False IPCMC Bill (SCC Bill) – Emergency Public Consultation in KL on Monday

I am convening an emergency public consultation in Kuala Lumpur on Monday night on the stand that Members of Parliament should take on the fraudulent Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Bill (IPCMC) which will be debated in Parliament on Tuesday or Wednesday – the last day of the 46-day sitting of the current parliamentary meeting.

I regret that time is so short  with only two days to convene such a public consultation when  there should be a series of such public consultations in various parts of the country in view of the importance of the proposed legislation based on the most important recommendation of the Royal Police Commission to create an efficient, incorruptible, accountable, professional world-class police service with three core functions – to keep crime low, to eradicate corruption in the police and to protect human rights.

The Special Complaints Commission (SCC) Bill was tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Thursday and will be debated for passage on Tuesday or Wednesday before the adjournment of Parliament until next March.

The  SCC Bill admitted in its explanatory statement that its genesis came from the IPCMC proposal –  “This Bill is introduced as a result of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police and it is intended to cover not only the police officers but also all enforcement officers at the Federal level.”

Most unfortunately however, the SCC is a completely different animal from the one conceived and recommended by the Royal Police Commission  – in fact it makes a total mockery of the IPCMC proposal as to warrant the SCC Bill to be billed as a fraudulent IPCMC Bill.

The whole
raison d’etre
 for the IPCMC proposal, the most important of its 125 recommendations for police reform, was spelt out by the Royal Police Commission in Chapter 6  its Report on
“Modernise the Role, Functions and Organisations of the Royal Malaysia Police”
 (p. 189), viz:

“One effective means of ensuring that doctrines, laws, rules and procedures are observed and implemented is by the establishment of an external oversight body.  This method has been adopted by many modern policing systems whose experience has been that internal mechanisms alone are inadequate, unreliable and frequently ineffective.  Police culture is often inward-looking and closed and mindsets are usually resistant to change.  Changes in leadership can also lead to changes in commitment to service excellence, discipline and performance.  Society cannot therefore rely on internal mechanisms alone to ensure PDRM effectively implements and abides by rules and regulations. The establishment of an external oversight agency for PDRM would be a profoundly important development in the governance of this important organization.  It will mark a quantum step forward in enhancing accountability and help restore and sustain the confidence of the people and the private sector in PDRM.”

The SCC Bill however has made complete nonsense of the Royal Police Commission’s proposal for an independent external oversight mechanism by proposing that one of the three permanent members of the SCC should be none other than the Inspector-General of Police – when the Royal Police Commission had gone out of the way to specifically propose that no serving or former members of the police force should be appointed Commissioners of IPCMC!

Whether the Royal Police Commission’s idea and proposal for an independent external oversight mechanism to curb police abuses and misconduct should be expanded to include all other national enforcement agencies is a matter for debate but what is unacceptable and most objectionable  is the corruption of the concept of an independent oversight commission by the inclusion of the  Inspector-General of Police as  one of the permanent Commissioners.

With the IGP as a permanent commissioner, all notions of “independent, external oversight mechanism” are repudiated and rejected – why it is no exaggeration to describe the SCC Bill as a fraudulent IPCMC Bill.

Two other major subversions of the IPCMC proposal of the Royal Police Commission are:

•	Removal and omission of “corruption” of police force from the ambit and terms of reference of the SCC, completely contrary to the intentions of the  Royal Police Commission which had highlighted the function to “prevent, detect and investigate corruption and other serious misconduct in PDRM” as a major challenge of IPCMC.

•	Limiting the SCC to the passive role to receive and investigate complaints of misconduct, in contrast to the “activist” role of the IPCMC to “initiate an investigation of its own even without receipt of a complaint”.

It is ridiculous and outrageous that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz should dismiss with contempt the critics of the SCC Bill  as
“ignoramuses“
 who did not fully understand how the country’s law enforcement and legal system worked.

Nazri rubbished claims that the SCC was a watered-down version of the IPCMC as proposed by the Royal Police Commission in 2005.

Nazri has given another example of speaking before thinking.  He does not seem to realize that he has in one fell swoop, dismissed Malaysians who had reached the pinnacle of their respective profession or vocation, like Tun Dzaiddin who was former Chief Justice and Tun Hanif Omar who was the country’s longest-serving Inspector-General of Police, as “:ignoramuses” of the country’s enforcement and legal system.

One can disagree as to whether Dzaiddin and  Hanif are the nation’s best Chief Justice or IGP respectively, but to castigate them as “ignoramuses” are serious reflections on the de facto Minister and the entire history and system of governance in Malaysia.

In this case, it is Nazri who is more of an “ignoramus” than Dzaiddin, as the former Chief Justice is clearly right when he expressed his deep disappointment at the SCC Bill “as something entirely different from what we recommended”.  Surely Dzaiddin is the most qualified person to make such a statement and Nazri is no position whatsoever to contract Dzaiddin on the matter.

Nazri also defended the exclusion of corruption allegations from the terms of reference of the SCC on the ground that any wrongdoing which had an element of corruption would be dealt with by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

If so, why then is the Director-General of the ACA another permanent Commissioner of the SCC – to ensure that corruption allegations are not dealt with in any manner  by the SCC?

The Emergency Public Consultation on what stand MPs should take on the fraudulent IPCMC Bill when it comes up for debate on Tuesday or Wednesday will be held at the KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Auditorium on Monday, 17th December 2007 at 7.30 pm.

All the 16 Commissioners of the Royal Police Commission, including the Chairman Dzaiddin and Deputy Chairman Hanif, are invited to the public consultation.  This open invitation also goes out to all professional bodies and NGOs like the Bar Council, Suaram, Hakam and all Malaysians and  NGIs – individuals deeply concerned about issue of IPCMC and the creation of a world-class professional police service in Malaysia.

As time is so short, whether in inviting speakers or participants, I hope that this media conference announcing the emergency public consultation will serve  as an invitation to all concerned Malaysians  to come together on Monday night to give public feedback to MPs as to what stand they should take on the fraudulent SCC Bill.

This invitation is also  extended to all MPs and political parties – and I will personally invite Nazri to the public consultation when I meet him in Parliament on Monday.

Those who are interested in the Emergency Public Consultation can also liaise with the DAP MPs in the Federal Territory, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (Kepong), Fong Kui Lun (Bukit Bintang), Tan Kok Wai (Cheras), Teresa Kok (Seputeh) or with Lau Weng San – 016 3231563 or DAP officials in Federal Territory/Selangor.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 December 2007, 1:31 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


PM-Indian NGOs meeting – utter failure of MIC and Samy, reduced to silent observer/note-taker

The
promise
 by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to look into the plight of the Indian community after meeting with 14 Indian NGOs yesterday is proof of the legitimacy of the grievances of long-standing political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious marginalization of the Malaysian Indians and the Nov. 25 Hindraf gathering of 30,000 people despite groundless Hindraf allegations of ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Malaysian Indians.

It is also proof of the complete  irrelevance of the MIC as the Barisan Nasional component party  for the Indians and the  utter failure of Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu after over 28 years as the MIC President and sole Indian Cabinet Minister  to the extent that he had been reduced to the pathetic role of a silent observer and note-taker at the meeting yesterday.

The question that Samy Vellu and all MIC leaders have to answer is why they are so articulate in their declaration that the Hindraf allegations of ethnic cleansing and genocide are baseless and irresponsible but yet so cowardly and dumb in not daring to declare that the grievances of Malaysian Indians at their  long-standing marginalization as equal and rightful citizens of Malaysia is a real and genuine one – and that the 30,000 Malaysian Indians from all over the country who responded to the Hindraf rally on Nov. 25 was a cry of desperation to the Prime Minister and the Barisan Nasional Government for attention and action to end their marginalization and not a gathering of  riot or turmoil over the baseless allegations of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

It has been reported that an appeal had been made to the  Prime Minister at the meeting yesterday that the five Hindraf leaders and activists, P. Uthayakumar, V. Ganabatirau, M. Manoharan, R. Kenghadharan and T. Vasantha Kumar  should be released from detention under the Internal Security Act and charged in court if they are guilty of any offences against the law.

There was also the call for the release of  the 31 persons charged with the offense of “attempted murder” of a policeman at Batu Caves on 25th November 2007 and who had been denied bail.

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail is guilty of selective and malicious prosecution in charging the 31 persons, and he has said that  there is an ongoing  manhunt for at least another 30 persons for the same offence of “attempted murder’.

All the 31 should not only be released immediately from the Sungai Buloh Prison where they had been detained since the denial of bail, but the ridiculous charges of “attempted murder” against the 31 should be dropped and the manhunt for another 30 under the same charge of “attempted murder” cancelled.

Is Samy Vellu and MIC leaders prepared to  represent  in Cabinet and Parliament the sentiments not only of Malaysian Indians but all Malaysians, firstly, that the Hindraf Five should be released immediately from detention under the ISA and be charged in court for any offence to allow an open trial to be held where they could defend themselves against any  charges; and secondly, that the ridiculous charge of “attempted murder” against the 31 and the manhunt for another 30 should be dropped immediately.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 15 December 2007, 1:26 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Hindraf
,
Human Rights
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Addressing the eternal question

by
Azly Rahman

I received the following poignant but inspiring email a week ago:

“I convey my heartfelt thanks and highest appreciation for your article ‘Plea for Indian Malaysians’ (which) has truly overwhelmed me – so much so, it had prompted me to send you this mail (which) I rarely do.

“The very people who were entrusted to heighten the socio-economic status of the Indians [..] have not been able to do so. Poverty, illiteracy, gangsterism and the likes are still plaguing some quarters of Indians. The situation is really cause for concern and there are many individuals like me, who are yearning and craving for a change to take place.

“We would like to see a decent Indian society who are capable to be on par with the other Malaysians. … But in-fighting, accusations, corruption have been a hindrance thus far and it may remain so. For me personally, I just wish we Indians had capable leaders to help us attain a good standing among the other races in this country. However it has remained just that, a thoughtful wish.”

Isn’t this good enough to have us postpone our plans of plotting against one another, propagandising potential conflicts, manufacturing crises, and continue to be in a state of denial of the class issue that is plaguing the Tamil community especially?

Why can’t we leave our ethnic ego outside the door and look at what needs to be done for social justice – for all classes of people of ethnic groups that have not progressed much? Why label this and that group as “terrorists” when the abject poor are being perpetually terrorised by the rich whose economic design prioritise material over social capital, greed over basic needs?

I think it is time to be humbled by the sight of beggars on the streets, children with no hope for a better future, and a proud people humiliated by racial slurs and relegated to a life of hopelessness. We have racially humiliated one another by our ignorance of what economic design can do to alienate each other.

It is not the time to focus on how many of the Bersih or Hindraf protestors ought to be thrown in jail and how must we construe the demands of Indian Malaysians, but to ask ourselves this question: how can our eyes, our minds, and our souls be opened to the plight of those who have laboured for the power and glory of the few?

Let me propose a programme of action to help improve the lives of the Indians. It is partly based on what Mara has done for the Malays, through its well-funded MRSM (Mara Junior Science College) system. I think the excellent and benevolent plan should be duplicated, especially for the children of the poorest — regardless of race, religion, creed, caste, or national origin.

Smart Schools for Tamils

First, we ask the MARA and the education ministry to go around the estates and ghettoes of the major cities and into the primary schools of these areas and search for the brightest among the children of Tamil origin and create special schools for them. Each state must build a school for Tamil children.

In other words, we create Smart Schools right there in the estates and in the depressed urban areas. We teach them how to use their environmental resources intelligently and teach them what ownership of the products of their labour means, We teach the next generation that being alienated from their labour will cause human beings to suffer in this world of cut-throat corporate crony capitalism.

We can also ask major Malaysian corporations such as Petronas to fund/provide these schools with the best and brightest of teachers, good facilities, good technology, good curriculum, and great teaching strategies. We create a model Ivy League or world-class education system for these kids. We should even bring in top-notch American Peace Corps teachers to help out.

We guide this process of human capital revolution with a sound philosophy that will create geniuses out of these Tamil children drawn from the poorest of the poor family. Better still, we ask multinational corporations operating in Malaysia – Microsoft, Shell, Sony, Exxon-Mobil, etc – to adopt the poorest of the poorest of the districts and fund the schools and the community over a decade or so.

Second, we create a good parent-student-teacher programme that will help the child be grounded in the reality of the sufferings of the parents. It is part of the process of the pedagogy of hope and love.

Third, we monitor the growth of the children and enculturalise them with the best of all methods of instruction that will not only preserve their heritage, culture, and language, but also educate them to become great leaders, thinker, doers, philosophers, and social activists.

We will help create a new and enabling culture that will create a new human being out of them. We make them avid readers, good thinkers and individual brave enough to even protest in front of the American White House, in the tradition of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

We teach them, besides the regular highly-rigorous curriculum that meets and exceeds national and international standards, the concept and practice of service learning to help especially Tamil communities that are distressed to the brink of collective mental extinction.

Apolitical contribution

We teach them to concept of apolitical contribution to the improvement of the lives of others. We teach them to destroy all forms of political symbolism. We teach them that excessive politicking can lead to the people’s susceptibility to mass deception and manipulation.

We teach the Ivy League- type Tamil youngsters that in politics, they should trust no one, as embodied in the philosophy of the sci-fi series ‘X-Files’. We teach them that politics are for opportunists. It is better to devote oneself to a post-modern reading of the purana, the Ramayana, the Mahabharatha and Bhagavad Gita than to be engaged in a Bollywood-type political saga. It is better to study radical and reflective sociology that to be engaged in calling each other “terrorists”.

Next, we teach them the how to be aware of the structure of the caste and class system and how capitalism capitalises on these concepts of consciousness. We teach then the origin of these concepts and how to evolve progressively until we arrive at a Hegelian condition of existence and the elimination of constructions of reality that oppresses.

This is a challenging concept, I must say. It requires the teachers in the school to not only understand this liberating dimension of education but also requires them to embody the ideals and the possibilities of human liberation through the teaching of it.

Next, we teach them the evils of race-based politics and how this evil has been mistaken as a necessity and a virtue throughout the historical-materialistic and dialectical development of neo-feudalistic post-colonial Malaysia. We teach them how this evil has actually been tamed and used by those in power to subjugate others, materially and mentally.

We teach them how gangsters, Along, and Mat Rempit are a product of the class system and how are allowed to become natural phenomena of modernisation. In fact they have become a problem to be solved perpetually so that those in power who talk about solving these problems will become heroes of their respective people – not knowing that in a different economic ideological arrangement, these problems can be less pronounced.

Finally, the process of continuous improvement through education should help us create generations upon generations of people who will be equipped with the intellectual and cultural capital needed to mount a jihad against greed, structural violence, materialism, and militarism.

In the case of Indian Malaysians, it is a sustainable programme to make them have ownership of their economic development projects, protect their rights to worship, break the vicious cycle of abject poverty, and have enough leisure time to raise and nurture an intelligent, loving, wise, and peaceful family.

Let us solve our social ills together, rather than call one another “terrorists” – that’s a strategy of the Bush regime we ought not be inspired with. Education – and education for peace and social justice alone – is the surest way to fight all forms of “terrorism”.

In times that try the soul, peace and socio-economic justice are our only option.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 December 2007, 8:55 am and is filed under
Azly Rahman
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Call to AG – drop “attempted murder” and all other charges against Batu Caves 31

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has asked the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail to reconsider the
“attempted murder” charge
 preferred against the Batu Caves 31, for which they were denied bail and had been incarcerated at the Sungai Buloh Prison for the past 11 days since Dec. 5.

The denial of bail for the Batu Caves 31 is a blot on the administration of justice in Malaysia, as it is harsh, inhumane and unconscionable, completely  indefensible on any ground as the contention of national security advanced by the Attorney-General for the collective incarceration of the Batu Caves 31 until their trial in January and the final disposal of their cases do not stand up to any close scrutiny.

The Attorney-General should not only drop the charge of “attempted murder” of a policeman leveled against all the 31, but he should go one step further and withdraw all other charges preferred against them as well.

Furthermore, the police manhunt for more than 30 others to prosecute them under  a similar charge of “attempted murder” as the Batu Caves 31 should also be dropped altogether.

The paramount consideration which should be top national  priority is to  heal the wounds caused by the government insensitivity and mishandling of the long-standing grievances of the Malaysian Indian community at their political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious polarization and not to aggravate the deep-seated and legitimate discontents of the Malaysian Indian community with harsh and vindictive reprisals by the various state agencies.

The Prime Minister had given a
pledge
 to representatives of 14 NGOs on Friday that the plight of the Indian community in the country will be addressed.

This pledge would have greater credibility if the Prime Minister’s meeting had not been confined to the 14 NGOs regarded as under the thumb of Samy Vellu and MIC but a truly  representative dialogue with the Indian community, including NGOs which are not under the sphere of influence of Samy Vellu and MIC.

Furthermore, the Cabinet must show  greater seriousness  in its response to the “cry of desperation” of the Malaysian Indians at their long-standing marginalization in the form of the 30,000 peaceful Hindraf demonstration on November 25 and come out with a New Deal for the marginalized Indians instead of just asking the MIC President, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu to set up a special committee and a hotline to handle the problems faced by the Indian community.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 December 2007, 1:19 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Hindraf
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Emergency Public Consultation on fake IPCMC Bill – Tunku Aziz, Param, Malek Imtiaz and Ragunath coming

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz should not try to shut up members of the Royal Police Commission by arm-twisting them into silence and obedience  about their unhappiness that their key  proposal for an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMCP) has completely changed character in the Special Complaints Commission (SCC) Bill.

 New Straits Times on Friday reported the great  disappointment of three members of the Royal Police Commission at the SCC Bill as “as something entirely different from what we recommended”.

The three members are firstly the  Royal Police Commission Chairman, Tun  Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and members  Tunku Aziz and Lee Lam Thye.

Dzaiddin said he was “very disappointed” as the SSB was not what the Royal Police Commission had asked for, adding: “The government, in its wisdom, did not accept the core recommendation of an independent oversight body.”

Tunku Aziz said: “The whole purpose was to ensure that not only were the police protected against unfair criticism and allegations but also that there would be a return of public confidence in an organization that had lost it. If the new bill is watered down, obviously we are not going to achieve this purpose.”

Lee Lam Thye said: “The IPCMC was meant to be an independent body to deal with police misconduct, abuse of power and corruption.  I did not expect it to be watered down.  At this point, it would be best to leave it to parliament, with the hope that proper debate and discussion will be carried out. MPs need to be aware of the original objective.  My fear is that the new bill may not serve its purpose.”

Nazri hit the top with these comments, responding pointedly by  telling Sin Chew Daily that Dzaiddin and Lam Thye would not be considered for appointment as Commissioners of the SCC since   they disagree with its establishment. Nazri said  the country has ample talents from whom  to select  the SCC commissioners.

This is in poor taste. Nazri’s reaction is uncalled-for, making him look very petty and vindictive in resorting to arm-twisting the Royal Police Commissioners to shut them up from airing their true feelings about  the SCC Bill which is meant to implement their IPCMC proposal.

I urge Royal Police Commissioners not to be cowed or frightened by Nazri from giving their responses and to attend the Emergency Public Consultation on the SCC Bill at the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall auditorium tomorrow, Monday, 17th December at 7.30 pm on the stand MPs should take when the Bill comes up for debate in Parliament  on Tuesday or Wednesday.

So far Tunku Aziz,  Royal Police Commission member and former President of Transparency International Malaysia, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Malek Imtiaz, President of Hakam, Ragunath Kesavan Vice President Bar Council have confirmed attendance as panelists at the Emergency Public Consultation on SCC Bill. Others are being contacted.

In the shortn time available, I have not been able to speak to many members of the  Royal Police Commission and wish to reiterate the standing open invitation to them as well as all other interested NGOs and NGIs to the Emergency Public Consultation on the SCC Bill to give  direct input for parliamentary debate and decision on this important parliamentary business .

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 December 2007, 2:20 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


New list for ISA arrests – Ops Lalang 2 in the works?

Is Operation Lalang 2 in the works  with the warning yesterday by the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum of more Internal Security Act (ISA) arrests and that the police had submitted another list of names for ISA arrests?

In giving the  warning in Jitra yesterday, which was given front-page headlines by the
New Sunday Times

“WARNING OF MORE ARRESTS – ‘Necessary action’ to be taken under iSA”
, Johari revealed that
“a list of names had been submitted by the police and it was only a matter of time before several others were detained under the ISA”
.

Is the country again in a scenario of “It was never a question of whether Internal Security Act would be used but only a question of when”, quoting Wong Chun Wai’s
“On the Beat”
 in today’s
Sunday Star
–

“A Very Difficult Task To Handle”
?

Malaysians must find this state of affairs most shocking and outrageous.

When Johari disclosed that “a list of names had been submitted by the police” for persons to be arrested by the detention-without-trial law, how long is the list? Is it for a score, several scores or even up to over a 100 names as was the case with the infamous Operation Lalang in 1987?

What is the basis for the Police to prepare and submit such a list to the Prime Minister-cum-Internal Security Minister for a new round of ISA arrests?

It would appear that it is politics rather than security which is now the driving force demanding a new round of ISA arrests – as evident from the closed-door meeting of some 1,000 Umno division leaders and members in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

Yesterday’s Umno meeting was an occasion for the crystallization of Umno demands and pressures for indiscriminate use of the ISA. The
New Sunday Times
report

“Disappointed over ‘slow response’”
 on the Umno meeting yesterday confirmed the gung-ho attitude of certain  Umno rank-and-file quarters on the indiscriminate use of the ISA against critics and dissent in utter disregard of the fundamental principle of the Rule of Law on the inalienable human right against any  arbitrary detention without trial.

I call on the  Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to make a Ministerial statement in Parliament tomorrow on how many names had been submitted by the Police to him for detention under the ISA and to give an assurance that there would not be another Operation Lalang mass detentions under the ISA, which will be even more damaging to Malaysia’s global reputation and international competitiveness than the first  Operation Lalang mass detentions exactly 20 years ago!

Abdullah must also give an assurance in his Ministerial statement that he would keep strictly to the letter and spirit of the law and not abuse any powers in invoking the ISA, as for instance in signing a Ministerial detention order  under Section 8 of the ISA before there was any police arrest, investigation and recommendation under Section 73 of ISA.

In his 22 years as Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had never by-passed Section 73 of the ISA before a Ministerial detention order was issued.  Why had Abdullah acted in so unprecedented, irregular  and unlawful a manner?

Abdullah defended his detention order of the  five Hindraf leaders and activists, P. Uthayakumar, V. Ganabatirau, M. Manoharan, R. Kenghadharan and T. Vasantha Kumar under Section 8, bypassing Section 73 of the ISA as
valid
.

He said: “It (the 60-day requirement) is not necessary. Under Section 8(1), if the minister is satisfied that that it is necessary to detain someone from acting in a manner prejudicial to the nation’s security, the minister can issue a detention order directing that the person be detained”.

The Prime Minister has been gravely misinformed and wrongly advised about the powers of the Internal Security Minister under Section 8 of the ISA.  Is Abdullah seriously suggesting that he need not depend on police investigations and recommendation under Section 73  of ISA and can even issue a Ministerial detention order under ISA solely depending on political pressures from Umno quarters?

A full inquiry should be held as to why the Attorney-General or the Internal Security Ministry’s legal advisers had not advised  Abdullah about the case law that no Ministerial detention order under S. 8 can properly be issued without a necessary investigation by the police under S. 73.

Horror of horrors, the country is now being told that the Minister has another  list of names for him to sign detention orders under ISA. Are these all  going to be straightaway Section 8 Ministerial detention orders without any prior police detention and investigation of up to 60 days under Section 73 – creating a “revolution” in ISA in its application in its 47-year history?

This is why a Ministerial statement by Abdullah in Parliament tomorrow on the ISA, the threat of another Ops Lalang 2 as indicated by Johari and the new-fangled way of its application, is most imperative in the national interest.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 16 December 2007, 10:56 am and is filed under
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Challenge to AG/IGP to substantiate or withdraw  terrorist charges against Hindraf

I just came back to Parliament from the Shah Alam Sessions Court where the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail as expected dropped the attempted murder charge against the Batu Caves 31 after being incarcerated for close to two weeks on the ground that they are “national security” threats.

Of course I welcome the Attorney-General’s change of mind and the withdrawal of the charge of attempted murder of a policeman preferred against the Batu Caves 31 – as I had right from the beginning called on Gani to drop  the charges of  “attempted murder” against the 31 as well as the manhunt for another 30 on the same charge of attempted murder, as it would precipitate a new crisis of confidence in the administration of justice over selective and malicious prosecution in the abuse of the Attorney-General’s discretionary prosecution powers.

However, I am still very disappointed by Gani’s conduct in the Shah Alam Sessions Court.

Although  the charges against five students for causing mischief and illegal assembly were also dropped (and they should never have been charged in the first place), the charges of causing mischief and illegal assembly against 26 remained, with their case adjourned till December 27 for sentencing following their guilty pleas this morning.

The very fact that Gani had to drop the capital charge of attempted murder against the Batu Caves 31, (which also means the abandonment of  his intention to charge 30 others with the same capital offence) –  which could land the guilty with a sentence of  life imprisonment –  is proof that the Attorney-General had abused his powers in preferring such capital charges in the first place.

It raises the question as to the real motive of the Attorney-General in abusing his powers in slapping the Batu Caves 31 with such a serious charge when there is no basis or justification whatsoever.

The two-week incarceration of the Batu Caves 31 who were denied bail on the ground of being “national and security threats” remains a blot on the nation’s administration of justice and the tenure of Gani Patail as Attorney-General.

What Gani should have done in the Shah Alam Sessions Court this morning is to withdraw all charges against all the Batu Caves 31, which would still not be full recompense for the injustice he had done to the 31 Malaysians in incarcerating them for a fortnight in prison.

I call on Gani to further reconsider the charges against the remaining 26 and when their case come up on Dec. 27, to withdraw all charges against them.

Just before the Sessions Court convened this morning at about noon, after inordinate delays, word spread that MIC President and Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu would be showing up in court.

However, he did not turn up – probably after he received information that he would be publicly booed by the families of the Batu Caves 31!

I had given notice to the Parliament Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah, to move an emergency motion last Monday (10th December)  on the allegation by the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan on  Hindraf’s links  to terrorists and canvassing for support from terrorist groups.

The motion did not come up in Parliament  last Monday as the PAS MP for Kubang Kerian Sallehuddin Ayub had earlier given notice for an emergency motion about electoral abuses – and Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat permitted only one such motion a day.

The first time the  alleged terrorist links of Hindraf leaders were alleged in the public domain was  in the court proceedings of the Batu Caves 13 and made  by the Attorney-General to strengthen his argument to deny bail to the accused.

As Gani could withdraw the serious charge of capital offence of attempted murder against the Batu Caves 31, the   veracity of his allegation (and that of the IGP) of Hindraf’s terrorist links is most suspect.

 The Attorney-General and Inspector-General of Police should substantiate their allegations of terrorist links against Hindraf  leaders or they should withdraw them.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 December 2007, 4:04 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Hindraf
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Fake IPCMC Bill consultation tonight – will anybody be there?

Will anybody come for the Emergency Public Consultation on the Special Complaints Commission (SCC)  Bill – the fake Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) Bill – at the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall auditorium tonight, December 17, 2007 at 7.30 pm?

Or will there be an empty hall?

Half of me was telling me that it was foolhardy to convene such a Public Consultation at such short notice, with only two days’ notice – and a weekend to boot –with minimal or non-existent mainstream media publicity and that one possibility is a virtual empty auditorium.

This will be grist in the mill of those who will claim that there is no public concern or support for IPCMC and that Malaysians are quite happy with SCC proposal.

The other half of me felt that there is no choice and the   risks must be taken to convene a Public Consultation at such short notice because of the great importance to provide an opportunity for the public  and civil society to express their views on the SCC Bill –  not only because the IPCMC proposal is the most critical of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission for police reform to create an efficient, accountable,  incorruptible, professional world-class police service but also because of the endemic crime which has haunted Malaysians and the country since publication of the Royal Police Commission Report 19 months ago.

Two-day notice falling during a weekend is not the only problem in making a success of the Emergency Public Consultation on the SCC Bill – it is also the end-of-the-year with many taking or preparing their year-end holidays.

I tried to  phone Tun Musa Hitam to invite him to do the honours of opening the Public Consultation and found  great difficulties in getting his contact number during the weekend, only to be told that he has just gone overseas and would not be back until next year.

Many members of the Royal Police Commission are either overseas or will be outstation and these include Datuk Dr. Michael Yeoh and  Dr. Denis Jayasooria.  Several others whom I have invited as panelists  to the Public Consultation will be outstation and they  include Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam and Yeo Yang Poh.

I have spoken to former Inspector-General of Police who was Deputy Chairman of the Royal Police Commission, Tun Hanif Omar, and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye, who have kept the possibility of their attendance open. I (and I believe Malaysians) hope to see them at the Public Consultation tonight.

I have not been able to contact all the Royal Police Commission members as I do not have their contact, like Tun Dzaiddin and Tun Salleh Abas.

You can give me their contact numbers, or invite them on behalf of Malaysians. There is an Open Invitation to all members of the Royal Commission and to all NGOs and NGIs, and I say: Come One Come All to give your views on the fake IPCMC Bill.

Lets see whether there is going to be an empty auditorium tonight.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 December 2007, 10:09 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hishammuddin’s antediluvian pledge of “no closure of Chinese primary schools”

“Hisham pledges no closure of Chinese primary schools”
is the front-page headline of
Nanyang Siang Pau t
oday. Similar headlines also appear in other Chinese newspapers.

Education Minister and UMNO Youth leader, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein and  the Barisan Nasional  spinmeisters must have regarded this a coup and sure vote-getter  after his unforgettable “keris-wielding” stances and his determination to repeat them every year  until the non-Malays are “desensitized”.- what I had said in Parliament as manifestation of the “boiling frog” syndrome.

But I am really astounded by two things, that 50 years after Merdeka:

(1)	the nation’s Education Minister could seriously believe that his “pledge” not to close Chinese primary schools would be regarded as a boon akin to  a message of deliverance from heaven; and

(2)	that it could be taken so seriously as to merit being treated as front-page headlines by Chinese newspapers – when it is totally ignored by other language newspapers.

Hishammuddin’s pledge is 50 years behind time.  It would have some relevance even during the time of his father, Tun Hussein Onn, who was Education Minister and then Prime Minister from 1976-1981.  But it is totally antediluvian today.

Let me tell Hishammuddin and the Barisan Nasional spinmeisters that what the Malaysian Chinese and fair-minded Malaysians want is not a pledge not to close any Chinese primary school but a pledge to build new Chinese primary schools whenever and wherever there is the need arising from  demands for such school-places by the pupils and their parents.

Then and only then is such a pledge deserving of front-page headline treatment!

When will such a pledge be forthcoming?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 December 2007, 9:00 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Tinpot Tyrant In The Making

by
M. Bakri Musa

Someone ought to tell Prime Minister Abdullah that he is not up to the job.  Malaysia deserves better.  If he truly loves his party and country, as he frequently professes, he should acknowledge his limitations and gracefully pave the way for someone else.

            As one prominent Malaysian wrote me, it is a tragedy at this stage of our development to have foisted upon us a leader who is clueless, incompetent and arrogant.  He has taken all of us for a ride, he continued.

            His is the
sombong si bodoh
(arrogance of ignorance).

            This is not the time to maintain our silence, elegant or otherwise.  That would only embolden Abdullah, prodded by his advisors, to pursue his current disastrous path.  We already have too many preacher boys who for peanuts would willingly spread his message that the world is flat.  The next day and with a few more cheap candies thrown their way, they would preach with even greater gusto that the world is indeed round.

            Abdullah’s crude handling of the recent Bersih and Hindraf rallies, the largest in a decade, was merely the latest demonstrations of his ineptness.  The choice is not, as he naively put it, between public safety and freedom, rather in enhancing both.

            There is no safety without freedom.  Suppressed, humans will ultimately erupt like a volcano, and with equally unpredictable devastations.  Freedom without safety is anarchy.  Safety and freedom are two sides of the same coin; each complements the other and both are hallmarks of civilized societies.  “Safety” without freedom is illusory.

            Abdullah’s “public safety before public freedom” argument is specious; it only reveals the latent tyrannical streak or prison-warden mentality in him.  A few more years of him and Malaysians would lose whatever little freedom we have, and the much-sought safety would still elude us.

Delivering the Message

While many Malaysians share my view of Abdullah, not many have taken upon themselves of conveying this critical message to him.  Even if they were, there is no assurance that Abdullah would listen.  He has the stubborn streak of a village idiot.

            Former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir tried, but his typically blunt and in your face message did not register with Abdullah.  He is the typical village
penghulu
 who responds best to
cakap selindung, berkias, berpantun, dan bergurindam
(indirect, allegorical, poetic, and humorous language), as we say in my kampong.

            Next to try was Tengku Razaleigh; he too was direct in frontally challenging Abdullah for the leadership.  Like Mahathir, Ku Li too failed.

            Recently the MP from Kota Baru, Zaid Ibrahim gently chided Abdullah to be more enlightened in dealing with public dissent:  engagement instead of suppression.  Zaid not so subtly reminded Abdullah that contrary to his assertion, rallies and demonstrations are very much a part of our culture.  Indeed that was how we derailed the Malayan Union proposal and gained our independence.

            Musa Hitam recently repeated the same theme.  He related his experience in convincing the long-time President of Maldives to be more tolerant of public rallies and expressions of dissent.  Musa challenged Abdullah to “Try
lah
!”

            Musa Hitam surprised me.  Since receiving his Tunship, courtesy of Abdullah, Musa has been the administration’s chief cheerleader.  To Tun Musa, Abdullah could do no wrong.  This time however it would be Musa’s turn to be surprised; he too would find that Abdullah is dense to suggestions.  Worse, Abdullah would now consider Musa as one of those ungrateful
“Melayu mudah lupa,”
 (Malays who forget easily).  Unlike the Maldives President, Abdullah is innately incurious and intellectually lazy, with little capacity for learning.

            Musa might also have had better luck had he conveyed his message in private instead of through a public interview.

Understanding Abdullah’s Psyche

Abdullah is your typical Malay leader that we see too often today and in much of our history:  not too bright and only too susceptible to flattery.  The British read this Malay psyche well, which is how they managed to “advise” the Malay rulers.  A perfunctory visit to Buckingham Palace, an exalted Knighthood of some Medieval Order, a modest pension, and the delusion that their throne was on par with the British crown were all that was needed for our sultans to willingly cede Singapore and effectively give up their sovereignty.

            President Bush too read Abdullah well; a token visit to the White House silenced Abdullah over American excesses in Iraq and tamed the OIC that he chairs.  With Abdullah’s silent submission, the leadership of the Muslim world by default now falls onto such characters as Iran’s wily Ahmadnejad.

            Closer to home, Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee who despite his close association with many would-be Malay leaders during his university years in Britain, utterly failed to comprehend the Malay psyche.  Surprisingly, the younger Lee despite his lack of close association with Malays seemed to have read Abdullah better.

            Lee, Jr., has also learned well from history, specifically from the British.  That is, Malay leaders are suckers for flattery.  Praise them effusively and they would willingly part with their prized heirlooms.

            It is instructive that Singapore was the first foreign country to invite Abdullah for a state visit.  Its leaders were uncharacteristically effusive in praising him.  As a result, while earlier sultan would readily ceded Singapore, Abdullah now readily gives up a big chunk of the southern tip of the peninsula.

            Singapore’s institutions, undoubtedly prompted from high above, have also been generous in honoring senior Malaysian personalities.  Witness the recent awarding of an honorary doctorate to the Sultan of Johore by the National University of Singapore.

            Many members of Abdullah’s inner circle were invited to address prominent think tanks and other institutions in the Republic.  They were flattered by such invitations and could hardly hide their pride back home; an implicit acknowledgement of Singapore’s successful strategy!  UMNO Youth leaders now regularly play golf with their PAP counterparts.  No marks for predicting who would win those tournaments!

            Senior UMNO statesmen would do well to copy Singapore’s techniques to reach Abdullah.  Praise the man sky high and humor his ego.  Once you have him in your pocket, the rest would be easy.

Massaging Abdullah’s Ego

Abdullah is a simple man and not too bright to boot; massaging his ego should not be a challenge, despite his recent fondness for the lifestyle of the rich and famous, at public expense of course.  Apart from the prerequisite luxurious corporate jet, he is now partial to fancy sailing yachts.  Never mind that he hasn’t a clue what a jib or sheet is.  Yachting after all is synonymous with affluence and elegance; it is the style he is after.  Again, typically Malay!  He is too much of a klutz to indulge in such royal sports as polo and horse riding; besides those were already the hobbies of his predecessor.  No glamour in imitating!

            Humor Abdullah!  Tell him he deserves all those perks after years of patient and loyal public service.  Treat him like Sukarno.  Make him take as many overseas trips as possible; he is useless at home anyway.  The more he is away, the less likely for him to wreck damage on the country.

            In short, treat him like a sultan; he already relishes that role.  Indulge his fantasy.  Notice that his wife is now being regularly referred to as the First Lady.  And she and him are absolutely lapping it up.

            There is only one slight problem.  Who is going to mind the store?  For Abdullah to play the sultan, he would need a capable deputy who would be the de facto chief executive.  We had precedence for this.  While Tunku Abdul Rahman was enjoying himself as the “world’s happiest Prime Minister,” he had the capable Tun Razak running the show.

            It is said that under the old Soviet System, its ambassadors were merely titular heads of their respective embassies; the Chefs De Mission (DCM) were the real power.  In that way the Ambassador could hobnob with the native elite while important consular work like spying would still be carried out by the DCM.  Further, if the Ambassador were to be drunk or in any way caught in a compromising situation, state secrets would be safe, as he knew nothing!

            The snag here is that Abdullah’s current deputy, Najib Razak, is equally inept.  Making Abdullah dump Najib would be tough as they are both pathologically dependent on each other.  Each harbors the other’s dark secrets.  The only way would be to disguise the maneuver as an attempt to spite Mahathir.  Abdullah is not fond of Najib anyway; Mahathir hoisted Najib upon Abdullah and he was too meek to object.  I am certain that Abdullah is still chafing at that.  Dumping Najib would even the score for Abdullah with respect to Mahathir.

            While Abdullah may be susceptible to such a suggestion, his hangers-on and courtiers would not.  Those who depend on his “protection” would stand to lose the most and would thus readily see through and object to the plan.  However, if we flatter Abdullah enough, he would unhesitatingly give up his hangers-on.  Earlier Malay leaders had given up even more when they were sufficiently flattered.

            The alternative of doing nothing would be to doom our nation on an irreversible course towards perpetual mediocrity.  As for Abdullah, there is only one thing worse than having a tyrant as a ruler, and that would be to have a not-too-smart one.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 17 December 2007, 8:36 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah just don’t get it – that he has already disappointed Malaysians after biggest-ever electoral mandate 4 yrs ago

In  Puchong Indah, Selangor yesterday, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi declared:
Support me and I will not disappoint you
.

He said the support of the people give him greater sense of responsibility to strive even harder to ensure prosperity, harmony and development without leaving out any group.

Abdullah just don’t get it – that he has already disappointed Malaysians who had given him the greatest mandate ever secured by a Prime Minsiter  in any general election in the nation’s 50-year history in 2004.

Is Abdullah’s denial so serious and even terminal that he is  simply not aware of the widespread and deep-seated popular disenchantment over  his failure to honour his catalogue of pledges when he became Prime Minister in October 2003 and during the 2004 general election to be the Prime Minister for all Malaysians, to hear the truth from the people however unpleasant, to wipe out corruption and abuses of power,   to open up spaces for greater democracy and press freedom and to lead an administration of excellence and meritocracy towards a First-World Malaysia?

I cannot but ask whether the recent spate of unprecedented events had failed to make any impression on him whatsoever  to shake off his denial complex  – whether the  nation-wide pickets of MTUC and workers for fair wage, the March for Justice of the 2,000 lawyers in late September to demand judicial independence and integrity, the 40,000-strong BERSIH demonstration on Nov. 10 for electoral reforms for free, fair and clean elections or  the 30,000-strong Hindraf demonstration to end the long-standing marginalization of the Malaysian Indians?

Has the Prime Minister been completely isolated by his Putrajaya Fourth Storey gatekeepers from the people on the ground to the extent that he has totally lost touch with the hopes and fears, dreams and nightmares of ordinary Malaysians irrespective of race, religion or region?

If so, then the country is faced not only with a crisis of confidence in the judiciary, the Election Commission and the various national institutions, but with a national crisis of confidence in the political leadership of the Prime Minister!

Abdullah’s request for another blank cheque from the people, promising not to disappoint the people, after causing the greatest disappointment to the people by any  Malaysian Prime Minister in his first four years in office,  is very eerie.

Is  Abdullah’s latest request for real?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 18 December 2007, 11:52 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Defer the fake IPCMC Bill to allow  for proper public consultation

No, it was not an empty auditorium but quite a  full house for the Emergency Public Consultation on the Special Complaints Commission Bill (or fake IPCMC Bill) at the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall last night.

It vindicated my faith and confidence  in Malaysians that despite the impossibly short two-day notice falling on a weekend and end-of-year holiday season, minimal exposure in print media and total lack of leafleting, there was a strong turn-out of Malaysians for the Public Consultation  to demonstrate their concern, commitment and seriousness  about their citizenship rights.

Many thanks to you all on this blog for your encouragement and support as well as other netizens and  bloggers who helped to give the Public Consultation a plug, including:

Fake IPCMC Bill consultation tonight
(rocky’s bru)

Emergency Public Consultation on fake IPCMC Bill

(the meesh experience)

It’s a fake IPCMC! – Lim Kit Siang

(Kembara Minda Perjuangan)

Emergency Public Consultation on fake IPCMC Bill

(carboncopy)

Urgent: Emergency Public Consultation on the SCC Bill

(Blog for Positive Changes)

What the…?! Coming to KLS Chinese Assembly Hall tonight?

(Dan-yel)

Lulu Thinks This Poor Replacement of An Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Bill Looks Like A Rush Job

And congrats to jedyoong for being the first to blog about the Public Consultation although
“Am tired. Wanna sleep”
.

Don’t have time to write a fulsome account of the Public  Consultation. Just the highlights:

Outcome
 – Unanimous vote by show of hands that the SCC Bill should be deferred to the next parliamentary meeting in March next year, and in the meantime there should be a Parliamentary Select Committee to ensure the widest public consultation with the civil society on the proposed legislation.

This was the unanimous sense of the Public Consultation, which was offered three options, viz:

•	Support for the SCC Bill;

•	Rejection;

•	Deferment.

The Public Consultation was in full support of the views expressed by the panelists that the SCC Bill is a poor and  unacceptable substitute for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC)  Bill proposed by the Royal Police Commission as the most important of its 125 recommendations to reform and transform the Malaysian police into an efficient, accountable, incorruptible, professional world-class police service.

Some quotes by panelists:

Tunku Abdul Aziz
,
Royal Police Commission member and former President, Transparency International Malaysia –

A mockery of the IPCMC recommendation, “totally turned upside down”;

“Total disdain for fairness, justice and public opinion”;

“Say goodbye to all the high hopes that we will have the best police force that money cannot buy”.

Edmond Bon
,
Chairperson  of Bar Council Human Rights Committee
:

More correct to be named Special Referral Commission rather than Special Complaints Commission;

Minor recommendations of Royal Police Commission accepted but  major recommendations ignored;

“Just adds another layer of bureaucracy.  Really sad. Might as well not have the Bill”.

Datuk Param Cumaraswamy
,
former United Nations Special Rapporteur for Independence of Judges and Lawyers
:

A slap in the face of the Royal Police Commission.

Government has duty to explain why it cannot implement the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission.

Will require another Commission to oversight the SCC.

I will convey to the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who is responsible for piloting the Bill through Parliament,  the unanimous stand  of the Public Consultation for the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee for proper  public consultation and to defer passage of the SCC Bill until the next parliamentary meeting next year.

As an aside, after the successful Public Consultation last night, there was a suggestion for a get-together for all registered visitors of this blog. What do you think and if you are positive about the suggestion, any ideas as to where,  when and even how?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 18 December 2007, 7:11 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Fake IPCMC Bill deferred to March Parliament

I spoke to  the Minister responsible for piloting the Special Complaints Commission (SCC) Bill  (the fake IPCMC Bill) Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz before the Cabinet meeting today conveying to him the unanimous sentiments of the Emergency  SCC Bill Public Consultation last night that the Bill be deferred for a proper public consultation process to take place in view of the many powerful objections to it.

I suggested that a Parliamentary Select Committee on the SCC Bill should be informed as part of this public consultation process with NGOs and NGIs.

Nazri has just returned to Parliament from the Cabinet meeting, which has agreed to the deferment of the SCC Bill to the next Parliamentary meeting which, barring electoral mishaps like the dissolution of Parliament, will sit again on March 17, 2008  with an Official Opening by the Yang di Pertuan Agong.

There is however no Parliamentary Select Committee on the SCC Bill.

This is  where the Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights and Good Governance should pick uip the gauntlet to organise a series of public consultations in the country on the fake IPCMC Bill.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 18 December 2007, 2:17 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Gani owes public apology to  Batu Caves 31 for travesty of justice of total incarceration of 403 days

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail owes the Batu Caves 31 who were unjustly incarcerated for 13 days and their families a public apology for the sufferings and hardships they should not have been made to go through.

Gani’s explanations why he dropped the charges of attempted murder against the Batu Caves 31 in the Shah Alam Sessions Court underline the grave injustice which the Attorney-General had caused the 31 with the ridiculous charge of  attempted murder and collective punishment of the 31 with the denial of bail for 13 days,  resulting in a number of victims losing  their jobs.

Two reasons
had been given by Gani.

Gani said:  “We can’t pinpoint who exactly did it or rather who was the one who threw the brick at the person who was badly  injured”.  If so, why did he charge the 31 with the capital offence of “attempted murder” with the maximum sentence of 20 years’ jail and fine, and what’s worse, denying bail to them for 13 days on a completely baseless contention of their being threats to national security!

Secondly, Gani said the 31 men were initially charged not because they were alleged to be Hindraf members but because they had committed an offence by participating in an illegal assembly.

Gani said all the 31 men had signed letters opposing Hindraf and claimed they were not Hindraf members.  They also said they would never take part in any illegal assembly in the future.

This is a very serious contradiction.  If the 31 were not charged because they were Hindraf members, why should any subsequent claim that they were not Hindraf members have any bearing on their cases?

The Batu Caves 31 had already been harshly and unfairly punished although they were innocent of  the charge of attempted murder, as they were all  incarcerated for 13 days each, which work out to 403 days of  jail  for the 31.

The least Gani should do is to tender a public apology to the Batu Caves 31 and their families for this travesty of justice and  abuse of prosecutorial powers in his unfair and unjust handling of cases of the Batu Caves 31.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 18 December 2007, 12:55 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Hindraf
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Record 68 Golds by Malaysian sportsmen and sportswomen in SEA Games – a lesson for all of us

by
Dr. Chen Man Hin

Malaysia can stand proud because it has won 68 golds to earn second place among the nations of se asia

The sports men and women had one objective in mind – to win for the honour and glory of Malaysia.

They competed as Malaysians for the country that they love.  On the track there was no distinction of bumiputras or  non-bumiputras, no
ketuanan Melayu
or second-class citizens. Because of their unity and common brotherhood they won 68 golds.

Their success holds a lesson for the leaders of our country Malaysia. Their duty is to foster unity and treat all citizens on an equal basis.

In the face of competition in a global world, to earn an honourable place it is vital that there be unity and all citizens should have the status of only one class – MALAYSIANS.

DAP calls upon the Prime Minister and Umno to revert back to the objective of Bangsa Malaysia of Vision 2020.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 18 December 2007, 7:04 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
Sports
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Who are the opportunists?

by
Richard Teo

The Council of Former People’s Representative (Mubarak) President Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang described the Hindraf leaders as “opportunists and traitors to their race and country.” He further added that these people were extremists and that they should rightly be detained under the ISA.

     Referring to his assertion, I would like the former Mubarak to carefully reflect on past history and see who are the opportunists.

     After May 1969, with the introduction of the NEP, the Malay bumiputras were the sole beneficiary of govt policies. However somewhere along the course of implementation the NEP was hijacked by the UMNO elite Malays who only seek to enrich themselves and their cronies.

Based on such factual events how could the former Mubarak President condemned the Hindraf supporters as opportunists?Rightly the real opportunists were the UMNO elite Malays.

    As regards his statement that they were extremists, can the former Mubarak president defined the term ‘extremists’ in order to justify his claim. Does his definition include people who participated in a peaceful assembly to articulate their grievances construed as extremists?

    Yes, he could refer to the unfortunate terminology ‘ethnic cleansing’ used in the memorandum submitted to the Queen as extremist. But hello, what about UMNO unshealthing their keris and threatening the Chinese? What about the former Chief Minister Rahim Thamy chik’s utterance that the Malays would take out their parangs if the non-Malays challenge Malay supremacy?

Are they no more seditious and extremist?  It is really pathetic that people like Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang who had enjoyed the fruits of NEP should now find it plausible to hurl untruthful accusations that it was the Hindraf supporters who were opportunists when in actual fact he and the UMNO elites were the opportunists.

      How could Abu Zahar equate articulating one’s cause as being traitor to race and country? By his implication, the Hindraf supporters should just remain silent and accept their discrimination and marginalisation so that they will not be traitor to their race and country.

With such perverted logic so prevalent amongst the UMNO top echelon it is no wonder how a peaceful assembly of disdvantaged people could be construed as terrorists.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 18 December 2007, 1:38 am and is filed under
Hindraf
,
Indians
,
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 does the BN government choose to do the wrong things almost all the time?

by
Loh Meng Kow

Zainuddin, the Minister of (dis) Information said the government rejected the concept of democracy promoted by the West, with street demonstrations being part of the democratic process.  “Have the countries with frequent street demonstrations managed to achieve the prosperity and stability that we enjoy? Most of these countries are mired in conflicts or chaos,” he stressed.

The Prime minister said that the silent majority had spoken that they were against demonstration. Yes, the people who took part in street demonstrations did not prefer to do it, if they did not consider it important that they took part to call government attention. They demonstrated because that was the only way that attention could be drawn to the wrongs perpetuated by the government. The way to stop demonstrating is to govern with fairness in the interest of the nation, and not in personal interests, so that the citizens do not find the need to demonstrate. The approach adopted in declaring street demonstrations illegal, charging participants for high crimes would see fewer demonstrations. But unless the problems which the people were calling attention are resolved, that resentment would not go away.

Countries that have frequent demonstrations could be divided in two categories. One takes heed of the demonstrations, and so government actions are guided on the path to prosperity and stability. The other tolerated demonstrations but was not prepared to take remedial actions. Malaysia considered itself capable in using bullying tactic to deny demonstration.

The government claims that it practices democracy but it chooses to ignore specific allegations that the current practice of the Election Commission does not ensure free and fair election.  The government claims that it had the support of the silent majority, and it had perfected its divide and rule policies where the policies and their implementation served to ensure support of specific section of the population to return them to perpetual rule. Yet, it was afraid of free and fair competition. So it chose to frustrate the march organized by BERSIH. The silent majority would have preferred that the government accede to the request of the BERSIH group, so that there would not be a need for demonstration. But the government chose what it did, and had the audacity to claim that the majority agreed to its action.

The government thought it proper to establish national service to bring youths to three months ‘get-together’, and hopes that they would be unity among them during and after the event.  BN government could not be that ignorant not to realize the cause of racial polarization lies not in the lack of contact, but elsewhere. Until the youths do not have to witness unequal opportunity at further educations, and that their parents do not have to pay more for housing to subsidize persons of another community owning similar housing units, and do not have to face a host of institutionalized discriminations under the pretext of NEP, the three-month ‘goodtime’ cannot sooth their sense of unhappiness.  The beneficiaries too would find it odd that civility and fairness they learn from books are different from real life. Should the young be taught might is right at the tender age, they would certainly develop the entitlement mentality so that all they need to say is ‘do not make us angry’, and whatever they demanded could be realized. How can there be true unity and solidarity among the races in that environment?

It is uncanny that BN government almost always chose the wrong solutions to problems faced by the nation.  Other examples abound. Why does the BN government choose to do the wrong things almost all the time?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 18 December 2007, 1:22 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah plunging to new depth of shambolic government with “somnambulant governance”?

I wondered this morning whether the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is crafting a new form of governance – somnambulant governance – making Cabinet appointments on-the-run, with the public and the Ministers themselves completely unaware of the existence of such Cabinet portfolios and responsibilities.

This is from Abdullah’s reaction to the proposal from a coalition of Indian NGOs asking the government to set up a Non-Muslim Affairs Department to handle sensitive issues pertaining to religion.

Malaysian Indian Youth Council (MIYC) president A. Rajaretnam suggested that such a department should come under the Prime Minister’s Department and should look into issues such as conversions and temple demolitions so that these problems are handled department-to-department and not between NGOs and departments.

The Prime Minster’s response is  utterly befuddling and confusing, as no one can make proper sense out of it, as illustrated by the contradictory media headlines, viz:

•
Kerajaan tubuh Jawatankuasa Hal Ehwal Bukan Islam

–
Berita Harian

•
“Government considers setting up panel for non-Muslims”

–
New Straits Times

•
“Non-Muslim affairs dept, if necessary’
–
The Sun

•
Non-Muslims looked after –We already have panels to handle their affairs, Abdullah
 –
The Star

•
Not Necessary For Non-Muslim Affairs Dept Now, Says PM
 –
Bernama

How can  Abdullah’s one  response produce three different perceptions as to what he meant  –  from the government setting up such a department for non-Muslim affairs, to studying the proposal and an outright dismissal as “not necessary”.

I do not blame the journalists, whether reporters or sub-editors for getting three completely different versions from one response, as nobody really knows what Abdullah was talking about.

The Prime Minister’s statement that various ministers in the Cabinet had been charged with the responsibility of looking after the interests of different religious groups – Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting looking after the interests of the Buddhists, Works Minister Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu covers the Hindus and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Bernard Dompok covers the Christians in the country –  has also come as a surprise.

This is because no one in the past four years of Abdullah’s premiership is aware that Ka Ting is also Minister for Buddhist Affairs, Samy Vellu Minister for Hindu Affairs and Bernard Minister for Christian Affairs.

This utter ignorance that there are Ministers for Buddhist, Hindu and Christian Affairs is illustrated by the fact that the  New Straits Times – an Umno-owned newspaper – reported that it is another  Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Maximus Ongkili who is charged with looking after Christian Affairs.

I do not believe that Ka Ting, Samy Vellu, Bernard or Maximus are aware that they are also  Ministers for these respective religions –  or can they give a report as to how they had been discharging their Ministerial responsibilities over these portfolios since their appointment?

Can MPs direct questions falling specifically under these respective subjects to them in Parliament?

When did the Prime Minister make these Cabinet appointments and why were they never announced to the public.  Were these appointments ever gazetted?

This disturbing episode of  Abdullah making Cabinet appointments on-the-run with the public  and Ministers themselves completely unaware of these Ministerial portfolios and responsibilities is symptomatic of somnabulant governance – the very antithesis of a vibrant, dynamic, far-sighted and visionary leadership and government.

What is “somnambulant governance”? Oxford Dictionary defines “somnambulism” as “sleepwalking”.

Is Abdullah plunging the country to a new depth of shambolic government with his pioneering  of “somnambulant governance”?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 19 December 2007, 9:40 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Good Governance
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Parliamentary Roundtable  of MPs/NGO/NGI to salvage IPCMC next Thursday

I will convene a Parliamentary Roundtable in Parliament next Thursday, 27th December 2007 inviting concerned NGOs and NGIs, including the 16 members of the Royal Police Commission, to discuss how to salvage the original proposal of the Royal Police Commission to have an independent external oversight mechanism to check police abuses, misconduct and corruption.

As former Royal Police Commissioner Tunku Abdul Aziz, who was formerly President of Transparency International Malaysia, told the Emergency Public Consultation on the Special Complaints Commission (SCC) Bill – what I had described as the fake IPCMC bill – in Kuala Lumpur on Monday night, there is no police in the world which had been capable of or successful in policing itself, which was why the Royal Police Commission was unanimous in its key proposal for the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

Although the Cabinet has agreed to defer the second reading of the SCC Bill to the next meeting of Parliament starting on March 17, 2008  (provided there is no earlier dissolution of Parliament for the holding of the 12th general election), there are two matters which are most regrettable, viz:

•	the refusal to set up a Parliamentary Select Committee to canvass the widest public consultation on whether the original proposal to have an independent IPCMC should be salvaged and reinstated; and

•	the rigid government mind-set in refusing to reconsider the IPCMC proposal, which has been abandoned in favour of a Special Complaints Commission which has the Inspector-General of Police, the Director-General of Anti-Corruption Agency and the Director-General of the Public Complaints Bureau as permanent Commissioners – making total nonsense of a completely independent oversight commission whether over the police or other enforcement agencies.

As there is no Parliamentary Select Committee to canvas the widest public consultation on the fake IPCMC Bill, there is an urgent need to have a substitute body to conduct such a public consultation process in the next two months.  This will be the major agenda of the Parliamentary Roundtable on the SCC Bill next Thursday.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 19 December 2007, 11:54 am and is filed under
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Religious polarisation most serious in 4 yrs under Abdullah as compared to four previous Prime Ministers

“PM: Religious festivals unite all Malaysians”
 is the
New Straits Times
headline today for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s statement yesterday at an  Aidiladha ceremony, where he said:

“Malaysia can pride itself in knowing that regardless of what religious celebration it may be, its ethnic groups will come together as one to honour the event.”

This was very true in the early decades of our nationhood,  but it has become less and less true as increasing religious polarization  in the country is undermining and even threatening  national unity.

In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that religious polarization is most serious in the past four years under Abdullah as Prime Minister as compared to the four former Prime Ministers – Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

It is most unfortunate that in recent years, there have been mounting instances of disrespect and insensitivity of those in power and authority for the rights and sensitivities of non-Muslim Malaysians.

The most serious example were the recent  triple insensitivities during this year’s  Deepavali – the Festival of Light celebrated by Hindus.

Firstly, there was the insensitive and sacrilegious demolition of the 40-year-old Sri Maha Mariaman Temple in Kampung Rimba Jaya in Shah Alam when Deepavali was just a week away.

This was followed by the disrespect and insensitivity when the Umno General Assembly was held on Deepavali – imagine the protest and outrage if the MCA or MIC had held their general assemblies during the Hari Raya holidays.

But there was a third strike – when Umno Deputy Youth Leader and the Prime Minister’s son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin went on a rampage against the Indian community at the Umno General Assembly,  telecast on RTM, blaming the Indian news vendors for  taking a national  press holiday during Deepavali and blacking  Abdullah’s speech as Umno President the next day.

The outrage by the Indian community at these triple disrespect and insensitivities were a major cause for 30,000 Indians from all over the country gathering in Kuala Lumpur on Nov. 25 in support of the Hindraf demonstration – not to create unrest but to send their cry of despair at their marginalization to the government of the day!

Such insensitivity and disrespect could also be seen In Parliament, as in  the shocking incident where two Umno MPs demanded the removal of the cross and demolition of Christian statues in mission schools.

Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) is starting its new semester on Dec. 24, which is Christmas Eve – another example of decreasing respect and sensitivity from those in authority for different religious rights and practices, or the UPM would have fixed its semester opening a few days later.

The Prime Minister must take urgent measures to arrest the worsening of inter-religious relations in the country and halt the growing number of incidents of disrespect and insensitivity felt by non-Muslim Malaysians about their rights and religious practices by those in power and authority.

I have just received this SMS on another incident, viz:

“HERALD  the weekly paper of the Catholic Church facing problem in renewing permit.  Told not to have Bahasa section as condition for approval.  All these years they had four sections – languages. BM to reach East Malaysians and youths educated in BM.”

The Prime Minister should immediately  address these obstacles to greater national unity, so that Malaysia can revert  to the previous position  where religious polarization was  a serious problem in nation-building so that religious festivals can continue to be an occasion to unite all Malaysians rather than divide them.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 19 December 2007, 3:42 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


General election expected in March – Indian voters “kingmakers” in 28 parliament/78 state assembly seats

I expect the 12th general election to be held in another two months’ in March 2008.

For the whole of this year, there had been periodic  speculations about general election this year as early as before the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations on August 31,  then almost monthly – September, November and December.

But such speculation of early polls had only made their rounds outside the precincts of Parliament as there had never been any buzz or fizz among Members of Parliament, including Ministers, Deputy  Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, that general election was imminent or  around the corner.

If I had been asked a week ago, I would rate the chances of the next general election being held either before or after April next year (when Anwar Ibrahim regains his civil entitlement to contest in the general election) as 50-50.

There was however a quantum development in the political scenario in the past few days, when  for the first time in the current term of MPs, the corridors of Parliament were infected by an  air of expectation that MPs were seeing the end of Parliament and that they  would not be gathering again as MPs of the 11th Parliament.

I would now rate the chances of the 12th national polls being held in March as 70-30.

The next general election will see a new factor in the political power equation – the role of the Malaysian Indian voters, who had always been regarded as a solid captive vote-bank by the Barisan Nasional in previous general elections.

This is no more the case as there is an awakening of political consciousness among the Malaysian Indians, particularly at the high-handed treatment of the Hindraf demonstration in Kuala Lumpur which saw the support of 30,000 Indians from all over the country, the unjust and unconscionable handling of the “Batu Caves 31” who were denied bail and incarcerated for 13 days for the ridiculous charge of “attempted murder” of one policeman and the dismissal of the legitimate grievances of the Indian community over their long-standing marginalization as equal and rightful citizens of Malaysia.

Although there is no single parliamentary or state assembly constituency in Malaysia where the Indian voters constitute the majority  of the electorate and could singly decide who would be elected  the MP or State Assembly representative, Indian voters represent over ten per cent of the electorate in 62 Parliamentary constituencies and 138 State Assembly constituencies and are an important factor in  determining the electoral outcome.

In 28 Parliamentary and 78 State Assembly constituencies in Peninsular Malaysia, the Indian voters are the  “kingmakers” as they constitute more than 15% of the electorate and exercise  a decisive influence as to who wins or loses in the constituency.

In Perak state, there are 13 Parliamentary and 27 State Assembly seats where Indian voters comprise more than 10% of the electorate, and six  Parliamentary and 13 State Assembly seats where Indian voters comprise  more than 15%.

The Perak constituencies with more than 15% Malaysian Indian voters are:

Parliament

Sungai Siput		22.45%

Bagan Datok		22.36%

Ipoh Barat		21.24%

Tapah			19.67%

Telok Intan		19.02%

Tanjong Malim	17.29%

State Assembly

Buntong		44.30%

Hutan Melintang	30.39%

Jalong			26.11%

Changkat Jong	26.04%

Chenderiang		24.95%

Sungkai		19.76%

Jelapang		18.60%

Behrang		18.15%

Lintang		18.11%

Pasir Panjang	17.80%

Alor Pongsu		16.89%

Aulong		15.84%

Pantai Remis		15.22%

The contemptuous dismissal of the legitimate grievances of the Malaysian Indians over their political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious marginalization  was confirmed by none other than the MIC President, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu in his RTM1 interview in the
60 Minit Bersama Menteri
 programme last night.

Samy Vellu claimed that
“the government has taken measures to improve the lot of Indians and has never neglected the community”
, blaming any shortfall on a “ineffective delivery system”.

This is a very poor excuse indeed, as Samy Vellu cannot run away from the fact that he had been the MIC President and sole Indian Cabinet Minister for over 28 years and he cannot just dismiss the grievances of the Malaysian Indians about their long-standing marginalization by blaming all on the  “ineffective delivery system”.

Secondly, Samy Vellu was guilty of serious denial syndrome when he continued to claim that the government had never neglected the Indian community.

This is all the more shocking as Samy Vellu was present albeit as silent observer and note-taker at the two-hour special meeting between the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Indian NGOs last Friday  where representatives including  from Malaysian Hindu Sangam and  Malaysian Indian Business Association had spoken out  loud and clear about the plight of the Malaysian Indians because of  government neglect and discrimination.

How can Samy Vellu go on RTM1 after the Indian NGO’s meeting with the Prime Minister to tell the nation that the Malaysian Indians had never been neglected, going against the message the Indian NGOs wanted to convey to the Prime Minister last Friday? Isn’t this a great disservice to the cause of justice and equality for  the Malaysian Indians under the Malaysian sun?

The Star
 reported Samy Vellu as saying that
“based on feedback, there were Indians who had begun questioning why the issue raised by the community had not been resolved by the Government”
.

Shouldn’t Samy Vellu be grateful to the Malaysian Indians who have the courage of their convictions and citizenship to question the marginalization of the Indians?

Samy Vellu said: “There were those who questioned why their applications had not been entertained. So, I have asked the Prime Minister to give a bit more to the Indians (in development programmes) considering their history (in the country). The Prime Minister has agreed to consider this.”

Is Samy Vellu admitting to his failure and that he would not have asked the Prime Minister “to give a bit more to the Indians” if the Malaysian Indians had not demonstrated in support of the Hindraf rally on Nov. 25 to demand government attention and action on their long-standing marginalization as the new underclass in Malaysia?

And why is he asking “to give a bit more to the Indians” as if Samy Vellu must beg on behalf of the Indians, when as equal and rightful citizens of Malaysians, the Indians are entitled to ask what should be rightfully theirs and not just “crumbs” on the dining table?

The
New Straits Times

report
 on Samy Vellu’s RTM1 interview said:

On the use of the words “ethnic cleansing” by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), Samy Vellu said: “Hindraf leaders do not know the meaning of the word. This is what happened in Bosnia but it is a baseless accusation here.”

If Samy Vellu is right, that the Hindraf did not know the meaning of “ethnic cleansing” when they used the term, why was it necessary to invoke the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) to detain them indefinitely without trial?

Is Samy Vellu prepared to tell the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that the Hindraf leaders should not be detained under the iSA and should be set free immediately as they had not known the meaning of the term “ethnic cleansing”?

Generally, Samy Vellu’s RTM interview last night as reported by the press has shown that he has lost touch with the Indian ground and roots, which is why he has no credibility when he claimed “many people” who had taken part in the Hindraf demonstration had been sorry and regretted their action.

Just now,  I had asked the over a thousand people gathered here –  an overwhelming number had gone to Kuala Lumpur to take part in the Hindraf demonstration on Nov. 25, not over ethnic cleansing or genocide allegations but as a cry of desperation by the Indian community  to the Prime Minister and the government over their long-standing marginalization – and not a single hand went up when I asked for a show of hands of those who now regret taking part in the Hindraf rally.  Samy Vellu should stop feeding misinformation  to the Prime Minister and the mainstream media about the long-standing and legitimate grievances of the Malaysian Indians to an equal place under the Malaysian sun.

(Speech at the “New Deal for marginalized Indians and all marginalized groups” forum held at St. John’s Hall, Ipoh on Thursday, 20th December 2007 at 11 am)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 20 December 2007, 5:28 pm and is filed under
Articles
,
Hindraf
,
Indians
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


EPF needs to explain why it discontinue the RM1.4 billion claim against it six former executives

by
Richard Teo

EPF has an obligation to explain to its contributors why it has discontinued the suit filed in 2005 against Rashid Hussain and five former top executives.

   A writ of summons to the value of RM1.4 billion was filed against the six by RHB Capital, RHB Securities Sdn Bhd and RHB Equities Sdn Bhd at the Kuala Lumpur High Court sometime in 2005.

    The six former top executives were sued” for breach of fiduciary duties, breach of trust,breach of

contracts of employment/or negligence in relation to certain margin financial facilities granted by RHB Equities during their tenure as Directors and/or Officers of RHB capital, RHB Securities and RHB Equities.”

      The suit was filed by major shareholder Utama Banking Group in 2005 and during the course of the trial evidence adduced seems to indicate a clear breach of fiduciary duties. Dubious huge loans for margin financing was given without any collateral and proper approval.

       Surely such obvious dereliction of duty should eventually bring to book those responsible for the loan fiasco.The loan claimed in the suit was not a paltry sum but for a mind boggling sum of RM1.4 billion.

      Despite public opposition to the pension funds acquisition of the RHB group, and despite Rashid Hussain’s total debts of RM3.5 billion ringgit which included a bond repayment of RM265 million due in June 2007, EPF proceeded to acquire the entire parent firm for RM3.9 billion ringgit including warrants and convertible loan notes. At the same time the fund also made an offer of RM8.75 billion ringgit bid for RHB Capital at RM4.80 per share.

      What perhaps remain a mystery was why EPF did not accept Kuwait Finance offer of RM2.19 ringgit (compared to EPF offer of RM1.80) for each Rashid Hussain share and RM7.35 (compared to RM4.80 offered by EPF) for each RHB Capital share? Why was it so adamant in acquiring a loss and heavily indebted entity when a better offer was on the table?

     What EPF needs to explain to the EPF contributors is why after having acquired control of

the RHB group it has decided to discontinue the much publicised RM$1.4 billion claim.

   The fundamental question remains as to why was EPF so generous in foregoing what seems like a legitimate claim of RM1.4 billion claim against the six former top executives of RHB? Was there any covert attempt to conceal the main purpose of EPF’s acquisition of the RHB group? Was EPF used as a vehicle to acquire the equity of the RHB group with the intention of discontuing the civil suit against the six defendants?

   All these perplexing questions need to be answered so that confidence can be restored to the pension fund.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 December 2007, 9:48 am and is filed under
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Quo Vadis Malaysia

by
Dr. Chen Man Hin

After 50 years  of independence, Malaysia is in identity crisis.

Two main factors:

*Islamic state which casts a pall on inter-communal relationships.  The divide became more and more apparent, and there is  less mixing of the races.

*Umno rejection of
Bangsa Malaysia
 and the Malay agenda.
Bumiputraism
 became strident, and
ketuanan Melayu
 was flaunted at Umno assembly of 2005.

Umno has subverted the constitution for their own agenda.  PM Abdullah and DPM Najib declared Malaysia  is not secular but is an Islamic state.

Quo vadis Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 December 2007, 9:56 am and is filed under
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.