Najib is the primary target in Penanti by-election – referendum on his first 2 months as PM

The Penanti by-election has been described as a dull and unexciting contest because of the absence of the Barisan Nasional candidate.

The PKR and PR  candidate, Mansor Othman is challenged by three independent candidates. The real battle however is not between Mansor and the three independent candidates, but with the main protoganist  publicly “hiding” from the contest, the Barisan Nasional and its leader, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Although there is  no BN candidate, Najib is undoubtedly the primary target in the Penanti by-election, which is a referendum on the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of Najib in his second month as Prime Minister

Last night, Najib allowed the police to do what five previous Prime Ministers, Tengku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah had never done –
police raid on DAP Hqrs in Petaling Jaya
, the first time in 43 years, as if the DAP is a terrorist organisation when we had demonstrated our commitment to peaceful, democratic and constitutional change for over four decades.

The 15,421 Penanti voters have the opportunity to use their votes to condemn such gross abuse of powers and total disrespect for political parties like the DAP which has a 43-year record of fighting for all forms of injustices in the country so as to create a better, more fair, just, democratic  and prosperous Malaysia.

When he became Prime Minister, Najib coined the slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”

Previous Prime Ministers also had their respective slogans like Mahathir’s “ABC” slogan of “Clean, Efficient, Trusworthy” government and Abdullah’s “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang” but Najib had beaten them all in having his slogan shredded and discredited in the shortest time ever – less than two months!

Let me mention four instances which have become powerful symbols of how empty and hollow is Najib’s slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” in less than two months.

Firstly, and the most lethal example against Najib’s slogan is the nearly four-month-long Perak constitutional and political crisis and stalemate, caused by the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak personally orchestrated by Najib in early February.

How can Najib’s 1Malaysia evoke response and resonance when he could not even ensure 1Perak, and is in fact the chief cause why Perak has been plunged into such a constitutional and political stalemate that a well-known law professor has described it as a “hydra-headed monster that cannot be eliminated by ding-dong judicial decisions”?

The
 searing image of the Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar, in Speaker robes and in Speaker chair
,  being physically dragged out of the State Assembly on
May 7 Day of Infamy
,  is a standing condemnation of the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak which had led to one national institution after another – whether police, election commission, Malaysian Anti-corruption Agency Commission (MACC), the civil service both Federal and State, the Judiciary or  the Royalty – facing a crisis of confidence.

Secondly, the gross abuses of power by the police, failing in its fundamental duty to ensure that Malaysians are safe from crime, and yet could deploy massive and excessive police presence to arrest some 140 people in the past two weeks, more than the number of people arrested in Mahathir’s Operation Lalang in 1987!

When the police find peaceful protestors at candlelight vigils upholding human rights as greater threats to society than big time criminals, rapists, robbers and snatch-theft killers, the police are making a total mockery of Najib’s slogan of “People First. Performance Now”.

Thirdly,
the annual scandal of the country’s top scorers
, with 11 to 14As in SPM unable to get PSD scholarships as compared to students with 6As is another debunking of Najib’s slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”.

Malaysians were promised that this year, there would be no repeat of such injustices in the PSD scholarship selection system but this year is even worse than last year!

Is the Cabinet prepared to announce on Wednesday an increased allocation of RM300 million for this year’s PSD scholarships so that all top scorers are given scholarships and a fair, just, meritocratic and transparent  system for PSD scholarships immediately put in place for future years?

Fourthly, the
RM12 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal
.

Despite repeated pledges by the MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, to “tell all” and make public the PricewaterhouseCooper audit report, letting Malaysians know how a RM1.8 billion PKFZ project in 2002 under Datuk Seri Ling Liong Sik could balloon into RM4.6 billion scandal under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy and now mushroomed into a RM12 billion scandal under Ong Tee Keat.

And let all those responsible for the RM12 billion PKFZ scandal, regardless of position or political party, be prosecuted for one of the country’s biggest financial scandals!

All these four instances should not happen if Najib’s slogan of  “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” is taken seriously by the Cabinet and its  Ministers.

The voters of Penanti should use their votes to speak up on behalf of 27 million Malaysians to convey the message, loud and clear, to Najib that his first two months as Prime Minister  had been a great failure and disappointment and Malaysians demand change!

(Speech  at Pakatan Rakyat Penanti by-election ceramah at Jalan Berapit, Bukit Mertajam on Monday, 24th May 2009 at 10.30 pm)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 May 2009, 1:20 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Election
,
Najib Razak
,
Perak
,
PKFZ
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib’s 1 Malaysia has morphed to 1 Police State

By Dr. Chen Man Hin

The sudden police raid of party headquarters without a search warrant means that the police does not care about ‘rule of law’ in a civilised society.

Barging into the party premises and snatching a ‘server’, brazenly ignoring the objections of party personnel is tantamount to the behaviour of police in communist and totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.

The police in Malaysia has changed its character.from a guardian of the people, to become a secret police.

Malaysia’s own secret police behaviour is no different from the behaviour of the Gestapo, the Kempetai of Japan. We are living in a police state.

DEFINITION OF A POLICE STATE.

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive control over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restriction on their mobility and on their freedom to express  or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring and enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a SECRET POLICE FORCE which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

PEOPLE MUST STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS

The people of Malaysia must wake up and see that their ideals of a free, democratic and multiracial society that is goverened by the rule of law does not degenerate into a police state. They must be on the alert and prevent their rights from being trampled upon.

The DAP and PR will do its duty to protect the rights of the people, and if the Prime Minister  does not respond to the call of change, we shall take the case of freedom of loving people of Malaysia to the United Nations, and call for them to send a fact finding mission to Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 May 2009, 12:15 pm and is filed under
Dr. Chen Man Hin
,
Human Rights
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Aung San Suu Kyi – AIPMC calls for ASEAN suspension of Myanmar and to consider sanctions option

[The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Caucus on Myanmar (AIPMC) after a meeting in Bangkok on Monday night (25th May 2009) issued the following statement]

ASEAN MPs call on tougher ASEAN actions on Myanmar including Suspension

The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) calls on ASEAN to suspend Myanmar’s membership in the regional bloc if the country’s military regime continues to detain its democracy leader, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s unjust current six-year house arrest is due to expire on 27 May 2009, but the regime has brought on further trumped-up charges against her and is likely to detain her for a further three to five years.

Several ASEAN member states have expressed deepening concern about the regime’s detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. However, ASEAN leaders have failed to take the measures necessary to compel the regime to end violations of human rights.

AIPMC parliamentarians strongly call on ASEAN to stop protecting Myanmar’s regime and instead remove them from the grouping until and unless Aung San Suu Kyi is free and genuine efforts to begin national reconciliation are underway.

The AIPMC further urges ASEAN member states to consider imposing targeted sanctions on the military regime generals, and its administration, should they still fail to respect the ASEAN Charter and continue to oppress its people.

Efforts by the international community to hold the regime accountable for its criminal acts, via targeted economic sanctions and UN Security Council actions, have been cushioned by ASEAN’s and China’s economic and political buffering of the regime.

The regime’s ruthlessness causes increasing numbers of internally displaced persons in Myanmar. It continues to use rape, torture and extrajudicial killings as state policies to suppress citizens. The military’s state projects, such as dams, further subject people to unabated suffering.

Change cannot be achieved in Myanmar if ASEAN’s current positions and policies remain. ASEAN must assume its responsibility by supporting, if not calling for, decisive measures such as an international commission of inquiry into the widely documented crimes against humanity allegedly committed by the regime. ASEAN cannot afford patience any longer.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 7:17 am and is filed under
ASEAN
,
Burma
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Do take the trouble to understand before you find fault with the judges of the Court of Appeal

by N H Chan

Before you go about judging the judges of the Court of Appeal on their five minute oral decision which they handed down on Friday, May 22, 2009, please bear in mind the wise words of the most liberal of American judges, judge Learned Hand who once wrote – The Spirit of Liberty, p 110:

… while it is proper that the people should find fault when the judges fail, it is only reasonable that they should recognise the difficulties. … Let them be severely brought to book, when they go wrong, but by those who will take the trouble to understand.

I shall now try to help you take the trouble to understand the oral findings of the Court of Appeal. First of all we will look at what the New Straits Times, Saturday. May 23, 2009 has to say:

PUTRAJAYA. … In allowing the appeal by Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir that he was constitutionally appointed as menteri besar by the sultan on Feb 6, Court of Appeal judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif said there was no clear provision in the state Constitution that a vote of no confidence against Nizar must be taken in the assembly.

Raus, who sat with Datuk Zainun Ali and Datuk Ahmad Maarop to hear submissions on Thursday, said Nizar had on February 4 made a request to the sultan to dissolve the assembly under Article 16 (6) because he no longer enjoyed the support of the majority assemblymen.

He said Nizar had no choice but to resign once the ruler declined to dissolve the assembly.

“There is no mandatory or express requirement in the Perak Constitution for a vote of no confidence to be taken in the legislative assembly.” Raus said in a five-minute oral ruling before a packed court room.

That was all. That is the gravamen of the five minute decision. What the Court of Appeal has said above as reported in the New Straits Times had also been said by Mr Justice Abdul Aziz in the High Court in his well considered judgment – 78 pages on A4 paper. This is what the High Court judge said, at p 30:

It is not in dispute that His Royal Highness had exercised the royal prerogative in this case pursuant to Article XVI (2) (a) and (6) of the Perak’s State Constitution. However the applicant [Nizar] is not asking the Court to review His Royal Highness’ prerogative to appoint the respondent [Zambry] as MB Perak or His Royal Highness’ prerogative to withhold consent to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly. The applicant concedes that the two royal prerogatives are not subject to review and non justiciable. That is the reason, the applicant [Nizar] said, His Royal Highness was not made a party to the present disputes.

And at pp 36, 37 Abdul Aziz J also said:

Under Article XVI(2) of the Perak’s State Constitution His Royal Highness shall appoint as Menteri Besar a member of the State Legislative Assembly who in His Royal Highness’ judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the State Legislative Assembly. …

I never had any doubt that the exercise of the royal prerogative to appoint a Menteri Besar pursuant to Article XVI(2) Perak’s State Constitution is solely based on personal judgment of His Royal Highness and that His Royal Highness may resort to any means in order to satisfy himself and accordingly to form his judgment as to whom who is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the State Legislative Assembly that he can be appointed as the Menteri Besar to lead the Executive Council.

I also have no doubt that His Royal Highness has absolute discretion with regard to the appointment of a Menteri Besar and the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly. This is plain and obvious from the reading of Article XVIII (1) and (2) (a) and (b) of Perak’s State Constitution.

The High Court judge even agreed, at p 37:

… that if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the State Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council, …

So then, how could the Court of Appeal overrule the judgment of the High Court when the higher court substantially agrees with the judgment of the High Court? The newspaper report is not very clear on this point as we are still unaware of the reason for overruling the judgment of the High Court judge.

However, according to the report in the New Straits times, Raus JCA did say, “There is no mandatory or express requirement in the Perak Constitution for a vote of no confidence to be taken in the legislative assembly.” So what if there is no provision for a vote of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly. The High Court had found that Nizar is still the Mentri Besar. To overrule the decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal must explain why the judge of the High Court was wrong in finding that Nizar is the Mentri Besar.

The newspaper had even suggested that it could be implied in the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the Ruler had sacked the incumbent Mentri Besar Nizar:

The unanimous Court of Appeal ruling yesterday seems to suggest that a head of state can sack the incumbent head of government once it was determined that the politician ceased to command the confidence of a majority of the elected representatives.

The newspaper is wrong. That was not the finding of the Court of Appeal. In any case the monarch has no power to dismiss a Mentri Besar – there is no provision for it in the Perak Constitution.

The trial judge Abdul Aziz J in his judgment has explained why he found that Nizar is still the Mentri Besar. This is how he puts it – see p 54 of his judgment:

It is true the request may be made only under two provisions of Perak’s State Constitution i.e. Article XVI(6) and Article XXXVI (1) and (2). But the circumstances under which the request can be made is unlimited. The request under Article XVI(6) is specific to a situation where the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority in the State Legislative Assembly; whereas under Article XXXVI (1) and (2), [the] situation is unlimited. It is up to the Menteri Besar to choose his time to make the request. However once a request is made under whichever of the two provisions, it is entirely up to His Royal Highness’ discretion whether to grant or [not to grant] the consent to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly.

Then at pp 56-58 the High Court judge comes to this conclusion:

In my view it is alright if His Highness takes upon himself to determine who commands the confidence of the majority in the State Legislative Assembly that he can appoint as the Menteri Besar. Such determination however is only good for the purpose of appointing a Menteri Besar pursuant to Article XVI(2)(a) Perak State Constitution. This is so because that provision speaks of ‘who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority’. The language use therein requires the exercise of a personal judgment on His Royal Highness.

But the same thing cannot be said with regard to Article XVI(6) in deciding whether the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. In this case His Royal Highness, through his enquiries has judged that the respondent [Zambry] has the support of the majority. But that finding does not necessarily mean His Royal Highness can form an opinion that the applicant [Nizar] ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly. One reason for this is that the expression ‘in his judgment’ is not used in Article XVI(6). … I am of the view that just because His Royal Highness had formed a judgment that the respondent [Zambry] is likely to command the confidence of the majority for the purpose of Article XVI(2)(a) to appoint the respondent [Zambry] as Menteri Besar it does not mean that His Royal Highness’ opinion or judgment is applicable in deciding that the applicant [Nizar] ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. In another word, one cannot say that because His Royal Highness has judged that the respondent [Zambry] is likely to command the confidence of the majority in the Legislative Assembly therefore the applicant [Nizar] ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly.
 I would say that the personal opinion or judgment of His Royal Highness is irrelevant to the construction of Article XVI(6).
 The [other] reason is that Article XVI(5) Perak State Constitution states that the Executive Council shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly. Under Article XVI(2)(a) the Menteri Besar is appointed to preside over the Executive Council. Article XVI(6) speaks of “If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative Assembly …”. Reading these three provisions in Article XVI Perak State Constitution it is logical and in fact Article XVI(6) requires it to be so, that it is the Legislative Assembly that determines whether it has confidence in the Menteri Besar as the Head of the Executive Council. The Legislative Assembly may make the determination through a vote of no confidence against the Menteri Besar. (The Emphasis is mine)

It seems to us ordinary folk that the Court of Appeal has missed the point. They decided that Zambry was properly appointed Mentri Besar under Article XVI(6). That is not correct – he could only be appointed under Article XVI(2)(a). Since there cannot be two Mentri Besar and Nizar the incumbent Mentri Besar has not resigned and, further, since the legislative assembly did not decide if he has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, Nizar, unquestionably, is still the Mentri Besar of Perak.

Nizar’s case was that Article XVI(6) speaks of “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly”. The poser is who is to decide “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly” under Article XVI(6)? Certainly not the Ruler because the phrase “in his judgment” – which is used in Article XVI(2)(a) – is not used in Article XVI(6). If it is not to be the Ruler then who is to decide “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly”? The answer is in Article XVI(6) itself – only the Legislative Assembly itself could decide if the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly.

Article XVI(6) clearly states that the Mentri Besar who no longer commands the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly “shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council”. This has to be done “unless at his [the Mentri Besar’s] request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly. But Mentri Besar Nizar could not admit that he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly because he would not know until a vote has been taken at the Assembly to determine so. Only the Assembly itself would know if a vote is taken to determine whether the Mentri Besar has lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly.

Now that you have understood the five-minute decision of the Court of Appeal as well as the well considered judgment of the trial judge, you should be able to severely bring to book the judges of this Court of Appeal since you are now aware if they have done wrong.

Before I sign off, I wish to say a few nice words to the High Court judge. Mr Justice Abul Aziz Abdul Rahim is a fantastic judge. The judgment, especially the piece on the interpretation of Article XVI(6), is so good that it has persuaded me to change my mind on my view of Article XVI(6). If you remember my first article, I have expressed an opinion on Article XVI(6). Now I know I was wrong – and I have to thank Abdul Aziz J for showing me the way.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 3:28 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


New police crackdown in Ipoh?

From
http:// twitter.com/limkitsiang

26/05/09 16:19

Have to run from Thai Parliament and the twitter of the disgraceful police episode today from Bangkok ends here as well

26/05/09 16:18

All 14 heroes and heroines walking out now to the Ipoh police hqrs gate – to close another Day of Infamy in the Perak capital.

26/05/09 16:17

Yes, Kula the 14th and last to be released, on personal bond of RM1,000  and to report back to the police station on 26/6/09

26/05/09 16:16

MP Ipoh Barat Kulasegaran – where are you?

26/05/09 16:15

Assemblywoman Lim Pek Har 13th to be released

26/05/09 16:14

Most famous Speaker in the Commonweath  V. Sivakumar signed and  released

26/05/09 16:11

11th – Chan Gee Keong

26/05/09 16:10

Wasu next

26/05/09 16:10

limkitsiang: Chai Sing Fatt the ninth out

26/05/09 16:09

Eighth is M. Faisal

26/05/09 16:08

Chan Ming Kai the seventh to be released

26/05/09 16:08

Then Choo Ooi Beng released

26/05/09 16:07

Vikneswary signing her bond – No. 5

26/05/09 16:07

Keshvinder Singh next to sign

26/05/09 16:06

Thomas Su Keong  Siong third to sign

26/05/09 16:06

Leong Mei Ming second to sign

26/05/09 16:05

First to sign Chang Lih  Kang…

26/05/09 16:04

Latest from Ipoh – one by one signing bond papers now …police told them to go out one by one.

26/05/09 15:55

Police have agreed  the arrested be released on own personal bond. Should be out of police custody  any time now – after 5 hrs of arrest

26/05/09 15:06

Police demand bailors for the detained while elected reps  ask for release on personal bond. Police are being most unreasonable.

26/05/09 15:00

Arrested elected reps waited for more than an hour for release after giving statement. is this Najib’s “Performnce NOW”. slogan?

26/05/09 14:25

The 14 arrested enticed with food and told that they can order for better food like KFC but they are not biting. “We are fasting man!”

26, 2009 14:20

Arrested elected reps told by DSP Glenn that they are arrested under s.27 of Police Act i.e. illegal assembly and procession

26/05/09 14:17

Speaker V.Sivakumar said he is disappointed that the police arrest him when he was on his way to take his car. He is still in police custody

26/05/09 14:14

Police have finished taking statements from the detained elected reps. Why are they still being detained? Have police nothing better to do?

26/05/09 13:46

C Kraisak Chair Thai Parliament Cttee Pol Dvelpmnt shocked such police outrage can happen in Malaysia. Thot it happens only in Thailand

26/05/09 12:36

 In Bangkok twittering from Thai capital. Just informed that Myanmar junta extended Aung San Suu Kyi’s 6-yr illegal detention by another 6 mths!

26/05/09 12:33

Police offering detainees food now. However, they are fasting. Thanks for their nice gestures!

26/05/09 12:28

15 arrested – 1 MP, Speaker, 6 State Assembly members, 3 PAs and four members (DAP and PKR)

26/05/09 12:26

Detainees given VIP treatment, boarded Black Maria a second time and taken with full police escort to D7 team

26/05/09 12:24

Detainees have decided to continue the fast regardless of the arrest.

26/05/09 12:15

Arrested : Keshvinder, Sivakumar, Thomas Su, LeongMeeMeng, LimPekHar, Kula, ChangLihKang, ChanMK. 7 ADUNs (5DAP, 2PKR),1MP (DAP), 6 others

26/05/09 11:05

To support PR election fund, Koon pledged RM200,000 to the PR election fund. Cheque received by Nizar and Ngeh

26/05/09 11:02

Retired engineer Koon Yew Yin speaking in support. Describe Perak power grab “eternal shame”. Fully agree with Judge NH Chan’s articles.

26/05/09 10:58

Hunger strike officially launched by Nizar and Ngeh

26/05/09 10:56

Nizar – “Hidup rakyat bubar DUN Perak!”

26/05/09 10:55

“Urges all Muslims 2show solidarity & fast together. UMNO using police 2protect them & prevent PR carry out peaceful gatherings,activities”

26/05/09 10:52

Nizar “People must come 1st.Perakians 1 fresh election. Ct cannot elect government. Basic tenet of democracy.PAS encourage all to fast 2day”

26/05/09 10:46

Nizar speaking & 2launch campaign

26/05/09 10:45

Dr. Lee Boon Chye speaking. Police blocking programmes. Govt can only function with legitimacy 72-hr hunger strike but not those with illness.

26/05/09 10:41

Ngeh: “We will continue 2fight 4rakyat even though we r facing harassments and police abuses of power. People do not want MB elected by ct.”

26/05/09 10:36

Ngeh speaking now.Thanking all present who want to defend people’s right & democracy in Perak. Many,including BN supporters,want a snap poll

26/05/09 10:35

Dissolve assembly and call fresh election is only solution 2 crisis so that all can focus on economic recession and people’s welfare.

26/05/09 10:33

Siva sad 2see latest developments Perak.In crisis, economic & social issues neglected.No investors will come with such political instability

26/05/09 10:30

limkitsiang: Nga – “We want govt elected by the people”. Speaker Sivakumar speaking now.

26/05/09 10:29

limkitsiang: PR leaders will go on hunger strike for 72 hrs 2fight 4 dissolution of assembly

26/05/09 10:29

limkitsiang: Nga Kor Ming,co-ordinator of fast,urges all 2 continue 2fight 4democracy & our beloved country. 2day another  shame – police highhandedness

26/05/09 10:26

limkitsiang: PR leaders singing national anthem

26/05/09 10:25

limkitsiang: Nizar having media conference at Wisma DAP

Police in control of fast site, as their personnel sit inside the tent intended for the fasters today. – Picture by Shannon Teoh | Malaysian Insider

26/05/09 09:55

Giant balloon seized by police specifically made 4 fast  cost  about RM2k with markings ‘Daulat Tuanku’ and ‘Bubarkan DUN’

26/05/09 09:48

Ngeh, Kula, Thomas Su and PR leaders arrived 4 the fast which is shortly to begin. What will happen with hundreds of police milling around?

26/05/09 08:35

 Police preventing anyone from getting near Wisma DAP. 2 men arrested. Giant balloon for the fast confiscated. Day of Infamy Ipoh continues

26/05/09 08:32

Massed outside Wisma DAP Ipoh 2 police jeeps. 7 police trucks, 4 police cars, abt 20 FRU who have taken over the canopy put up for fast.

26/05/09 08:30

Major police crackdown in Ipoh to frustrate start of fast 11am led by Nizar and Sivakumar? Arrests have started outside Perak DAP hqrs Ipoh

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 8:56 am and is filed under
Perak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PDRM: A tale of the tail wagging the dog

By
Tunku Abdul Aziz | The Malaysian Insider

MAY 25 — The only reasonable conclusion I can draw as a reasonable man from the PDRM raid on the DAP headquarters last Saturday evening is that the police leadership need their heads examined for signs of mental degeneration.

It was Euripides (480–406 BC) the Greek playwright who said, “Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad.” Police behaviour in recent times has convinced me more than ever that there is something rotten in the state of our country, with apologies to William Shakespeare.

The beleaguered police, as far as we are concerned, are in moral retreat. It beggars the imagination that with all the relentless assault on their reputation, they do not seem to care one iota about public opinion.

This is frightening self-indulgence. To be deaf to public strictures is really a symptom of a deep malaise associated with a diseased culture of impunity that has brutalised the police psyche.

For the guardians of the law to show nothing but utter contempt, disregard and disdain for the legitimate concerns about their actions, often bordering on the criminal, is indeed a serious breach of stewardship and public trust, the antithesis of ethical policing in a democratic society.

I plead guilty to being one of the harshest critics of the police. I am hard on them because I so desperately want them to succeed. At the same time, I can claim to be their admirer when they not only operate within the law, but, more to the point, when they are seen to be both law-abiding and respectful of the rights of every individual under the law.

I want a police service that is among the best that I can be proud of, and not “the best police force in the world that money can buy.”

As a keen observer of the police in action, I can say without fear of contradiction that the standards of policing took a dramatic fall from grace when the greatest-ever Malaysian IGP, Tun Hanif Omar, stepped down.

Hanif was not only a thoroughly competent officer but an ethical one, and, therefore, was able to withstand political pressure, even from Mahathir Mohamad, the prime minister of the day whose meddling ways were directly responsible for the dismemberment of many of the country’s most important institutions.

Hanif could stand up to the bully because of his strong personal values: he offered to resign on at least two occasions. His letters of resignation were turned down. As with all bullies, you cannot back down or they will climb on your head.

Sadly, subsequent IGPs, with the exception of Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar, have, by common consent, been a great disappointment and a disgrace to the uniform.

I have, in keeping with the times, been referring to PDRM as a police service in previous speeches and writings in order to help soften its image. On reflection, I may have been a trifle premature because PDRM is obviously not yet ready to be accorded that designation: it still has a lot of house cleaning to do before it can join the ranks of the police in other parts of the civilized world where accountability is the foundation of ethical policing.

PDRM must perforce remain a police force that carries with it all the unsavoury connotations of an organisation that has lost its way. With proper leadership, and the necessary political will, PDRM can still find salvation.

It is a great pity because there are thousands upon thousands of honest to goodness people whom we admire, trying very hard to do an honest day’s work to serve the nation, and we salute them for their courage, loyalty and devotion to duty. They are, however, badly officered which leads me to my favourite conclusion that there are no bad policemen and women, only bad officers.

The rot started when ethically deficient, unprofessional officers allowed, without a murmur, the politicisation of the force by Mahathir who used it as a handy tool to manipulate the system in order to advance his own political ambitions.

In return, many people believed, rightly or wrongly, that senior officers were given protection against possible prosecution for corruption. A very senior ACA officer, himself not above a bit on the side, now mercifully, in comfortable, contented retirement, claimed in private that he could have put at least 20 corrupt top police officers behind bars without too much trouble, but could not for reasons best known to himself.

As long as we allow the police to dictate terms to us, in particular over the implementation of the IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission), the highlight of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation & Management of the Royal Malaysia Police’s report, we will always be subject to police excesses.

It is a sad commentary that both Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Najib Razak have seen nothing wrong with the police insubordination of threatening dire repercussions if this important recommendation for the good of both the citizens and the police in a new, open society is “forced” upon them.

The police, many feel, have got too big for their boots. Has the “People’s Prime Minister” the interests of the people at heart?  Given the state of affairs in our country today, may we humbly urge Najib to keep the police on a short leash, and not allow the tail to wag the dog.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 1:22 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Police
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib – stop  current police madness, end debilitating  Perak crisis and unite Malaysians to face world’s worst economic crisis with Malaysia in recession

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should stop the current police madness, end the debilitating Perak crisis and unite Malaysians to face the world’s worst economic crisis in a century with Malaysia in official recession this year as the country’s GDP is expected to be in contraction of between one and 2 per cent.

The almost daily reports of current police madness, with the arrest of 21 persons in Ipoh yesterday for involvement in a peaceful hunger strike in protest against the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak has taken gross abuses of police power to a new height.

At a time when the police should be going all-out to combat the  endemic crime wave in the country to make Malaysians, tourists and investors safe, a fundamental prerequisite  of the nation’s international competitiveness, the police are shocking Malaysians with one outrage after another in  launching indiscriminate arrests against peaceful non-violent protestors for wearing black, singing birthday song, taking part in candlelight vigils and trespass of DAP hqrs by conducting a police raid without a search warrant, first time in DAP’s 43-year history and never allowed to be done by the first five Prime Ministers in the country.

Last  Sunday, Najib spoke out publicly against the three-day hunger-strike planned in Ipoh to be led by legitimate Perak Mentri Besar, Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin and lawful Speaker, V. Sivakumar to demand the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly and the holding of state-wide general elections to return the mandate to Perakians to choose the state government they want.

Najib is entitled to his opinion when he said that the hunger strike “should not happen at all”, claiming that the solution should be left to “the constitutional process”, whatever that means.

However, was Najib’s public disapproval for the hunger strike in Ipoh the signal and “greenlight” for the latest police madness in Ipoh with indiscriminate arrest of peaceful protestors as if “fasting” and not wanting to eat have become a new crime in Malaysia!

I was in Bangkok yesterday for the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) meeting over Aung San Suu Kyi’s continued incarceration in Myanmar, and when I asked Thais, I was told that they go about their lives in Bangkok without any fear of snatch thiefs or snatch-thief killers, and that they are blessedly spared the menace of Mat Rempits.

The Police will never be able to convince Malaysians and investors  that they are professional and world-class so long as they continue to be more “efficient” in dealing with peaceful civic-minded protestors than criminals, whether robbers, rapists, snatch-thiefs or snatch-thief killers, and the criminal Mat Rempit elements.

Already some 163 arrests had been made nation-wide by the police over peaceful protests at the unethical, undemocratic and unconstitutional power grab in Perak – more than 50 per cent more than the notorious Operation Lalang mass arrests launched by Tun Dr. Mahathir in 1987.

Why is Najib so keen to demonstrate in his second month as Prime Minister that the Police have his “blank-cheque” to trample on human rights and civil liberties, when Mahathir unleashed such a crackdown only in his seventh year as Prime Minister?

Despite his slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”, Najib has not been able to capture the imagination of Malaysians in the way his predecessors, whether Tun Mahathir or Tun Abdullah, were able to do with their respective slogans, “Clean, Efficient, Trustworthy” for the former and “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang” for the latter.

One important reason why Najib’s slogan has not been able to take-off is because of the heavy baggage of the protracted political and constitutional crisis in Perak which has truly become a “hydra-headed monster” which cannot be resolved in the courts.

With Malaysia in official recession this year, Najib should not tarry any longer to do what is right for the nation and to subordinate Umno and Barisan Nasional interests.

In less than nine months, the economy has plunged from a government forecast of 2009 GDP growth of 5.4% (made in the 2009 Budget presented in Parliament on 29th August 2008) to 3.5% (first RM7 billion economic stimulus package in Parliament on 4th November 2008), then  down to the range of minus 1.0 per cent to 1.0 per cent (second RM60 billion economic stimulus package in Parliament on May 10, 2009), to be further revised downwards to a contraction between one and 2 per cent.

This is the time when Najib should give full and total attention to the economy and the conditions to enhance Malaysia’s international competitiveness and to stop playing political games as in Perak which have the far-reaching repercussions of undermining Malaysia’s international competitiveness with the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of one key national institution after another facing unprecedented crisis of confidence.

Let Malaysians  tell Najib – stop the current police madness, end the debilitating  Perak crisis and unite Malaysians to face the world’s worst economic crisis in a century with Malaysia in official recession this year.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 May 2009, 1:05 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Perak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


1 Terbalik  country

by
Lingam

Anything that is likely to offend the BN Warlords is an offence.

Fasting could be an offence.

Wearing black could be an offence.

Lighting candles could be an offence.

Baking birthday cakes could be an offence.

Lawyers seeing their client could be an offence.

Putting up campaign materials in an election could be an offence.

Deleting immigration records is not an offence.

Physical obstructing MP in parliamentary ground is not an offence.

Having detainees beaten to death while in their custody is not an offence.

Spending public money for family visits and Disneyland fun is not an offence.

Engaging in corrupt money politics is not an offence.

This is 1 Terbalik Country.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2009, 8:56 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Why JJ not suitable to be the Malaysian voice in Washington

Letters

by
Patriot

Re your  blog entitled
“Malaysian Ambassador to US – why Ghazzali and JJ on the short-list?”
, some  additional information that may be handy:

JJ was sent to DC by the Prime Minister to join Anifah during the visit. This is tantamount to Anifah being shadowed by a trusted crony.

However, Anifah did NOT include JJ among those attending the meeting with Hilary Clinton – this suggests that Anifah did not wish to be overshadowed.

While Anifah’s attack on Anwar at the Press Conference was puzzling, it is likely that he was egged on by JJ.

JJ ‘s actions are consistent with his previous track record and lends support to the view that JJ’s primary task as Ambassador in Washington will be to smear Anwar in Washington as the show trial moves forward.

In conversations with folks he indicated that he would use his “network” presumably the Malaysia-US Friendship Council; he is also indicated that he would spend 6 weeks there and considerable time in KL.

Thus he will be a “part-timer”. If so he will need to be “assisted” – hence the notion that Ghazzali should be in the US as well!

Incidentally, the latter’s name after languishing at the State Department for half a year was withdrawn. The inaction on the part of the US was in a sense a rejection – other Ambassadorial nominees of other countries e.g. Thailand were approved speedily. The languishing was linked presumably with Ghazzali’s  entanglement with the Jack Abramoff affair.

 It is too much of a coincidence that JJ is under consideration as he is also tainted by the Abramoff connection. As an ambassador he will be living in a glass house so he should make sure to improve official ties between the US and Malaysia instead of using lobbyists such as the disgraced Abramoff or fictitious associations such as Malaysia America Friendship council established by JJ.

A simple google search shows that the Malaysia-US Friendship Council uses Foley Hoag, a lobbying company to carry out its lobbying activities.

According to Open Secrets, a website that tracks all lobbying expenditures incurred by the various lobbying entities registered in the United States, the Malaysia-US Friendship Council paid Foley Hoag more than $904,000 to carry out lobbying activities.  An article from the Washington Post makes reference to JJ and his role in setting up the Council. There are stories that JJ was the fund raiser —– among the rumored contributors were Tenaga (JJ was the Chairman at that time) YTL, Genting Power.  Your questions in Parliament to Syed Hamid Albar were never fully answered as to the source of funds.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Malaysia-US+Friendship+Council&year=2002

A Malaysian lawyer working with Foley Hoag, Alima Joned, is a principal officer of the council.

 JJ’s name has not been submitted to the US as yet. The stories in the Malaysian media are perhaps a testing of the waters. The State Department and other US Agencies are probably doing their own due diligence in advance. Even on the basis of what is in the public domain, stormy weather is likely to be encountered. Incidentally, JJ committed a faux pax by doing personal lobbying with US officials during his visit to the US.

Bottom line: all this is most damaging to building relationships with the new US Administration, more so as during the Bush years the Democrats were ignored; almost all energies were channeled cultivating the neo-cons. JJ’s suitability to act as the Malaysian voice in Washington  is questionable, especially at this point of time.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2009, 11:09 am and is filed under
Foreign
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Indictment of IGP Musa Hassan’s failure – Ah Longs beating and chaining victims like dogs in illegal prisons for months on end

Malaysians are shocked today by more evidence that Malaysia is taking on the characteristics of a failed state, when they read reports and see photos of “Loan shark’s hellhole torture for defaulters”, with men chained like dogs, beaten and forced to survive on water and bread for months on end, the horrific treatment inflicted by loan sharks on their debtors.

The discovery of such hell-hole came to light when police rescued three men who were held in an unoccupied shoplot in Seri Kembangan, near Kuala Lumpur, for two months as they could not pay their loans which ranged from RM1,500 to RM4,000.

A police party raided the shoplot yesterday afternoon and found the three men tied to the wall with heavy chains.

The victims, aged 25, 34 and 49, were abducted from Segambut, Semenyih and Gombak.

As Gombak police chief Assistant Commissioner Abdul Rahim Abdullah described it:

“The victims were very weak. They were wearing the same clothes they had on for the past two months and had been beaten regularly with sticks.

“The loan sharks contacted the victims’ families and demanded they settle the loans if they wanted to see their loved ones again.”

The families could not raise the money but did not seek police help.

Rahim said the victims were imprisoned in two makeshift six-by-seven metre cells, each with an open toilet. They were chained at their necks and feet to a wall.

Firemen used an electric chainsaw to cut through the 6kg chains.

The captives sobbed uncontrollably when they saw the rescue party.

He said they were only given five slices of bread every few days and water from a small tap connected to their cells.

“If we made noise, we would be kicked and beaten.”

How many such hellholes and dungeons are there in the country where Ah Longs illegally imprison their hostages in their own underground system of “prisons”, making an utter mockery of the police and justice systems?

Who would have thought that 52 years after Merdeka, Malaysia’s law and order system have degenerated to such a level where Ah Longs dare to institute their own system of illegal prisons and dungeons?

Instead of declaring a war against endemic crime so that Malaysia become a low-crime and a safe ground for citizens, tourist and investors, the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan has completely lost his proper sense of bearings, preferring to play political games together with his political games in a criminal misallocation of police personnel and resources from fighting crime and criminals.

Instead, police personnel and resources were channelled to harass and detain peaceful protestors who pose no threat to law and order, just because the powers-that-be have become increasingly afraid of dissent whether in the form of wearing black, candlelight vigils, balloons to highlight people’s support for dissolution of Perak State Assembly or even singing birthday song!

The Inspector-General should immediately recall all police personnel back to the barracks and  to return them to their first duty to be on the streets to fight crime and criminals and not to appease the fears and anxieties of their political masters at dissent and protests by  Malaysians committed to peaceful, democratic and non-violent means of expression.

I was in Bangkok two days ago for the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) meeting over Aung San Suu Kyi’s continued incarceration in Myanmar, and when I asked Thais, I was told that they go about their lives in Bangkok without any fear of snatch thiefs or snatch-thief killers, and that they are blessedly spared the menace of Mat Rempits.

The Police will never be able to convince Malaysians and investors  that they are professional and world-class so long as they continue to be more “efficient” in dealing with peaceful civic-minded protestors than criminals, whether robbers, rapists, Ah Longs, snatch-thiefs or snatch-thief killers, and the criminal Mat Rempit elements.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2009, 10:33 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib should put speculation to rest – Is Hamid Albar Petronas Chairman and Omar Ong Petronas non-executive Board director?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak at his 3 pm media conference today to announce the revised figures of the countrty’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) should put to rest the heated and contentious  speculation in the blogosphere on new and important appointments in Petronas.

The  Petronas Board of Directors met yesterday.

Najib should clarify once and for all whether former Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar has been appointed Petronas Chairman and if so, explain  why a person deemed unfit to continue as Cabinet Minister as to be dropped in the recent reshuffle should be considered proper material as Petronas Chairman.

Furthermore, whether Omar Ong, one of the Putrajaya “Level Four” boys of former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  has been appointed non-executive director of Petronas, with a view to his future appointment as Petronas CEO and replacement of Tan Sri Hassan Merican next year – as well as the basis and criteria for such an appointment.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2009, 11:46 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PwC report on PKFZ Scandal – has it answers to five questions I posed to Ong Tee Keat on 9th April 2009?

I welcome the public release of the PricewaterhouseCooper (PwC) audit report into the  Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal, which I had been pressuring the Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat in the past year, which had been intensified in the past two months, not only on Ong, but also on  the Cabinet and the new Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

I commend the Prime Minister and Ong for the publication of the PwC report on the PKFZ scandal. In fact, there should have been no foot-dragging and procrastination in withholding the PwC report from MPs and public if the Cabinet is serious about accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance.

I would not say anything until I have the opportunity to study the PwC report, except to say that the first thing I would look for is whether the PwC report furnish answers to five questions on the PKFZ scandal which I posed to Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, on 9th April last year, viz:

1. Was it true that when the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry insisted on buying the 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at RM25 psf on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis, in the face of strong objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Treasury which had recommended that the land be acquired at RM10 psf, the Cabinet had given its approval subject to two conditions: (i) categorical assurance by the Transport Minister that the PKFZ proposal was feasible and self-financing and would not require any public funding; and (ii) that every RM100 million variation in the development costs of PKFZ would require prior Cabinet approval.

2. In the event, the first condition was breached when the PKFZ project ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion requiring government intervention and bailout while the second condition was breached with the original PKFZ development costs of RM400 million ballooning to RM2.8 billion without any prior Cabinet approval ever sought for every RM100 million increase in development costs.

3. The Transport Minister had unlawfully issued four Letters of Support to Kuala Dimensi Sdn. Bhd (KDSB), the PKFZ turnkey contractor — to raise RM4 billion bonds, which were regarded as government guarantees by the market. The Transport Minister had no such powers to issue financial guarantees committing the government, as it could only be issued by the Finance Minister and only after Cabinet approval. The first Letter of Support was issued by the former Transport Minister, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik on May 28, 2003, which was Liong Sik’s last day as Transport Minister while the other three were issued by Kong Choy.

4. Whether it wasn’t true that in recognition that the four unlawful “Letters of Support” of the Transport Minister had nonetheless given implicit government guarantee to the market that the Cabinet had in middle of last year gave retrospective approval for the unlawful and unauthorized four Letters of Support by the Transport Ministers in the past four years creating RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the bailout of PKFZ.

5. Why no action had been taken against the two previous Transport Ministers, both Liong Sik and Kong Choy, as well as the government officials responsible for the unlawful issue of the four “Letters of Support” – getting the government embroiled in the RM4.6 billion PKFZ scandal?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 28 May 2009, 1:06 pm and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


DAP wants PKFZ to close shop

By Shannon Teoh | The Malaysian Insider

PORT KLANG, May 29 — The DAP wants the government to cut its losses in Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) that faces at least RM8.6 billion in future losses and have asked it to close shop, even if it means declaring the Port Klang Authority (PKA) bankrupt.

After a team led by its parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang had spent four hours at the PKA headquarters perusing the full report on the RM7.5 billion already spent, they concluded that the government should “bite the bullet and end the project, even if it means declaring PKA bankrupt.”

Party information chief Tony Pua explained that if the statutory body liquidated its assets, it could reduce losses to around RM3 billion from the RM4.6 billion already sunk in by the Treasury.

According to the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), PKA is already servicing a government loan but operating losses will see it unable to meet payments by 2012.

It will only turn around in 2042. By then, it would have racked up a cumulative loss of RM3.6 billion.

PKA will need to refinance the loan and lose RM5 billion in interest payments, resulting in a total RM8.6 billion bailout by the government.

“Even this is a best case scenario because the calculations are based on projections that PKA provided,” Pua said.

He pointed out that according to these same forecasts, PKA had expected 20 per cent occupancy in the light industrial areas today, but it currently stands at 14 per cent.

He also disclosed that the only major shipping line using Port Klang as a regional hub, CMA & CJM, was planning to move to Tanjung Pelepas in Johor, saying “expecting it to be 40 per cent in 2011 and then full occupancy in 2014 is extremely optimistic.”

Lim had earlier expressed disappointment with the report as its scope was restricted and while it named a few “middling characters,” he said “the bigger story is the top VIPs” who are “puppet masters.”

“Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat had promised to tell all but knowing full well the questions posed before the report was commissioned, this is a grave injustice.

“We know it goes higher than this,” he said, adding that a royal commission of inquiry should look into the roles of those in power when the project was being conceptualised in 1999 onwards.

This includes previous transport ministers Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy as well as then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

“It is an astronomical rip-off. The can of worms has turned out to be a pit of crocodiles and alligators,” Lim declared.

He added that immediate action should be taken against those named in the report, including three active Barisan Nasional politicians, its backbenchers chief Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing, Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung and Sementa assemblyman Datuk Abdul Rahman Palil, who is a former Selangor state executive councillor.

He said that there was “no point” in filing a report at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) as PKA chairman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng had done this morning.

“Our Selangor executive councillor Ronnie Liu has already lodged four police and MACC reports. What have they done? In fact, Liu will later lodge a report on MACC at the MACC,” the Ipoh Timur MP added.

The party’s Selangor vice-chairman Charles Santiago called for those involved to be suspended from their positions and have their bank accounts frozen pending investigations.

The Klang MP expressed shock at the amount of wastage and believes there has been political pressure and collusion to keep the 10-year saga quiet.

“It is a colossal failure of our regulators and governance,” he said.

“Given the global and financial crisis that has hit Malaysia’s shores, RM7.5 billion is more than the government’s first stimulus package and RM12.5 billion is over one-fifth of the second package.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 May 2009, 3:41 pm and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Kit Siang: Probe the puppet masters

Andrew Ong | May 29, 09 2:11pm | Malaysiakini

Veteran opposition lawmaker Lim Kit Siang has urged the government to form a commission of inquiry to probe the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

“The inquiry must investigate by going beyond the Port Klang Authority (PKA) and probe the Treasury and the previous transport ministers,” Lim said.

The two transport ministers singled out by Lim was Ling Liong Sik (1986 – 2003) and Chan Kong Choy (2003 – 2008).

“The PKA chairperson is only a puppet. The masters were Ling and Chan,” said Lim.

Lim was speaking to reporters after leading a seven-member delegation to the PKA headquarters in Port Klang to study the three-inch thick appendix to the PKFZ audit report for four hours. The appendix was released today.

Lim also lashed out at current Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat for defining a narrow terms-of-reference for the audit by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) and not granting firm investigative powers.

He said that this falls short of Ong’s promise of a complete disclosure over the scandal.

By doing so, Lim said Ong had done a “great disservice” to the country by “tying the hands and feet of PwC” and thus producing a reported that was “highly unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted”.

Lim said that a thorough probe by means of a commission of inquiry was necessary to probe Lim, Chan and Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was prime minister when the project kicked in the early 2000s.

MACC probe not enough

In another development, Klang MP Charles Santiago has also urged the government to form a commission of inquiry on the scandal, because the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency has proven to be inefficient.

Santiago said numerous reports on PKFZ have already been submitted to the then Anti-Corruption Agency but no action appears to have been taken.

“The (then) Anti-Corruption Agency has took files from PKFZ. They know about the wrongdoings involving the project, but nothing has come out of it,” he told Malaysiakini.

Santiago said that similarly, Bursa Malaysia and the Parliament Public Accounts Committee (under Johor Baru MP Shahrir Samad then) looked into the matter as well, but no action was taken.

“There seems to be a lack of oversight by the relevant regulators. These institutions have failed and nothing short of a commission of inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of this,” he said.

He added that these bodies were aware of the PKFZ scandal even before the audit report and their inaction begs the question of whether there was collusion, political interference of intimidation.

Santiago was commenting on the decision by Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat to hand the audit report of the controversial project over to the MACC for further action.

“This is the biggest financial fiasco in Malaysian history. It is disappointing that the transport minister is gloating that by reporting to the MACC, the problem will be resolved,” added Santiago.

Report handed to MACC

Earlier today, Port Klang Authority (PKA) chairperson Lee Hwa Beng handed a copy of the audit report to the MACC office in Putrajaya at about 8am.

He later spent about 10 minutes in a meeting with MACC deputy commission Abu Kassim Mohammad.

Speaking to reporters later, he said that both PKA and auditors PwC have pledged full cooperation with MACC.

He said that PKA would only take action internally after MACC has completed its probe.

Among others, the audit reports serious mismanagement of the project which has ballooned from a cost of RM1.9 billion to RM7.5 billion till date.

Should there be no remedies, the audit report projected that PKFZ would cost taxpayers RM12 billion by 2051.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 29 May 2009, 3:45 pm and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PDRM’s 3 minutes to disperse….. 1,2,3 Catch, Catch, Catch!

by
Augustine Anthony

29.5.09

It is now clear that the assurance given by Justice Syed Ahmad Idid to Anthony Clement Skinner (who is now the Kota Kinabalu  High Court Judge) in the case of
Datuk Yong Teck Lee v PP & Anor  1993 1mlj 295
has travelled through the intestinal passages of abuses of constitutional protection of citizens and now awaits it’s final moment. To be flushed down in the toilet bowl.

Skinner’s (as he then was and whom I know as a judge blessed with enviable judicial temperament) fears were well founded as he provided an illustration of the extensive powers of the police under the Police Act 1967 and the likely abuses by the police.

“‘If three school boys decide to go to the cinema for a film show, they cannot do so. It is illegal to do so unless they have a licence from the OCPD to do so. Any steps taken in furtherance of the intention (without a licence) would render the meeting or assembly illegal and any person taking part thereto shall be guilty of an offence.”

Justice Syed Ahmad Idid then confidently provided words of comfort and assurance when he went on to say:-

“I am unable to accept this contention or illustration in the face of the fact that thousands of patrons, without any licence, frequent the cinemas and other functions every day and night in Malaysia and the police do not charge them under the Act or the Code………….. But assuming for one moment that the three school boys entered the cinema hall and are met by 100 other people whom they do not know, and who are bent on having an illegal meeting and not watching the film. The authorities charged with the responsibility of maintaining law and order and public peace rush in. The school boys………. have a defence in two other instances: firstly, when they follow the route and/or time set by the police for the assembly or meetings; or secondly, they disperse when the police so order”

Very nice, all of it, in papers and court judgments but the reality is far from what is described in judgments like this.

Must ordinary citizens need to go through the hardship of an unnecessary and unwarranted arrest in the first place?  Why should they be subjected to a charge in court that would require engaging a lawyer that would be a costly affair and not to mention the waste of public funds to prosecute such trivial offences?

Take for example the recent arrest made by the police of the 7 Perak Legislative Assembly Members and a Member of Parliament and some others seen attired in black in Ipoh on the 26.05.2008.

Did the police provide a clear route or time for people to disperse? I need not explain or write further. Suffice for me to say that Malaysiakini, YouTube and many other press reports had revealed enough for people to judge the conduct of the police.

This is one ugly episode that could have been wholly avoided if the police had only displayed some restraint particularly so in view of the fact that the prevailing atmosphere at the time of the arrest was peaceful and orderly.

It baffles me as to why the police need to deal with peace loving Malaysians like as though they are some dangerous criminals who threaten the peace and security of our country.

It baffles me even more simply because as a lawyer I come across many police officers in my day to day job be it in court or elsewhere and I find many of them, when met personally, have polite and pleasant dispositions with hopes and aspirations just like many of us but I cannot understand why collectively as a police force their conduct invites such disparagement.

I simply do not think that they enjoy doing what they are ordered to but perhaps more compelling will be the reason that insubordination will lead to loss of career prospect or even loss of job.

It is for this reason a minister or senior police officer should not simply give orders to their subordinates, the very orders that they themselves will find it hard to execute.

Remember! People in power can delegate their authority but not their responsibilities. As such I will not blame the ordinary policemen who carry out these orders but their superiors who gave such ridiculous orders to be executed.

The persistence of the Police in the application of S27 of the Police Act 1967 liberally, especially against members of political parties that have opposing views than of the ruling government, I am afraid is creating unnecessary and undue anxiety in people.

If M. Kulasegaran a hugely popular  elected Member of Parliament for Ipoh Barat constituency (where the arrest took place) and V. Sivakumar also an elected representative who is equally popular among the Perakians (or perhaps Malaysians) could not walk freely in public and mingle around with voters without fear of arrests by the police then why bother having elected representatives.

The police must understand that these are elected representatives. Surely their presence in public places will invariably invite some well wishers, some seeking help or even some for casual banter and it is the duty of the police to protect these elected representatives during these occasions and simultaneously promote such healthy assemblies and not otherwise impede or obstruct them thus creating unnecessary anxiety amongst the public.

The word “pemimpin berjiwa rakyat” was not coined simply for the sake of lip service. It has a deeper meaning. It creates a necessity for leaders to be always close to people.  And it is for this reason that a true leader is judged by his grassroot support that drives home the point that he had touched base.

The Prime Minister knows this more than other political leaders for the simple reason that the Malays loved his father as a true people’s leader. The prime minister’s regular meet-the-people session is certainly to replicate the glory days of his father during his time.

So why should there be double standards?  People ask.

Just as much as the leaders of the component parties of the ruling federal government, the leaders of the opposition parties also have their sworn duties as elected representatives to regularly meet the people and share the problems faced by them.

Why is their attempt to be close to the people made difficult by the constant harassment from PDRM and its liberal use of the Police Act 1967 to arrest people who gather peacefully?

Right thinking people are already questioning if elected representatives, who had shown no hostility and no violence towards any person especially to the police, could be publicly humiliated by such unpleasant arrests, how could ordinary people expect the police to be their guardian for peace and security.

There are other nagging thoughts that need to be addressed too. Are the arrests of these elected representatives done deliberately to put fear in people to such an extent that it is hoped by those in power that a climate of fear will be designed in such a way that it will prevent ordinary people from assembling peacefully in the future.

Whichever way one sees it; one thing is clear and that is, the ruling government is promoting a hate culture that is unhealthy in the long run.

While the current prime minister is making the needed efforts to win the trust of the people, perhaps if he can only caution the police to be more undemonstrative against peaceful assemblers and offer more breathing space for people who are opposed to the views of the ruling federal government then it may very well go a long way in soothing the people’s anger.

Without going into the overdrive of religious zeal, I can safely say that all teachings of religions drive home the point that respecting human rights is respecting divine laws and none can go wrong by respecting the wisdoms imbued in laws that govern nature.

So can we Malaysians get some respect before we return the same to people in authority?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2009, 7:04 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Are there enough courts and prisons?

This has never happened before. I could not finish the blog
“Speaking the truth is sedition and criminal defamation in Najib’s Malaysia”
 as I was just too tired to continue.

Had a series of very hectic days recently, not only with multiple issues but having to regularly triangulate three places, Petaling Jaya, Ipoh and Penang – not to mention having to cover Malacca and Bangkok as well.

Thought I would get a short nap before completing the blog. Instead I slept like a log of wood for nearly four hours.

There are already 24 comments on the unfinished blog.  Instead of finishing it, I am writing a new blog.

What really surprised me is not that the police are investigating a police report lodged against me for sedition and criminal defamation, but that the police report was lodged by the police itself.

Chief Inspector Pang Meng Tuck lodged the police report against me because, as the police recording officer for the PKR Penanti by-election ceramah in Guar Perahu, Kubang Semang on Sunday, 24th May 2009, he was of the view that my speech defamed the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and was seditious.

If my speech is defamatory of Najib’s character and reputation, why is the Prime Minister not instituting civil legal proceedings to clear his name and secure just compensation from me?

When did the Police acquire the new task of protecting the reputation or lack of reputation of Barisan Nasional leaders in government?

I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people, in Perak and Malaysia, agree with what I said at the Guar Perahu ceramah – that Najib must bear the greatest responsibility for the  protracted Perak political and constitutional crisis, set off by Najib’s unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak, which has now broadened into a larger national crisis of confidence of key national institutions, like police, election commission, MACC, civil service, judiciary, whose credibility, legitimacy and integrity have been compromised in serving Najib’s political agenda.

Are there enough court houses for the police to prosecute the overwhelming majority of Malaysians who think alike with me and are there enough prisons for them if they are convicted of the serious offences of sedition and criminal defamation of the Prime Minister?

On the morning’s events, read The Malaysian Insider’s
“LKS quizzed for blaming Najib over Perak crisis”
  and Malaysiakin’s

“Banned: First Altantuya, now Perak”
and
“Kit Siang, Gobala investigated by cops”
 below:

LKS quizzed for blaming Najib over Perak crisis

By Lee Wei Lian | The Malaysian Insider

Kit Siang signs his statement after being interviewed by the police at his home this morning. Seated on the left is Guan Eng.

PENANG, May 30 — Police today questioned DAP leader Lim Kit Siang for alleged defamation and sedition in his Penanti by-election ceramahs where he blamed the Perak crisis on Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Kit Siang said Chief Inspector Pang Meng Tak, in charge of a ceramah last Sunday, had lodged the report over his remarks at the gathering that the Prime Minister was responsible for the Perak constitutional crisis.

The police arrived at Kit Siang’s Island Glade home at 11.30am to take his statement.

His son Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and DAP national chairman Karpal Singh arrived shortly after.

The Ipoh Timur MP’s statement was taken by investigating officer Norazizi Saad.

“The chief inspector felt I committed sedition and criminal defamation against the prime minister because according to the police report, I said that Najib is responsible for the Perak constitutional crisis, that he orchestrated the Perak constitutional crisis and the ensuing developments and that during the following three months, the public confidence in him has fallen to a new low because the various national institutions have been further compromised and made to serve the political agenda for the illegal power grab by the police, Election Commission, civil service, judiciary and others,” Kit Siang told reporters after the police questioning.

Asked what he told the police officer, Kit Siang replied: “Well, I just said, meet in court.”

Kit Siang added that it is “virtually a foregone conclusion” that action would be taken against him as the police report was lodged by the police themselves.

“The chief inspector consulted two senior officers and felt a report had to be lodged,” said Kit Siang who called the questioning an abuse of power.

“These abuses of power are among the reasons why the legitimacy, the credibility of Najib as prime minister has continued to come under great strain and doubt because he is not prepared to fulfil his own slogan of 1 Malaysia, People First, Performance Now and be open and accountable,” he said.

The veteran politician, who appeared in good spirits despite the police questioning, could not resist comparing the situation with the era of Najib’s father’s Tun Abdul Razak, who was also Malaysia’s second prime minister.

“When his father was a prime minister, he never touched me for sedition, but he is doing what his father has never done,” he quipped.

Guan Eng, who is the DAP secretary-general, said the party strongly condemned the “harassment of top leaders.”

Kit Siang, flanked by Guan Eng (left) and Karpal, with supporters after his questioning by the police.

“We hope that the police can go and catch criminals as the crime situation in Malaysia is very bad instead of wasting time and money abusing the law and harassing Pakatan Rakyat leaders,” said Guan Eng. “The police appear to be bodyguards of Barisan Nasional instead of bodyguards of the people.”

Kit Siang had earlier said police officers came to a ceramah in Penanti last night where he was speaking to inform him that he would be questioned in connection with defamation and sedition in his campaign speeches.

“Apparently I’m wanted by police 4 sedition & criminal defamation of Najib + Malaysia,” Kit Siang posted in his Twitter account at about 1.30am.

“I told the police to come to my Penang house to question me. I don’t know what it’s about as I gave three speeches that night,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

In one of his speeches last Sunday at a ceramah in Bukit Mertajam, the veteran politician said Najib was the primary target in Penanti by-election as it was “a referendum on the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of Najib in his second month as Prime Minister”.

He accused Najib of allowing the police to conduct an unprecedented raid on the DAP national head office in Petaling Jaya,

He added Najib’s “1 Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” slogan has been shredded and discredited with the Perak political crisis, abuse of police power in curbing political dissent, inequal distribution of scholarships and the delayed release of the audit on the Port Klang Free Zone.

He has been campaigning strongly in the Penanti by-election despite Barisan Nasional’s absence on the ballot paper. Polling day is tomorrow.

Kit Siang this morning noted the new government method to “fix” the opposition or dissent by using sedition and criminal defamation charges instead of the Internal Security Act (ISA) that provides detention without trial.

Karpal is already facing a sedition charge while rights activist Wong Chin Huat was held recently for alleged sedition.

Kit Siang and Karpal have previously been held under the ISA.

Controversial blogger and Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamarudin has been slapped with criminal defamation and sedition charges apart from being previously held under the ISA for allegations linking Najib and his wife to the murder of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaariibuu.

RPK, as he is popularly known, has skipped bail and is said to have left the country.

The Sedition Act is, however, perceived to be less oppressive than the ISA but yet drafted in such a way that it gives the government absolute power to make arrests on its political enemies.

According to section 4 (1) of the Sedition Act, a person is considered to have committed an offence under this law if he or she attempts to do, or make any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or would, if done, have a seditious tendency.

It further read that any person is found to have committed an offence under this law if he or she utters any seditious words, prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes, or reproduces any seditious publications or imports any seditious publications.

Yet in all of this, there is no real and clear definitive guideline as to what constitutes sedition.

==========

Banned: First Altantuya, now Perak

Athi Veeranggan | May 30, 09 4:38pm | Malaysiakini

It is clear that any mention of a possible link between Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu can land a person into trouble.

PKR supreme council member and fiery orator Badrul Hisham Shaharin had to spend nearly five hours at the Central Seberang Perai police headquarters yesterday to answer questions over his by-election campaign speech in Penanti on Monday where he mentioned ‘Altantuya’.

Now, however, one cannot also link Najib to the four-month political impasse in Perak or you can be investigated for sedition and criminal defamation.

Senior DAP leader Lim Kit Siang found out about this after a report was made by the police and a statement was taken on the matter.

At a 3,000-strong by-election campaign rally in Guar Perahu, Penanti last Sunday, Lim accused Najib of engineering the Perak power grab.

The Ipoh Timur parliamentarian was quizzed by investigating officer ASP Norazizi Saad for nearly an hour from 11.30am today at his house in Island Park, Georgetown.

Lim said he was being investigated for sedition and criminal defamation in blaming Najib for the Perak political stalemate.

He added that he was being probed following a report lodged by an on-duty police officer at the Sunday rally.

“If I am charged and found guilty, I will be imprisoned … simple as that,” the DAP supremo told a press conference, flanked by his son and Penang Chief Minister Guan Eng, DAP national chairperson Karpal Singh and several DAP local leaders and assemblypersons.

Even Najib’s father did not do this

The senior Lim cautioned that the two-month-old Najib’s premiership was fast descending into a “police state” and into an “era of darkness”.

He cited police crackdowns on candlelight vigils, hunger strikes, wearing black, the raid on DAP headquarters, and the harassment of Pakatan Rakyat leaders and social activists to back his claim. Over 160 people have been arrested in the past three weeks.

“This is a serious violation of human rights and civil liberties,” said the veteran opposition leader, the only opposition parliamentarian who has faced off the country’s six prime ministers.

“I don’t blame the police. They are acting on the directives from a higher-up power,” he said, suggesting that the Barisan Nasional government was increasingly spooked by the rapid loss of public confidence.

Kit Siang recalled that even Najib’s late father, former premier Abdul Razak Abdul Rahman, had never investigated him for sedition or criminal defamation despite engaging in many political duels with him back in the 70s.

“We are facing a major political crisis at the same time when the country is facing its biggest economic crisis,” lamented the senior politician.

Guan Eng, meanwhile, criticised the police for wasting their resources on petty political issues, and ticked them off for increasingly acting like “bodyguards to BN rather than to the people.”

Like Chegu Bard, as Badrul Hisham is fondly known, Kit Siang was slapped with a police order yesterday under Section 111 of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) requesting him to be present at the Central Seberang Perai police headquarters this morning.

However, the DAP leader had asked Norazizi to record his statement at his Penang home.

Karpal, who was also at the press conference after Kit Siang’s sesssion with the police, slammed the police for applying Section 111 on his DAP colleague.

The MP-cum-lawyer said that such an order could only be issued after a witness had failed to turn up at the designated police station to give a statement.

Karpal: Charge Khir Toyo instead

Karpal instead called on the attorney-general to press charges against former Selangor menteri besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo for taking part in an illegal Umno Youth rally in Waterfall, Penang on Feb 13.

The demonstration was to include a march from Waterfall to Karpal’s house nearby in Jalan Utama. However, it was called off after police warned Umno Youth members that severe action would be taken against them.

Mohd Khir and Permatang Pauh Umno Youth chief Mohd Zaidi was later escorted to the Georgeown police headquarters for their statements to be recorded. They were later released.

“It was an illegal assembly. Why none of them were charged?” asked Karpal, the Bukit Gelugor MP.

According to Kit Siang, he was approached by police officers at a Pakatan Rakyat rally in Berapit last night where he was informed about the investigation. At the same time, a police order was delivered to his house in Persiaran Besi, Island Park.

Police also served a separate notice to Chegu Bard at his homes in Seremban and Bangi on Thursday when he was in Perak.

During the Guar Perahu ceramah, Kit Siang had condemned the police raid on DAP headquarters in Petaling Jaya as “a shameful incident”, and called on Penanti voters to teach Najib a political lesson.

Pakatan candidate Mansor Othman from PKR is up against three independent candidates – Aminah Abdullah, Kamarul Ramizu Idris and Nai Khan Ari, in Penanti by-election.

Campaigning will end at midnight and polling is tomorrow.

==========

Kit Siang, Gobala investigated by cops

May 30, 09 2:22pm | Malaysiakini

Two opposition leaders are being investigated by the police in connection to the speeches they made while campaigning in the Penanti by-election.

DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang provided a statement to the police this morning at his house in Penang following a report lodged against him for “sedition and criminal defamation” of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

According to Lim, chief inspector Pang Meng Tuck had lodged a report against his speech in Guar Perahu, Penanti on May 24.

“In my speech, I blamed Najib (Abdul Razak) for the Perak power grab and for compromising the credibility of one national institution after another,” recalled Lim, who is Ipoh Timur parliamentarian, in this Twitter posting.

According to Lim, he also spoke of the Royal Malaysian Police, Election Commission, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the civil service and the judiciary being made to serve Najib’s political agenda.

“In Najib’s Malaysia, speaking the truth has become sedition and criminal defamation. Darkness is descending on Malaysia,” he said after his one-hour session with the police.

“Malaysians must not be cowed,” he adds.

The veteran opposition leader was accompanied by his son, Penang Chief Minister Guan Eng, and DAP MP-cum-lawyer Karpal Singh at his meeting with the police.

Lim said that a few police officers went to a DAP ceramah (photos above and right) at 11.40pm yesterday to inform him about the investigation.

However, Lim was on stage giving a speech at that time, and Guan Eng, who was also there, had to negotiate with the police to fix an appointment for a statement could be recorded on the matter.

Gobalakrishnan to go to police station

Meanwhile, Padang Serai parliamentarian N Gobalakrishnan has also been summoned by the Bukit Mertajam police over a speech where he mentioned Najib’s link to the murder of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Accompanied by lawyer Ahmad Nizam Hamid, Gobalakrishnan arrived at Seberang Perai Tengah police districts headquarter at 3.30pm and was quizzed for about an hour.

“I was asked to come to police station because the police want to take statement regarding two reports lodged by police officers,” he said.

The two police reports were against Gobalakrishnan’s for three speeches on May 27 and 29, which he made as part of his campaign for PKR candidate Mansor Othman.

Gobalakrishnan said that the questions were mostly confined to whether he had spoke about Altantuya’s murder and about V Sivakumar being ousted as Perak speaker.

“It seems like Altantuya is haunting Najib and the Barisan Nasional government,” he said

Gobalakrishnan said he was being probed under the Sedition Act and Section 500 of the Penal Code for criminal defamation, adding that Najib was using the police to silence the opposition.

“The police has been used by Prime Minister Office’s to frighten us. They don’t want us to talk about Altantuya, Najib, Rosmah, and many other things,” he said.

However, he said this episode would not deter him for further unraveling the ‘truth’ on the murder.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2009, 10:23 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


I am wanted by police

from
http://twitter.com/limkitsiang

1.
Lim Kit Sianglimkitsiang
New Najib modus operandi 2″fix” Opposition/dissent using sedition & criminal defamation charges instead of ISA? Will meet police 1130 am
2 minutes ago from web

   3.
Lim Kit Sianglimkitsiang
Apparently I’m wanted by police 4sedition & criminal defamation of najib + malaysia
about 5 hours ago from mobile web

   4.
Lim Kit Sianglimkitsiang
Police officer came 2Penanti ceramah I was speaking that I am wanted by police 4defamation in last sunday speech lets see what happens tmr
about 6 hours ago from mobile web

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2009, 6:12 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PKFZ Rip-off – first 3 questions to OTK

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has
directed
 Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat to respond to queries involving the audit report on the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ).

He said Ong would provide the necessary information on the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) released on Thursday, adding:

“I have asked Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat to provide answers on every question raised by any party on the audit report.”

Speaking  to reporters after the Umno supreme council meeting in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, Najib said Ong will provide the explanation to all questions about the PwC report on the PKFZ.

Acting on Najib’s invitation, I am asking my first three questions about Malaysia’s latest “Scandal of Scandals” – the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) rip-off.

1.	Why did Ong break his public  pledge made in his first month as Transport Minister on 7th April 2008 that he would “tell all” about the PKFZ scandal, as “the rakyat has a right to know the truth” by restricting the terms of reference of the PricewaterhouseCooper audit inquiry to “a position review” instead of the wide-ranging and all-out investigation  into PKFZ scandal?

PwC report had specifically drawn attention to its very narrow and restricted term of reference, when it stated:

“The report is limited in scope.  It is restricted to a position review of Port Klang Free Zone and Port Klang  Free Zone Sdn. Bhd as set out in our Letter of Engagement dated 8th October 2008. We were not asked to and we have not advised on any strategy, valuation, legal implications, tax, operational effectiveness, staff competencies or process improvement. No investigation to detect any wrongdoing or audit to form an opinion on any financial information, including any forecasts and projections, has been undertaken.” (p.1)

Can Ong explain why he had decided on such a limited and restricted term of reference of the PwC study, deliberately excluding from inquiry the conduct or misconduct of previous Transport Ministers, Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik and Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy in the PKFZ scandal, as well as not asking PwC to detect any wrong doing or render advice on “any strategy, valuation, legal implications, tax, operational effectiveness, staff competencies or process improvement”?

2.	Does Ong agree that the PwC report has exposed the PKFZ scandal as not just a “can of worms” but a “swamp of crocodiles” snowballing from a RM1.8 billion scandal in 2002 under Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister, more than doubling to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister and now mushrooming into the astronomical figure of a RM12.5 billion scandal under Ong’s watch as Transport Minister? When I went through the report and the three-and-half-inch high 20 appendices, my most vivid image was of “RIP-OFF”  and I felt violated as a Malaysian citizen and Parliamentarian.  Does Ong have such a feeling?

3.	Does Ong agree that the RM12.5 billion PKFZ rip-off is a heinous crime and it must not be allowed to be another but bigger version of the RM2.5 billion Bumiputra Malaysia Finance scandal which the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said 25 years ago as a “heinous crime but without criminals”?

RM12.5 billion is not chicken-feed. It is equivalent to five RM2.5 billion BMF scandals.  RM12.5 billion can be used to build  four Penang bridges, 25 universities at RM500 million each; 125 hospitals at RM100 million each; 1,250 schools at RM10 million each; 312,500 low-cost houses at RM40,000 each; declare amnesty  from collecting assessment for  13 years for Selangor state or 45 years for Penang state; or give everyone of the 27 million Malaysians regardless of age a payout of RM338!

In fact it is  like striking a RM1 Million price lottery each and every month non stop for the next 1,041 years!

What is Ong doing to bring to book all those responsible for the RM12.5 billion PKFZ rip-off, whether politicians named like MCA Deputy Finance Minister, Chor Chee Heung and Semanta state assemblyperson Abdul Rahman Palil or those unnamed like  Liong Sik, Kong Choy or  BBC Chairman Tiong King Sing..

Najib has kicked the ball to Ong. I hope Ong will not kick to ball to somebody else and make the Prime Minister look foolish by not answering  all queries about the PwC report on the PKFZ scandal.

(Media Conference  in Penang on Saturday, 30th May 2009)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2009, 1:04 pm and is filed under
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speaking the truth is sedition and criminal defamation in Najib’s Malaysia

ASP Norazizi bin Saad took a statement from me following a police report lodged by Chief Inspector Pang Meng Tuck, CID, Seberang Perai Tengah Police, on 25th May 2009 that my Penanti ceramah speech at Guar Perahu, Kubang Semang on Sunday night (24th May) was sedition and criminal defamation against the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

In my speech, I had blamed Najib as being  responsible for Perak political and constitutional crisis because of an unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab, resulting in the expansion of the crisis of confidence, with one national institution after another,  such as the Police, Election Commission, MACC, civil service, judiciary  compromising their credibility and legitimacy  as they just serve Najib’s political agenda.

In Najib’s Malaysia, speaking the truth has become sedition and criminal defamation. Darkness is descending on Malaysia. Malaysians must not be cowed.

What is shocking is that this  police report against me for sedition and criminal defamation did not come from some members of the public, but by the Police itself.  Insp. Pang’s report was on  the directive of senior police officers, ASP Subramaniam Sanaassy and ACP Nasir Salleh.

(continue at
Are there enough courts and prisons?
)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2009, 2:23 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Streamyx in Penang sucks

What do you say?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 May 2009, 6:45 am and is filed under
IT
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.