Minister and the Transport Minister only reinforces their fear and concern that the authorities were about to wash their hands of the disaster.

How can the Prime Minister and Transport Minister give them,  the country  and world – as bereaved families are also from foreign nations  – a firm,  categorical and credible guarantee that the Malaysian government  will not give up the search for the missing aircraft?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 30 January 2015, 7:51 am and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP to call for an all-party Parliamentary Committee to inquire  into all unresolved public interest questions on the  Altantunya Murder Case when Parliament reconvenes on March 9

DAP will call for an all-party Parliamentary Committee to inquire into all unresolved public interest questions on the Altantunya Murder Case when Parliament reconvenes on March 9.

The latest news is that Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar has refused to return to Malaysia from Australia to face the gallows.

Sirul, the ex-elite force police commando who, together with Chief Inspector Azila Hadri, had been sentenced to death for the 2006 murder of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibu, is now detained at Sydney’s Villawood immigration centre.

Nobody is surprised that Sirul,  who had belonged to an elite police squad, the Special Action Unit (UTK),   has refused to come back, as he is clearly nursing a great sense of grievance and injustice  for his dastardly deed of murdering a defenceless Mongolian woman as he must have believed at the time he was performing the  highest act of “loyalty” in the interest of the state, and  now to be condemned as a “rogue policeman” and having to face the gallows without any “protection” from his “patrons” for his act of “loyalty”.

Malaysians, including conscientious and responsible policemen and women, who comprise the overwhelming majority of the police personnel, are   outraged by the blabbering of  Abdul Razak Baginda, who was acquitted of abetiting in the murder of Altantuya without his defence being called, for instance, when he maligned the 130,000-strong police force when commenting on the motive for the killing of Altantuya: “Only the two policemen know. Rogue police do kill people, like in so many remand cases”.

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar  objected meekly to Abdul Razak Baginda’s aspersions and maligning of the police force, protesting that Razak’s “blanket statement in unacceptable”, when Malaysians had expected a more forceful response from the IGP to Razak’s insinuation that all cases of custodial deaths were due to police brutality.

But even more pertinent, Malaysians had not expected the IGP to be so supine as to virtually accept Razak’s cop-out account that it is impossible to know the motive for the murder of Altantunya.

It is a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the  Inspector General of Police that he is not interested in finding out why two member of the elite police force, one a Chief Inspector and the other a Corporal, murdered in cold-blood  a defenceless Mongolian woman, using C4 explosives,  when both did not know the victim and had no logical motive or reasonable cause for committing the murder.

Although the courts did not establish the motive for the murder of Altantunya, the least a responsible and conscientious IGP should do after the completion of the murder trial  would be to launch a thorough and wide-ranging inquiry to ascertain why two elite policemen, tasked with protecting people’s lives, had murdered in cold blood defenceless Altantuya?

In his confession to the police in the form of a caution statement, Sirul Azhar Umar told the interrogating officer that he was offered RM50,000 to RM100,000 to kill Altantuya.

Is Khalid prepared to have a full inquiry as to how members of the elite police force could  be bought to break the law as to commit a cold-blooded murder just for money, and who offered Sirul this money?

Is Khalid prepared to defend his police personnel to ascertain whether Sirul and Azilah had gone on a frolic of their own to kill Altantuya with C4 explosives, or whether they were told to do so by very powerful individuals?

Does Khalid agree with Razak that this was a “straightforward murder” case?

Why then was Deputy Superintendent Musa Safri, the Prime Minister’s former aide-de-camp involved?

Why were records of Altantuya’s going in and out of Malaysia expunged?

Was Altantuya was in any way involved with the mutli-billion ringgit Scorpene submarine scandal?

Razak was being most  insensitive and despicable  when he dragged the MH 370 disaster, with the families and relatives of the 239 passengers and crew still grieving at the unfound airline after nearly 11 months, comparing it to the Altantuya murder case.

The courts have found Sirul and Azila guilty of Altantunya’s murder without trying to establish the motive of the murder.

The court of public opinion, in Malaysia, Mongolia and worldwide, expect more – and clearly justice has not been served not only to Altantuya and her families, but not even to Sirul and Azila and their families, when the motive for the murder of Altantuya is not probed and revealed.

An  all-party Parliamentary Committee to inquire  into all unresolved public interest questions on the  Altantunya Murder Case when Parliament reconvenes on March 9 will be one follow-up action that could be taken to find answers to the maze of Altantuya questions haunting the nation.

The All-Party Parliamentary Committee on unresolved public interest questions on the Altantuya Murder Case is best chaired by an Opposition MP, but if there is any Barisan Nasional MP who is prepared to chair it, I do not see it as a major objection.

If the Barisan Nasional government is not prepared to establish such an all-party Parliamentary Committee, then alternatives will have to be explored – for instance a hybrid of a Parliamentary-Civil Society Committee comprising MPs from both BN and PR who are prepared to serve, as well as civil society participation.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 31 January 2015, 1:26 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Don’t ever use religion to justify caning women

Syerleena Abdul Rashid

The Malaysian Insider

30 January 2015

So apparently, there are some men who think that it is completely acceptable to cane women as a measure to reprimand her of her duties as a woman.

Most Malaysians are aware that we live in a patriarchal society, a system that favours men and disregards the significance of the opposite gender.

Understandably, certain ancient religious scriptures may highlight verses that may come across as permitting a husband to “strike lightly”.

A few days ago, a local daily reported that an influential individual expressed his thoughts on the matter. “Husbands are allowed to hit their wives for the purpose of teaching without the intention to hurt them or disgrace them. This method, however, should be the last resort after all other methods fail, including reprimanding her and sleeping separately,” he said.

In other words, in order to keep women in line, husbands must shower them with blows and I don’t mean the affectionate type.

Whatever happened to discussing things or talking things over? Violence or inflicting both physical and mental harm on anyone should never be the last resort. For someone in a top-ranking position to utter detestable remarks that showcase just how misogynistic some Malaysian men are, is regrettably unflattering.

It was reported that Prophet Muhammad’s dying words were “Treat women well. You have rights over them and they have rights over you. They are your committed partners.”

This advice resonated well with his successors: Zaynab bin Ali was a noted brilliant community leader, one of the greatest during his time; Lubna of Cordoba and Fatima al-Fihri of Morocco – academics who inspired and contributed to the Golden Age of Islam and the positive ways women were treated back then.

Islam’s solution to end violence against women and preventing all forms of discrimination was embodied as a secular practice, one that could co-exist with religion.

Of course, these days, the term secular brings shivers down the spines of every conservative traditionalist who associate the word with apostasy.

Islam is a beautiful religion, one that certainly does not advocate violence or encourage men to discriminate women.

Our religion requires men to safeguard the wellbeing of women – wives and daughters, it requires men to treat women as equals and most unquestionably, be responsible for their (men) own behaviour.

Prophet Muhammad forbade Muslim men to hit women, according to hadith (Abdullah ibn Zama’ – who narrates from the Prophet): “Don’t beat your wife as if she is a slave”.

Most men tend to misuse and misinterpret the true positive teachings of Islam, endorsements created to perpetuate ill-will towards women are a gross violation to the spirit and law of Islam.

It is after all, a question of interpretation, whether it is correct or false, whether it is in line with universal value or contradicting, is something human beings must understand.

For example, in the Quran, Surah An-Nisaa 4:34-35 states: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) hit them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things.”

Although the word “hit” is used, it does not imply physical abuse or does it permits any form of violence towards women.

The word itself and the entire verse can be interpreted in various ways but it does not permit violence nor condone disciplining women or wives into submission. Therefore, it is especially important to read the entire section carefully and thoroughly. Interpretations must not be taken out of context nor shall it be used to justify any transgressions.

How we dress or what lifestyle choices we make or how opinionated we choose to be do not inspire or instigate any form of violence or maltreatment.

Domestic abuse and gender bigotry happens when men do not treat women with respect. It happens because our society may choose to ignore the significance of moral characteristics through civility in discourse and respecting women’s rights to self-empowerment and determination.

Our society chooses, instead, to allow men to do or say as they please without any consequences –punishment is reserved for women and commemoration is reserved for men.

Unfortunately, misogynistic remarks will continue to happen and little action will ever be taken upon those who utter such crass suggestions.

There are other alternatives than rehabilitating women through caning, try talking and identifying any grouses in a respectable and cordial manner for a change.

You know, women are excellent listeners if some men take the time and effort to learn the art of communicating.

So caning women for the purpose of training us in our duties isn’t exactly the best solution, as a matter of fact it is never a solution,  but in a different context – one that might include some unspeakable fetishes, well, that isn’t something the public wants to hear and requires another article all together. – January 30, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 31 January 2015, 3:14 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
women
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan Rakyat viewed from within and without

by Elizabeth Zachariah and Melati A. Jalil

The Malaysian Insider

31 January 2015

Despite public spats over core issues of ideology, such as hudud or the Islamic penal code, and basic democratic rights, such as voting for local councils, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders are optimistic the opposition coalition will survive its worst bout of discord since it wowed voters in the 2008 general election.

Differences between the coalition’s member parties – PKR, DAP and PAS, with the Islamist party appearing the most dissonant – are now at their most obvious since bubbling to the surface last year over the Kajang Move to force a by-election in the hopes of installing a new Selangor menteri besar.

At the PAS general assembly last year, conservative delegates of the Islamist party openly displayed animosity towards the PR pact over PAS’s less-than-dominant position in the coalition.

And notably, the PR leadership or presidential council have not met for more than six months. Prior to that, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang was reported as being absent from earlier meetings for more than a year.

Is PR still a functioning coalition?

Politicians from its three component parties note the challenges but remain confident, while cautioning their top leaders to to discuss and settle differences behind closed doors instead of airing them publicly.

Civil society activists, however, were more critical, with lawyer and Negara-ku patron Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan noting that PR’s credibility was at stake with all the in-fighting and that PAS should “do the honourable thing” by leaving the coalition if it felt the partnership was not working for them.

The Malaysian Insider conducted a straw poll with the following leaders of PR parties, two activists and two members of the public:

* Datuk Mujahid Yusof Rawa, 51, Parit Buntar MP and chairman of PAS’s national unity bureau.

* Sim Tze Tzin, 39, Bayan Baru MP and PKR strategic director.

* Maria Chin Abdullah, 59, Bersih 2.0 chair.

* N. Surendran, Padang Serai MP (PKR).

* Nurul Izzah Anwar, 34, Lembah Pantai MP and PKR vice-president.

* Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, 59, executive director of PAS Research Centre.

* Anthony Loke Siew Fook, 38, Seremban MP and DAP national organising secretary.

* Zairil Khir Johari, 32, Bukti Bendera MP, DAP Assistant National Publicity Secretary and CEO of Penang Institute.

* Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, 59, lawyer and patron of Negara-ku.

* Hanipa Maidin, 46, Sepang MP (PAS).

* M. Kulasegaran, 58, Ipoh Barat MP and DAP national vice-chairman.

* Mohd Azmin Haziq, 45, general manager of private company.

* Ropinah Abdul Hamid, 51, consultant.

TMI: Do you still believe in the Pakatan Rakyat as a coalition?

Surendran: It has been an immensely successful history-making coalition – breaking BN’s two-thirds majority in two successive general elections and winning several states. (PR) did this against the odds. PR has brought Malaysia closer than ever before to a two-party system.

Ambiga: PR had for the first time provided the people with a clear alternative to the party in power. This means that for the first time, we had a shot at multi-party democracy, something that we all aspire to. Since 2008, the opposition has had a real presence in Parliament and they have certainly asked pertinent and searching questions in Parliament and have held the government accountable on many issues.

Zairil: Yes, the only way to effect change and reform in Malaysia is through the polls, and we cannot hope to win without a credible and strong alternative that represents all Malaysians.

Mujahid: I believe in PR’s commitment to break racial politics and it has a good track record based on that. PR also made inroads in implementing part of their manifesto in Penang, Selangor and Kelantan. As for now, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just the few leaders on top exchanging bullets, especially PAS and DAP. The second layer of leaders have to keep on with PR’s hope for a better Malaysia.

Maria: As far as Bersih 2.0 is concerned, we are only keen on who will advance the electoral and democratic reform in Malaysia. We will work with any individual, party and organisation who will support our clean and fair elections and reform agenda. In most of our public activities and rallies we have always invited all political parties, regardless.

Dzulkefly: PR may have its problems and they are neither frivolous nor easy to solve, mind you. But that’s in the nature of coalition politics as in an organisational behaviour in the discipline of organisational development. You see that in a single party or organisation and you should expect a lot worse in a coalition of political parties.

Mohd Azmin Haziq: Yes, because the Barisan Nasional (BN) is really dominant, we need to balance our politics.

Ropinah: Yes, if they can be together with all their differences. If they cannot work out their differences, they (should still) stand together but everybody can have their own differences.

TMI: What is the best solution to the strained ties between the parties now?

Mujahid: Ceasefire, agree to disagree, sit down, focus on bigger issues and be honest.

Kulasegaran: Challenging and difficult issues are best discussed and sorted out internally.

Nurul Izzah: This is a challenging moment for the PR leadership council – and I hope that leaders across the spectrum understand the underpinning importance of strengthening the council regardless of the challenges. Each one will be tested on putting aside differences which naturally exists and focus on our common principles for a better Malaysia.

Loke: All three parties (should) reaffirm our commitment to the common policy framework and stick by it. We can put aside all the differences if PAS agrees not to pursue the hudud agenda without PR consensus.

Sim: At this point, Pakatan is using a top-down approach. Grassroots and young leaders do not have institutions to work together. (We must build) PR institutions from federal level to state level to branch level down to the “ranting” and village committee level. Get the young leaders to work together in political projects together. They must be instituted to meet monthly. Build trust and comradeship and deliver political projects together. This will strengthen PR to be a truly modern political coalition.

Zairil: The leadership of all three parties must meet to resolve it behind closed doors. There is no use making our disagreements public.

Hanipa: The top leaders of Pakatan need to frequently meet and discuss (matters).

Ambiga: The present problems in the coalition were almost predictable yet we had hoped they could have resolved their differences. This is of concern to me as some of the differences between PAS and the other parties appear to be fundamental.

In my view, the coalition stood on a platform to win the people’s votes and I and many others feel that PAS has deviated from this platform. If that is the case, my view is that they should part company amicably as the present squabbles are damaging the credibility of the coalition.

PAS should do the honourable thing although I am not clear if the leadership does speak for all the members. And there is no shame in it as it is normal to have differences of opinion. But it also means that they have to call it quits when the partnership is not working.

Dzulkefly: Iron out the acrimonious issues behind closed doors and announce it later to the entire rakyat. The rakyat do not want to know that you have unresolved problems. They are only interested in what you have to offer them as solutions.

Mohd Azmin Haziq: I think that is normal because at times, there are some issues or dissatisfaction.

Ropinah: They must always meet and discuss rather than talking to the media.

TMI: Who do you think can be prime minister if Pakatan wins the next general elections?

Mujahid: Surely the more important question is how PR is going to win and end Barisan Nasional’s (BN) hegemony and lead the country. “How” is more relevant than “‘who” right now.

Sim: Our one and only PM candidate is Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Maria: Whoever becomes the PM, we will continue to push for our electoral and democractic reforms so that there is a level playing field and principles of human rights and freedom, especially (so that the) one-person-one-vote-one value (principle) will be upheld.

Nurul Izzah: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as strongly agreed by the PR council. This stand has been repeatedly made known by PR.

Dzulkefly: The important thing is that when we have decided on the person, he must be in a position to serve and assume the role of a premier and not be locked behind bars.

Loke: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is still the best choice.

Hanipa: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Kulasegaran: Anwar is the preferred choice. There are equally many other capable leaders in the PR too.

Mohd Azmin Haziq: Right now, I can see Azmin (Selangor Menteri Besar Mohamed Azmin Ali), I think he is like the voice of the new generation.

Ropinah: Somebody from PAS, Dr Dzulkefly (Ahmad) or (vice-president Datuk) Tuan Ibrahim (Tuan Man).

TMI: What do you think Malaysians want? A liberal democracy or a conservative theocracy?

Kulasegaran: In a multicultural, religious and language situation, a liberal democracy is the long term win-win policy for all.

Hanipa: Democracy without abandoning the religious values.

Ambiga: I believe that Malaysians (and people all over the world) want peace, harmony and happiness and freedom, including freedom from fear. They also want a place where their children have a chance at a future. In my view, the only way this is possible is if we support democracy and respect our fundamental freedoms. That is how our Federal Constitution is drafted and that is all we need to build our future.

Zairil: There is no doubt that Malaysians believe in democracy. In fact, 52% of them supported change in the last GE. It is the government that does not support democratic aspirations by denying the people their choice of government through gerrymandering and other electoral manipulations to ensure they remain in power at any cost.

Loke: Malaysians want a clean and fair government which upholds democratic principles. The position of Islam as the religion of the federation will never be questioned and the freedom of other religions must be guaranteed. We are not for a conservative theocracy, for sure.

Nurul Izzah: I do not see it as (one) ideology over another. At the end of the day we want to serve the objective of democracy, the objective of Shariah, by providing a government that serves social justice to its people covering all aspects of life. A government that can provide this will be voted in. For now, all eyes will remain glued to the decision that PAS finally takes.

Surendran: Malaysians of all races want the same thing – a properly functioning democracy where the fundamental liberties promised in our constitution are upheld and the laws are fairly and impartially executed.

Maria: I want an equal, non-discriminatory, and democratic Malaysia – and democracy is not about establishing a theocratic or authoritarian state. The democracy that I am speaking of is also not just about individual rights and freedoms but will include the collective will of the people and communities where it will transform existing systems, processes and institutions to counteract or remove injustices, marginalisation and inequalities.

Mujahid: Malaysians want a strong civil state with democracy as its base. Liberal or conservative are labels which are not absolute. Is holding to values and religion conservative? Are absolute freedoms intruding on other peoples sensitivities liberal? But then is it a liberal economy or social liberal? But a civil state in reference to our national context is my choice of state.

Mohd Azmin Haziq: A liberal democracy.

Ropinah: Malaysia will benefit if it is ruled by conservative theocracy, moral standards will go up rather than deteriorate. Corruption can go to zero. – January 31, 2015.

– See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/pakatan-rakyat-viewed-from-within-and-without#sthash.4LYDrrLt.dpuf

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 31 January 2015, 10:55 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Response to Razak Baginda’s interview

 – Americk Sidhu

The Malaysian Insider

31 January 2015

Rogue police may possibly kill. That has been proved with the convictions of Azilah and Sirul. But the young lady killed in this case was not under remand. So why draw the analogy with the number of deaths in police custody? This does not make sense.

Razak Baginda says he is now willing to speak “from a legal point” as the criminal case involving Azilah and Sirul is over. He fails to explain why he chose to call a press conference shortly after his acquittal in November 2008. See this
link
.

The criminal case was still in progress then, sans his presence of course.

Why does Razak Baginda keep insisting this case has been politicised and at the same time refers to it as “just another straightforward murder case”? He doesn’t explain why he thinks it is “political”. How has this case been used against Najib? He doesn’t explain.

No one has accused Najib of being involved in this murder. Is this a Freudian slip on his part? Does he know more about this whole sordid affair than he is letting on?

The public are more than curious to know why these two policemen murdered Altantuya. They didn’t even know who she was. Sirul said Azilah referred to her as the “perempuan China”, in his cautioned statement. He couldn’t therefore have known she was a Mongolian citizen when she was taken away outside Razak Baginda’s house on the night of October 19, 2006. No questions seemed to have been asked as to who this young lady was and why they were supposed to kill her.

They both appear to have been acting like automatons. Who wound them up?

Razak Baginda wants people to be “a bit more creative and look at the wider picture”. What exactly does he mean? Isn’t this what the general public are doing? Isn’t it understandable that the general public want to know why these two policemen killed a defenceless young lady for no apparent reason? Isn’t Razak Baginda himself a little curious as to why they would do this with no provocation?

Razak Baginda thinks the truth behind this murder is “simply extremely too boring”. Does he know the truth then? If he does, why not reveal it, boring or not. Let the people be the judge. And yes, he is right when he says people cannot believe these two policemen would murder this young lady for no apparent reason. And yes, people cannot believe these two policemen would so callously shoot and kill this young lady without instructions or an inducement, or both. This is called normal human logic. What Razak Baginda is trying to make us believe is totally illogical.

Razak Baginda erroneously says that the court has determined these two policemen acted on their own accord. This is absolute rubbish. All the court was called upon to do was to determine whether these two policemen committed the murder of one Altantuya Shaaribuu, for which they were charged. The court was not called upon to determine the reason why they committed this murder. The prosecution chose not to lead any evidence as to motive. Therefore we are left in the dark in relation to the background circumstances.

Razak Baginda says the court proceedings were “so transparent”. He does not however make any mention of the fact that before those proceedings began, the judge was changed, the entire prosecution team was changed and all defence counsel were changed. Does he explain why he discharged his first lawyer and family friend, Puravalen, a well-known senior criminal lawyer, in favour of KK Wong? Even Shafee got the boot in between.

Razak Baginda wants us to believe that there is no explanation as to why Altantuya was killed… just as there is no explanation why MH370 went missing. What he conveniently omits to mention is the fact that everyone is still trying to find out where MH370 is.

Similarly, everyone is still trying to find out why these two policemen killed Altantuya for no apparent reason, because this is not normal human behaviour. This is despite what he thinks of the Royal Malaysian Police Force and their propensity to wantonly kill.

Why did Razak Baginda say Bala’s SD 1 was all utter rubbish? He has yet to deny telling Bala about the relationship Altantuya supposedly had with Najib although he had every opportunity to do so at the press conference he held in November 2008 and in the interview he gave to TMI.

What about the rest of the contents of Bala’s SD 1? Is that all rubbish too? Is Bala’s evidence on oath given as the first witness called in the murder trial all rubbish? This evidence is exactly what was said in parts of his SD 1.

Let us turn to the night of October 19, 2006. Altantuya was outside Razak Baginda’s house demanding to see him. He was not at home. Bala was there trying to pacify her. He sent Razak Baginda an SMS informing him Altantuya was there. Razak Baginda sent him an SMS back saying “delay her until my man comes”.

Who was this “man” Razak Baginda was referring to? It was Azilah, was it not? This is because the “man” who turned up 15 minutes later most certainly was Azilah, with Sirul and another police officer Corporal Rohaniza in tow. This trio drove her away and she was never seen again.

When Altantuya’s cousins turned up at Razak Baginda’s house a couple of nights later looking for Altantuya, why did Razak Baginda call Musa Safri and ask him to speak to Bala on his handphone? How and why was Musa Safri involved in all this? Who suggested Razak Baginda contact either Azilah or Musa Safri?

And why were Sirul and Azilah invited guests at Razak Baginda’s house on October 23 or 24, 2006, for a Hari Raya function? Bala was there working until October 26, 2006. He knew who attended that Hari Raya function.

On October 24, 2006, Razak Baginda accompanied Bala to the Brickfields police station to lodge a report over the harassment Razak Baginda was receiving from Altantuya’s cousins regarding her disappearance. Razak Baginda lodged a report in front of ASP Tonny. Razak Baginda was supposed to provide ASP Tonny with a recorded statement but he refused on the grounds he was leaving the country. Razak Baginda promised ASP Tonny that he would prepare a statement himself and download it on a thumb drive to hand over to ASP Tonny. He never did this. Why?

Prior attempts by Bala to persuade Razak Baginda to lodge a police report at the beginning stages of the harassment from Altantuya failed. Why? Apparently Razak Baginda did not want the police involved as there were VIPs involved.

Razak Baginda apparently left Malaysia for Hong Kong on his own on October 26, 2006, one week after the murder. Why?

There is something Razak Baginda has conveniently omitted to mention. Who exactly recommended that he contact Azilah and Musa Safri to assist him in solving the problem Altantuya was posing?

Razak Baginda appears to be coming across as Najib’s protector. He keeps saying Najib is an innocent victim, that Najib has been dealt with unfairly, that this is all a political stunt and that there is no connection between Najib and Altantuya’s death.

He does not however explain why he finds it necessary to do this. No one has accused Najib of being involved. Bala in his SD 1 certainly didn’t accuse Najib of having anything to do with the murder of Altantuya. All Bala said in that SD was that Razak Baginda told him about Najib’s involvement with Altantuya. That is all. Razak Baginda has yet to specifically deny he told Bala this. Bala has admitted right from the beginning that some of the contents of his SD 1 was hearsay. So what is Razak Baginda’s point when he says Bala’s SD is hearsay?

Razak Baginda has also conveniently avoided mentioning anything as to why he felt Najib, Rosmah, Nazim Razak, Deepak and a host of other personalities found it necessary to combine their efforts into ensuring Bala and his family were evacuated from this country post haste immediately after SD 1 was released. This doesn’t really lend any credibility to Razak Baginda’s assertion that Najib is an innocent victim of political subterfuge.

What Razak Baginda actually fails to appreciate is Bala’s loyalty to him.

When Bala was interviewed by the press in London in July 2010 at the Holiday Villa, Bayswater (on his own), he volunteered to the reporters there that he thought Razak Baginda had nothing to do with the murders and that he was innocent. Bala felt Razak Baginda was a little naive in thinking those UTK personnel would not harm Altantuya.

Is this all rubbish Mr Razak Baginda?

There was also the dinner Bala, Razak Baginda and a lawyer Dhiren Norendra had at Nagar’s Restaurant in Brickfields on October 13, 2006. This dinner was organised by Bala so that Razak Baginda could meet ASP Suresh. Apparently ASP Suresh was to organise the arrest of Altantuya. Unfortunately ASP Suresh did not turn up because he himself had been arrested by the ACA (as it was then known), that very evening.

At that dinner, Razak Baginda specifically told Bala that he was to make sure Altantuya was not harmed in any way. But Razak Baginda did not realise what he was getting into when he became involved with Musa Safri and Azilah.

Is this all rubbish Mr Razak Baginda?

So is Razak Baginda now going to “sue the shit” out of me for saying Bala always thought he was innocent. This is something I can’t prove. – January 31, 2015.

* Americk Sidhu is the lawyer who had prepared the first statutory declaration for the late private detective P. Balasubramaniam who was engaged by political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda in 2006.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 31 January 2015, 8:44 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.