The Seditious Press

by
Thomas Lee

The following
Antara misteri dan politiking
headlines appeared on Sunday:

Berita Minggu:

Kematian Teoh timbulkan pelbagai spekulasi politik

By Zainul Arifin (NSTP Group Editor)

Mingguan Malaysia:

By
Awang Selamat

I now understand and support Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s decision to boycott the NST group of newspapers and stopped the state government’s subscription of the papers.

It is simply beyond an intelligent person’s comprehension how an editor could arrive at the conclusion that the protest against the high-handed methods of the MACC is a challenge to the Malays. Only an immature, insecure and not too intelligent person can look at the Teoh Beng Hock case from a racial perspective. OneMalaysia? Nonsense! If we have people in positions of power and influence with such racialist mentality, there can never be OneMalaysia.

I have just retired as a journalist after nearly 35 years in the profession, and during my years as a reporter, socio-political analyst and editor, I have identified five types of journalists in the media community.

First, there are the
EEs — Editorial Eunuchs
, who take orders from their political emperors and write and spin stories to promote the emperor’s cause. These political appointees are usually in top and senior positions, not because they are good journalists or great writers, but because of their connection to powerful political godfathers. They are first class cronies. Many are ghost writers for their political masters. Some have become millionaires.

(Note: I thank God that, except for one or two cases, the editors I had worked under are not such people. I can vouch that people like Ng Poh Tip, Michael Aeria, Wong Sulong and Wong Chun Wai are good people of principle and top class journalists, not EEs. My good friend Chong Cheng Hai, the chief editor of theSun, is another person of integrity.)

Secondly, there are the
PPs — Press Prositutes
, who have sold their souls and principles to gain favours and privileges from their political and/or business clients. They will write what pleases their political masters. The amount of hampers and gifts they receive during festive seasons is perhaps a good indication of their rising status in their media organisation. (Perhaps the MACC should consider looking at this practice of giving editors hampers and gifts during festive seasons).

Thirdly, there are the
MMs — Media Marionettes
, the puppets who have no brains but are used and abused by opportunists to advance their own political or business agenda. They usually feed such journalists with twisted information and deceive these gullible writers to propogate their schemes of things. Our education system has produced many such gullible, unthinking, uncritical, and dumb people, and some of them are found in the media organisations.

Fourth, there are the
JJs — Junket Journalists
, those who will write anything for the sponsors of their overseas trips.

Finally, there are the WWs — Wise Writers, the rare breed who know how to survive through the controlled press situation and get their honest views into print without rousing the suspicion of their media bosses, who are usually political cronies. There are very few such honest writers with integrity and principles, and they are usually not in positions of power.

How can we expect to have OneMalaysia when we do not really have a free and credible press? If our prime minister is truly sincere in wanting to take take the country to greater height as OneMalaysia, then the first thing he needs to do is to liberate the press by abolishing the oppressive legal restraints such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, etc. and enact a Freedom of Information Act. Then, he must revamp the whole system of administration to get rid of those known to be corrupt, racist, and incompetent. Most importantly, there must a reform in the judiciary, enforcement agencies, the election commission, etc. He must also reinstate local council elections.

OneMalaysia? It will remain a slogan and a dream if the current federal government does not take concrete actions to reform the whole political and administrative environment in the country.

If the Barisan Nasional administration is unable to bring about such reforms, then we must throw it out at the next general election.

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 July 2009, 10:47 pm and is filed under
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Twitter updates from Teoh Beng Hock’s funeral at Alor Gajah

From dust 2dust ashes 2ashes TBH buried 230pm in solemn grief dignity resolution 2uncover the truth

Monday, July 20, 2009 03:10 PM

TBH hearse on way 2Semenyih Memorial Park 4burial DAP leaders  following Selangor MB Khalid will b there

Monday, July 20, 2009 11:25

After last respects by reps of assns societies public solemn ceremony ended with 1km procession involving thousands 2AG historic funeral

Monday, July 20, 2009 11:21

Pakatan Rakyat leaders of DAP PKR PAS pay last respects 1st time in PR history

Monday, July 20, 2009 10:28

Anwar arrives w PKR leaders 2pay last respects

Monday, July 20, 2009 10:25

Have 2hold back tears in DAP cec last respects

Monday, July 20, 2009 10:22

PASVice president n MP Sallehuddin arrives last respect on behalf of PAS leadership

Monday, July 20, 2009 10:00

Relatives n friends massed in front of cortege paying last respects

Monday, July 20, 2009 09:57

Over thousand people in tears or redeyed over dastardly tragedy which shld not have happened

Monday, July 20, 2009 09:55

Siblings’ heart-wrenching recollection of their joyful n purposeful days 2gether in past never 2return or 2hear his voice again

Monday, July 20, 2009 09:53

TBH siblings bidding farewell Why shld all this happen in Malaysia Boleh?

Monday, July 20, 2009 09:48

TBH fiancee Ser bids farewell with heart”wrenching parting words Tears in many

Monday, July 20, 2009 09:46

Present karpal guan eng betty kok wai teresa ronnie tony nienching xavier dak kee jenice anthony thomas n more

Monday, July 20, 2009 09:44

Final ceremony 4TBH’s last journey begins Grief anger shroud ceremony Nation stands in shame

Monday, July 20, 2009 09:40

MCA topguns OngTeeKeat LiowTiongLai appeared at TBH wake AG late in nite 1120pm but despite TBH family demand no commitment RCI by Cabinet

Monday, July 20, 2009 07:02

Nation mourns for TBH. Leaving PJ now 4 AlorGajah 4 TBH’s last journey. Let’s translate nation’s grief and anger into People’s Power 4change

Monday, July 20, 2009 06:46

Check twitter.com/limkitsiang for up-to-the-minute updates

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 July 2009, 11:27 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Twitter
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr. Mahathir ‘s Priorities are all Wrong!

by Dr. Toh Kin Woon

I refer to the latest posting in Dr. Mahathir’s blog, in which he criticized the non-Malays for asking for more concessions from state policies.

In response to these demands, the current Prime Minister has liberalized rules pertaining to equity ownership in some services’ sub-sectors and promised to set up a scholarship based purely on merit, beginning from next year.

Dr. Mahathir has found all these to be unacceptable, as they are tantamount to the government helping the relatively better off non-Malays taking even more from the relatively poorer Malays.

To substantiate his point, he went on to assert that non-Malays now own around 50% of the share capital while Malays own only 20%, far from the target set in the New Economic Policy of 30%.

I find Dr. Mahathir’s arguments to be objectionable on 3 grounds.

Firstly, quite apart from the accuracy of his statistics on share ownership according to ethnic group, his focus on this particular issue is a case of wrong priority.

We all know, and I am sure Dr. Mahathir himself, too that shares and even properties of high value in urban areas are owned only by a small proportion of the total population.

This is true of all communities, not just in Malaysia, but in countries all over the world, including the USA and Japan. For the bulk of the population, share ownership is far removed and irrelevant to their lives. Their concern is with obtaining a just return to their efforts and labor, i.e. with egalitarianism.

Instead of focusing his concern on how wealth and income can be redistributed from the upper strata of all communities to the lower strata of all ethnic groups, Dr. Mahathir chose instead to concentrate on redistributing wealth from one socio-economic elite group to another.

Precisely because of this misplaced priority, the pattern of wealth and income distribution for the country as a whole, and for the Malays in particular, has gotten worse over the years.

The wholesale adoption of neo-liberal policies, such as the privatization of massive infrastructural projects to cronies; the increasing reliance on indirect taxes, which are regressive, as a source of governmental revenue; and shrinking the role of the state sector as a provider of public goods, has led in part to this rising inequality.

What is worse, and this is my second objection, Dr. Mahathir’s resort to using very strong ethnic underpinnings in his argument may well lead to further ethnic division and contradictions.

I would have thought that as a former Prime Minister of 22 years, he would have made it his utmost priority to promote the core values of socio-economic egalitarianism, inter-ethnic co-operation and communitarian togetherness. It would seem that this is not the case, which is indeed most disappointing.

Finally, Dr. Mahathir, like many others who take the racial approach, has taken the simplistic and unscientific assumption that all communities are monolithic and homogenous in socio-economic terms, when in fact they are far from so.

All the ethnic communities in Malaysia are class stratified. The Malays, as much as the Chinese and the Indians, are all stratified into different income groups, with the rich making up only a small percentage of the total. The bulk of the Chinese, like the bulk of the Malays and the Indians, are relatively poor.

Over the years, these laboring Malaysians have found monetary returns to their labor unable to catch up with the rising cost of living. In real terms, all of them have suffered.

Dr. Mahathir’s thoughts and efforts should be on how governmental policies can be better designed to alleviate their economic sufferings and not resort to pursuing racist arguments in support of one group of the rich elite.

Reorienting his priorities will go a long way towards helping the nation attain equality, social justice and inter-ethnic harmony.

Statement issued by Dr. Toh Kin Woon,

Research Fellow at the Center for Southeast asian Studies,

University of Kyoto and former State Executive Councillor, Penang

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 July 2009, 6:08 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Eve Open Letter to PM & Cabinet – Form three Royal Commissions of Inquiry, on Teoh Beng Hock’s death, the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal and to propose a blueprint to roll back the crime wave of the past five years to create a safe Malaysia

YAB Prime Minister,

YAB Deputy Prime Minister,

YB-YB Ministers.

Form three Royal Commissions of Inquiry, on Teoh Beng Hock’s death, the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal and to propose a blueprint to roll back the crime wave of the past five years  to create a safe Malaysia

YABs and YBs,

It is seven hours since the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak returned from his overseas trip this morning, closeted with top police officers for half an hour immediately on his touchdown at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 11.15 am.

However in the past seven hours, there has been no announcement by Najib of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock, 30, the political secretary to Selangor DAP State Exco and State Assemblyman for Seri Kembangan, Ean Yong Han Hwa who went to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Shah Alam to co-operate in its investigations but end up as a corpse at the MACC Hqrs last Thursday 16th July 2009.

Malaysians regardless of race or religion are deeply disappointed because the Prime Minister is not prepared to be as decisive as the former Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who had announced an independent public inquiry into the police nude ear-squat scandal on his touchdown at the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) base in Subang on Monday, 28th November 2005  on his return from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Malta, well ahead of any Cabinet meeting!

Could it be that the Prime Minister, who is using all the latest Internet gadgets to take the pulse of the people on a 24/7 basis, being the first Malaysian Cabinet Minister and Prime Minister to use the twitter, had not been properly informed of the nation-wide shock, grief, anger and outrage at the unnecessary sacrifice of Teoh in MACC?

Hadn’t the Prime Minister been informed by all the MCA, Gerakan, MIC and even UMNO Ministers – as well as his new political secretary Dr. Oh Ei Sun – that it is not only the MACC and the Police which are on public trial, the very credibility, integrity of legitimacy of his premiership is also on trial?

Fearing this might be the case, I am issuing this Open Letter to the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet on the eve of your weekly meeting to underline the national importance why there can be no procrastination tomorrow  in the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death.

In fact, the Cabinet tomorrow should take the unprecedented and historic decision to form three Royal Commissions of Inquiry, on Teoh Beng Hock’s death, the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal and to review the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission Report and to come out with a blueprint  to roll back the crime wave in the past five years and  create a safe Malaysia.

The announcement of the latest police findings after completing 60% of their investigations into Teoh’s death have raised even more questions and pressing reasons why a Royal  Commission of Inquiry is imperative.

As announced by the Selangor police chief Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar yesterday, police probe so far has revealed:

Teoh’s handphone was not with him when he died;

He died between 8am and 9am on Thursday;

He was believed to have fallen from the 14th floor window.

These police findings can only fuel more questions, as for instance, MACC investigations director Datuk Shukri Abdul had been reported in the media as saying that the handphone had been returned to Teoh. Now, Police said that the handphone had been with the investigating officer when MACC was already done with questioning Teoh, allegedly at 3.45 am on Thursday.

These are among a ton of other questions that can only be satisfactorily answered by a Royal Commission of Inquiry, formed in consultation with Pakatan Rakyat leaders with regard to its terms of reference and composition.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry should not be confined to investigate into the death of Teoh but be a wide-ranging remit for a total review of MACC’s investigation procedures and its ability to maintain its independence, professionalism and integrity from political interference.

In a wide-ranging interview with Sin Chew Jit Poh last Thursday and a Sunday speech, MCA President and Transport Minister had made the most serious allegations ever about high-level corruption and abuses of power reaching all the way to the Cabinet, causing him to allege that corruption had emerged from the “darkness” into the open to do their evil work.

Why had both the MACC and Cabinet closed their eyes and ears to pretend Ong had never made such serious allegations of worsening corruption in the country, reaching all the way to the Cabinet?

The time has also come for the Cabinet to form two Royal Commissions of Inquiry, one into the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal, and the second, to roll back the tide of crime in the past five years by reviewing the 2005 Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission Report and to work out a blueprint to create a Malaysian police force which is efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class committed to the three core functions to keep crime low, eradicate corruption and protect human rights of Malaysians.

All Malaysians are waiting for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to do what is right for the country and future generations by giving real meaning to the new administration’s motto of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now.”

Don’t disappoint Malaysians.

For “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now”?

Yours truly,

(Lim Kit Siang)

DAP Parliamentary Leader

MP for Ipoh Timor

21st July 2009

6.15 pm

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 July 2009, 7:55 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Crime
,
Letters
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MACC – prove that you are not even worse of a lapdog of Barisan Nasional government than ACA in the past!

On 11th December 2008, the New Straits Times carried a report “Abu Kassim: Lapdog tag won’t stick any more” on the new Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to replace the discredited Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

This is the NST report:

KUALA LUMPUR: Five bodies will closely watch over the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to ensure its transparency and integrity.

They are the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board; Special Committee on Corruption; Operations Review Panel; Corruption Prevention and Consultative Panel; and a Complaints Committee.

With the five scrutinising bodies, Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) deputy director-general Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed hopes that the MACC would not be accused of being the lapdog of the government as the ACA had been accused of thus far.

“The difference here is accountability. Now, they (critics of the ACA) say we are accountable to the prime minister and the Prime Minister’s Department, although we are only accountable to him when it comes to the agency’s budget.

“With five independent bodies scrutinising the MACC, no one can say we are accountable to the prime minister. Which other agency do you know of has to answer to five such bodies? Even the ICAC (Hong Kong’s Independent Commission on Anti-Corruption) has only four scrutinising bodies,” he said during a recent briefing on the MACC.

Members of the five bodies will not be paid any allowances for their work. Most will be taken from outside the MACC but will be assisted by ex-officio personnel drawn from the commission.

The advisory board, for instance, will comprise seven individuals to be appointed by the king on the advice of the prime minister, but will have five ex-officio members.

Abu Kassim said the seven independent members are to be those with high integrity, respected by the community at large and from all walks of life, whether corporate figures, members of non-governmental organisations, legal professionals or academicians.

They will serve three years on the board for a maximum of two terms.

The board will be set up under the MACC Act.

The Operations Review Panel, which will be set up under an administrative order, will also comprise seven individuals and three ex-officio members.

These members will serve two-year terms for a maximum of three terms.

The Corruption Prevention and Consultative Panel will also have seven members and three ex-officio members, to serve for two-year terms of not more than three terms.

These members will be responsible for ensuring that the MACC does enough to educate the public on the evils of corruption and how to fight the menace.

It will also assist in maintaining public support for the MACC.

The Complaints Committee will handle complaints of a non-criminal nature against commission officers. The committee will look into complaints concerning the conduct of MACC officers while carrying out their duties, whether in receiving reports or investigating them.

However, if any complaint has elements of criminality, the complaint will be forwarded to the necessary government agency, such as the police force, for further investigation.

The Special Committee on Corruption, meanwhile, is different from the other scrutinising bodies in that it will comprise parliamentarians. To be appointed by the king on the advice of the head of the Dewan Rakyat, members may come from both sides of the political divide.

Despite all the big talk by Datuk Abu Kassim six months ago, the majoritarian opinion among Malaysians is that the MACC is even worse as a lapdog of the Barisan Nasional government than the ACA, despite the phalanx of five bodies to provide “checks and balances” absent in previous ACA legislation.

The mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock, political secretary to Selangor DAP State Exco and State Assemblyman for Seri Kembangan Ean Yong Han Hwa on Thursday after plunging from the 14th floor of MACC after going to MACC to co-operate in its investigations, is only “the last straw that has broken the camel’s back” after a catalogue of misuse and abuse of power by MACC in the past six month.

In the past six months, the five “check and balance” bodies have provided not a single check or balance to ensure that the MACC does not deviate from its parliamentary and national objective to declare war on corruption.

Instead, these five “check and balance” bodies appear to be completely helpless and impotent with the MACC declaring war on the Pakatan Rakyat as the catspaw of the Barisan Nasional national government.

I am not surprised at
reports that a revolt is brewing among the “top advisers” in the five MACC “check and balance” bodies
, who had been treated as if they did not exist and only role is to be window-dressings to give the MACC a good public image.

Although Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, who heads the Panel on Consultation and Prevention of Corruption, has confirmed that several of his fellow advisers have indicated that they may quit their appointed posts to protest the methods in which witnesses are questioned for information, he himself is determined to “carry on”.

Navaratnam said: “No point in resigning. That’s the easy way out. We’ve got a public trust to fulfil.”

Does Navaratnam and the members of the five panels have any clue what is going on in MACC in the past six months and why they had done nothing to bring the MACC back to the original objectives to declare war on corruption instead of declaring war on Pakatan Rakyat?

Up to now, the members of these five “check and balance” MACC bodies are not generally known to the Malaysian public.

Instead of continuing a shadowy figures, let Malaysians know who are all the members of the five bodies, how many meetings each body had held so far and what they have achieved.

Lets have Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) not only for the MACC in the past five months, but also KPIs for these five bodies as to whether they are performing any useful function at all.

Together with Pakatan Rakyat MPs, I propose to seek a meeting with all the five bodies in the coming week to find out what exactly they are doing and whether they are discharging the legislative intent of the MACC Act or the very opposite and just a complete waste of public funds, energy and time.

For the MACC, in particular Abu Kassim  –  let MACC prove that it is not even worse of a lapdog of Barisan Nasional government than ACA in the past from its record of its first six months of establishment from 1.1.09!

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 July 2009, 1:14 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Crime
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nazri would do the country a greater service to warn New Straits Times group editor Zainul Arifin to stop his outpouring of communal poison which undermines Najib’s 1Malaysia motto and his credibility as Prime Minister

The de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, seems to have found a new hobby. He is merrily issuing warnings against all and sundry, regardless of whether he has any basis for such warnings or not. Probably Nazri should be labelled Minister for Warnings.

Nazri warned me not to turn the death of Teoh Beng Hock into a racial issue. Teoh, the political secretary to Selangor DAP State Exco and State Assemblyman for Seri Kembangan Ean Yong Han Hwa died mysteriously on Thursday after plunging from the 14th floor of MACC on Thursday after going to MACC to co-operate in its investigations.

As a de facto Law Minister, Nazri should not act in any lawless manner. I challenge him to substantiate his warning by citing an instance where I have turned Teoh’s death into a racial issue?

If he can’t, is Nazri prepared to be gentleman enough to apologise for his baseless and unfounded warning?

I have dedicated my entire life to the ideal of a united, harmonious, peaceful, just and prosperous Malaysia and have approached Malaysia’s multi-faceted problems from the perspective of a Malaysian nationalist – and not from the vision of a Chinese, Malay, Indian, Kadazan or Iban chauvinist.

I regard Teoh’s death as an indictment of the Malaysian system of governance and not a racial problem.

I have never regarded the MACC as a Malay or Malay-controlled institution and this is why I do not regard Teoh as a victim of the failure of Malay government but the indictment on a Malaysian government, holding all the Barisan Nasional Ministers and component parties equally responsible!

It is racists like the New Straits Times group managing editor Zainul Arifin who could spout rank communalism who should be the subject of Nazri’s attention and warning.

In his Sunday article in
Berita Minggu
 “
Kematian Teoh timbulkan pelbagai spekulasi politik
”, Zainul Arifin made the utterly irresponsible, abhorrent and baseless allegation against DAP and Pakatan Rakyat for harbouring the agenda to weaken Malay-controlled institutions like MACC in our campaign for justice for Teoh Beng Hock.

Zainul Arifin could even be so irresponsible as to resort to blatant race-baiting as when he demanded of Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim: “Why does Selangor Menteri Besar, a Malay, doubt the ability of those of his own race to act fairly and sincerely?”

I do not hide the fact that I am a strong and sustained critic of MACC and its predecessor the Anti-Corruption Agency as a Malay institution.

This is simply because of its dismal failure in the battle against corruption as illustrated by the unchecked plunge of Malaysia’s ranking in Transparency International Corruption Perception Index from No. 23 in 1995 to No. 47 in 2008 and the latest admission of MCA President and Transport Minister that corruption was deteriorated with the corrupt emerging from the “darkness” to operate in the open with impunity!

I have always regarded MACC, and before that the ACA, as a Malaysian institution and criticized it of any failings not because it is a Malay-controlled institution but because it is a Malaysian institution.

Is Zainul Arifin suggesting that the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal is a Chinese scandal because three MCA Ministers and four MCA Port Klang Authority Chairmen are now implicated in it?

Not at all. Just as PKFZ scandal is a Malaysian scandal and not a Malay, Chinese, Indian scandal, the scandal and outrageous death of Teoh is a Malaysian scandal and not a Chinese, Malay, Indian, Kadazan or Iban scandal.

Twenty-five years ago, I was accused of being anti-Malay for exposing the Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) scandal.  If today, there is still such mentality, Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan cannot have any meaning.

Zainul Ariffin has made a most racist and irresponsible statement, completely unbecoming of a top journalist heading a national daily.

Does Nazri endorse Zainul Arifin’s communal writings and if not why is there no warning from him to the New Straits Times group and its managing editor?

I shudder to think what would happen to Chinese and Tamil newspapers if their editors or writers had played the racial card like Zainul Arifin as their newspaper licences would have been suspended if not revoked immediately?

Why the double standards, Nazri?

Zainul Arifin’s racist article makes a complete mockery of the 1Malaysia motto of Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

As Zainul Arifin is managing editor of Umno’s flagship newspaper group, the News Straits Times, are Umno leaders like Nazri prepared to dissociate themselves from Zainul’s racist article, take disciplinary action against Zainul and  publicly apologise for Zainul’s racist and communal article.

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 July 2009, 7:45 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Court of Appeal’s “outline of reasons” in Anwar Ibrahim v P P – a critique

By NH Chan

I must apologize for the delay in giving this critique. The Court of Appeal gave its decision on July 1. I received the “outline of reasons” from Ngan Siong Hing only last Friday, 17 July 2009. Without him supplying me with a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal I would not be able to write this critique. Also as I do not have access to a law library I depend a lot on his generosity to get the legal material that I need to write my essays for ordinary people to understand what the judges are talking about. This is to enable the common people of this country to judge the judges for themselves.

The whole case can be understood just by readings 418A(l) and (2) and s376(l) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Power corrupts

David Pannick in his book
Judges
, OUP, 1987, wrote, p 76:

In all societies throughout history, judges have occasionally been adversely affected by their power. An early example occurs in the biblical story of Daniel and Susanna. Two elders of the community were appointed to serve as judges. They saw Susanna walking in her husband’s garden ‘and they were obsessed with lust for her’. When she resisted their advances they falsely accused her of infidelity to her husband. ‘As they were elders of the people and judges, the assembly believed them and condemned her to death.’ A young man named Daniel protested that an enquiry should be made into the judges’ allegations. He accused them of giving ‘unjust decisions, condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty’. Under his careful cross-examination, the judges were proved to be liars: Daniel and Susanna in The Apocrypha.

The English Bench has had its fair share of bad judges. . . .In the seventeenth century, the Bench ‘was cursed by a succession of ruffians in ermine [most notably Jeffreys and Scroggs (Sir William)], who, for the sake of court [royal] favour, violated the principles of law, the precepts of religion, and the dictates of humanity’: John Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors (5th edn, 1868), vol 4, p 416.

The misuse of power from whatever quarter it may come

In
The Family Story
, Butterworths, 1981, Lord Denning said, p 179:

The law itself should provide adequate and efficient remedies for the abuse or misuse of power from whatever quarter it may come. No matter who it is – who is guilty of the abuse or misuse. Be it government, national or local. Be it trade unions. Be it the press. Be it management. Be it labour. Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power. Else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy. To my mind it is fundamental in our society that a judge should do his utmost to see that powers are not abused or misused. If they come into conflict with the freedom of the individual – or with any other of our fundamental freedoms – then it is the province of the judge to hold the balance between the competing interests. In holding that balance the judges must put freedom first.

And at page 180, This was what Lord Denning said in 1949 in the Hamlyn lectures:

Reviewing the position generally, the chief point which emerges is that we have not yet settled the principles upon which to control the new powers of the executive. No one will suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us, what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, but our procedure for preventing the abuse is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age. They must be replaced by new and up-to-date machinery, by declarations, injunctions, and actions for negligence: and, in judicial matters, by compulsory powers to order a case stated. This is not a task for Parliament. Our representatives there cannot control the day-to-day activities of the many who administer the manifold activities of the State: nor can they award damages to those who are injured by any abuses. The courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead, this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the Welfare State: but abused they lead to the totalitarian State. None such must ever be allowed in this country. We have in our time to deal with changes which are of constitutional significance to those which took place 300 years ago. Let us prove ourselves equal to the challenge.

“That lecture was given in 1949. Now, 30 years or so later [The Family Story was published in 1981], I think we can say that we have achieved what I then hoped for.” wrote Lord Denning. “We have now new and up-to-date machinery for the winning of freedom.” he wrote, “We have declarations, injunctions, actions for negligence, and judicial review. All that is needed now is for the judges – and the Bar – to get to know how to use it.”

I write about this in order to show how the common law was developed by great judges and Malaysia is a common law country. So that most of us will know how and why we have inherited a great deal from the English common law which is the cradle of it all. The common law is mostly the experience and the combined wisdom of great judges throughout history. It took the British judges 700 or so years to have their common law it is today. The USA has a common law history of about 250 years. In Malaysia we have about 50 years since independence. Let us be humble and learn from the mistakes of others.

But for the moment it seems that our present crop of judges have stopped in their tracks as far as the development of the common law is concerned. Some of whom, especially those in the higher echelons, are sorely lacking in competency.

All that is needed now is for the judges to know how to use it

The Bar certainly knew how to use the new machinery to fight the abuse or misuse of power by the powers that be. But not so the judges of the Court of Appeal in
Anwar Ibrahim v P P
. But first, let me show you the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code that applies to this case. I start with s 418A(1) and (2), thus:

41 8A. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 417 and subject to section 418B, the Public Prosecutor may in any particular case triable by a criminal Court subordinate to the High Court issue a certificate specifying the High Court in which the proceedings are to be instituted or transferred and requiring that the accused person be caused to appear or be produced before such High Court.

(2) The power of the Public Prosecutor under subsection (1) shall be exercised by him personally.

This draconian piece of legislation gives the Public Prosecutor the power to transfer any criminal case triable by a subordinate court to a High Court of the Public Prosecutor’s choice. But who is the Public Prosecutor? For this we have to refer to s 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It reads:

376.     (1) The Attorney General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have the control and direction of all criminal proceedings under this Code.

(2) The Solicitor-General shall have all powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and shall act as Public Prosecutor in case of the absence or inability to act of the Attorney General.

Subsection (2) allows the Solicitor-General to act as Public Prosecutor in case of the inability of the Attorney General to act as such. This means that if the Attorney General is disqualified to act on account of bias, as in this case, then in such a situation he is prevented from acting as the Public Prosecutor in as 418A application. In which case the Solicitor-General shall act as Public Prosecutor unless the Solicitor-General is himself tainted with bias – in this case for supporting the Attorney General for what he had done that amounts to bias. But justice is still served as the defendant can still be tried before a subordinate criminal court. We are entitled to question the motive of the Attorney – General. Why should he, in the mantle of Public Prosecutor, be so insistent and selective in the choice of a court to hear the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy case? To everyone in this country the charge of sodomy against Anwar Ibrahim is no different from any sodomy charge against any other wrongdoer, unless, the Attorney-General as Public Prosecutor wants to have a particular High Court to hear the case against Anwar Ibrahim. But why so? What is so special about Anwar Ibrahim? Is he the Attorney-General’s or someone’s nemesis? Such an act creates an impression to the general public that the prosecution wants to ensure a conviction by choosing the correct court to hear the case. To all of us right thinking Malaysians this is unfair and unjust treatment of anyone who is accused of a crime. If my reader has the patience to read this article to the end you will be shocked to learn of the real motive of the Attorney-General’s insistence on a High Court of his choice.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in
Anwar Ibrahim v P P

The judges of this Court of Appeal are Abdull Hamid Embong, Abu Samah Nordin and Jeffrey Tan Kok Wah JJCA. Remember their names for posterity so that the bad judges of this country will be etched indelibly in our memory. The judgment of the court was delivered by Abdull Hamid Embong JCA. It was a unanimous decision so that the travesty of justice caused by the decision implicates all of them. He said in his judgment which is in numbered paragraphs:

52. In signing this certificate, the PP cannot be said to be exercising a quasi- judicial function, but merely an administrative one, and one that only he can exercise. (see PP v Oh Keng Seng [1976] 2 MU)

53. In this case, we are of the considered opinion that the rule that a person under a suspicion of bias should not act as an adjudicator is not applicable to the act of the PP in signing this certificate. We would apply the exception that natural justice may be overridden by a statutory provision as enunciated in Franklin & Ors v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948] AC [87], an exception which is applicable in both administrative and legislative process.

54. We rule that, in this instance, despite the allegations of bias and conflict of interest against him, the PP being the specific and only officer authorized by law to sign the s 4t8A certificate, may do so. His act cannot be impugned by reason of the imputed bias or conflict of interest. (see Mohd Zainal Abidin bin Abdul Mutalib v Mahathir Mohamed, Minister of Home Affairs and Anor [1989] 3 MU 170).

Let me now expose the fallacy of the reasoning of the judgment of this Court of Appeal

In paragraph 52
 (see above) the judge, Hamid Embong JCA, said that the Public Prosecutor was not exercising a quasi-judicial but an administrative function which only he as Public Officer can exercise. This is not the law. The misuse of power may come from any quarter; it need not be from a person sitting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. As Lord Denning has put it: “No one will suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us, what is the remedy?” Nowadays there is always a remedy against the wrongdoings of public officials. The Attorney General in this case is no more than a salaried civil servant – he is subject to the remedy against the wrongdoings of a public official. His employer is the Government of Malaysia and the CEO is the Prime Minister. On the other hand an English Attorney- General is a Minister in his own right and an elected representative of the House of Commons.

In
The Queen v Gaming Board for Great Britain, exparte Benaim and Khaida
 [197012 QB 417, 430 Lord Denning MR said:

It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply: nor as to their scope and extent. Everything depends on the subject- matter: see what Tucker U said in Russel v Norfolk (Duke oJ) [1949] 1 All ER 109, 118 and Lord Upjohn in Durayappah v Fernando [1967] 2 AC 337, 349. At one time it was said that the principles only apply to judicial proceedings and not to administrative proceedings. That heresy was scotched in Ridge v Baldwin [19641 AC 40, 77-79 per Lord Reid, 133 per Lord Hodson.

Ridge v Baldwin
 was a decision of the House of Lords. It was followed and applied by the Federal Court in
Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng
 [1977] 2 MU 152. This makes the common law decision of
Ridge v Baldwin
 a part of the common law of this country.

So now we know it is utter rubbish to say that the principles of natural justice applies only to a judicial or quasi-judicial function.
Ridge v Baldwin
 and
Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng
 have changed all that. And it is also rubbish to assume that only the Attorney-General can be the Public Prosecutor. See my explanation of s 376(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which I have discussed earlier in this article.

Next is
paragraph 53
. In substance what this Court of Appeal is saying is that the Public Prosecutor is not an adjudicator so that the question of bias does not apply to him. As pointed out above that heresy has been scotched in the House of Lords’ decision of
Ridge v Baldwin
. He was merely doing his duty as Public Prosecutor, says the Court of Appeal, to put his signature which according to him is a mechanical act required of him by s 41 8A of the Criminal Procedure Code. But the question is, what if the Public Prosecutor acts in bad faith to transfer the case to the High Court of his choice? Surely, in such a situation the decision to transfer the case to a High Court of the Public prosecutor’s choice cannot be allowed to stand on account of bias.

The Court of Appeal relied on
Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning
 [1948] AC 87 where the headnote reads that the House of Lords has held that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has no judicial or quasi-judicial duty imposed on him, so that considerations of bias in the execution of such a duty are irrelevant, the sole question being whether or not he genuinely considered the report and the objections under the New Towns Act 1946. We know now that after
Ridge v Baldwin
 in 1964,
Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning
 is no longer authority for any such proposition.

It is quite unbelievable that these judges of the Court of Appeal could ever dream of misleading the general public of this country by citing as authority a 1948 decision when they knew, as I am sure Haji Sulaiman or any competent counsel would have informed them, that Franklin is no longer good law. Not only that,
Ridge v Baldwin
 in 1964 has been approved and applied by our Federal Court in
Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng
 [1 977J 2 MU 152, thus importing into the common law of Malaysia the English common law decision of
Ridge v Baldwin
.

Furthermore, they, the judges of this Court of Appeal, even try to mislead us by saying in paragraph 53: “We would apply the exception that natural justice may be overridden by a statutory provision as enunciated in
Franklin & Ors v Minister of Town and Country Planning
 (1948) AC 87, an exception which is applicable in both administrative and legislative processes”. I have read through the judgment of Lord Thankerton, all 12 pages of it, many times over but I am unable to find the proposition of law that Hamid Embong JCA states in paragraph 53 of his “outline of reasons” was the ratio decidendi of
Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning
. The Court of Appeal have put in words to the House of Lords decision in Franklin which was not found in the judgment of Lord Thankerton.

And now to
paragraph 54
. For the reasons given above, what the Court of Appeal says in paragraph 54 is not the law.
Ridge v Baldwin
 in the House of Lords and our Federal Court in
Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng
 have scotched the heresy. If it can be shown that the Attorney-General had misused his power in the victimization of Anwar Ibrahim that is enough to disqualify him from acting as the Public Prosecutor to sign the certificate under s 418A of the CPC.

The most shocking condemnation of all

Finally, Twill leave this to your own judgement. The following is taken from the judgment of Steve Shim who was then the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak in the case of
Zainur bin Zakaria v Public Prosecutor
 [2001] 3 MU 604, 613-614:

To my absolute horror and disappointment Dato’ Abdul Gani Patail used the meeting and the death sentence under s 57 of the ISA as a bargaining tool to gather evidence against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He had with him the letter I had written to you and copied to him. He was waving the letter about and kept on saying, repeatedly, “I am not impressed” and suggesting that he would not be impressed with my plea to a charge under the Arms Act but instead he wanted more. This “more”, and it came across very loud and clear because Dato’ Abdul Ghani Patail laid it out in very clear and definite terms, was:

I 	That Nallakaruppan was now facing the death sentence.

2 	That there were other charges also under the ISA that he could prefer against Nallakaruppan but that if they (AG’ chambers?) hanged him once under the present charge what need would there be to charge him for anything else.

3 	That in exchange for a reduction of the present charge to one under the Arms Act, he wanted Nallakaruppan to cooperate with them and to give information against Anwar Ibrahim, specifically on matters concerning, several married women. Dato’ Abdul Gani kept changing the number of women and finally settled on five, three married and two unmarried.

4 	That he would expect Nallakaruppan to testify against Anwar in respect of these women.

I was shocked that Dato’ Abdul Gani even had the Gall to make such a suggestion to me. He obviously does not know me. I do not approve of such extraction of evidence against ANYONE, not even or should I say least of all, a beggar picked up of the streets. A man’s life, or for the matter, even his freedom, is not a tool for prosecution agencies to use as a bargaining chip. No jurisprudential system will condone such an act. It is blackmail and extortion of the highest culpability and my greatest disappointment is that a once independent agency that I worked with some 25 years ago and of which I have such satisfying memories has decended to such levels in the creation and collection of evidence. To use the death threat as a means to the extortion of evidence that is otherwise not there (why else make such a demand?) is unforgivable and surely must in itself be a crime, leave alone a sin, of the greatest magnitude. Whether his means justify, the end that he seeks are matters that Dato’ Abdul Gani will have to wrestle with within his own conscience.

You can read the rest of it from the law reports. I cannot stomach this anymore. Possibly you can approach a website to show the entire judgment of Shim CJ on their portal with the permission of MU or any other law report.

All I can say is that, if Gani Patail is a member of an Inn of Court he would be disbarred as a barrister.

I am sickened by the perversity of the office of the Public Prosecutor.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 July 2009, 7:42 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Law & Order
,
NH Chan
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What is the use of MCA, Gerakan and MIC Ministers remaining in Cabinet if three of the four major Barisan Nasional component parties in Peninsular Malaysia could be overruled on a  Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death at MACC?

MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has finally said that the four MCA Ministers support the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock, 30, the political secretary to Selangor DAP State Exco and State Assemblyman for Seri Kembangan, Ean Yong Han Hwa who went to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Shah Alam to co-operate in its investigations but end up as a corpse at the MACC Hqrs last Thursday 16th July 2009.

Gerakan President Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon has also finally declared yesterday that Gerakan supports the establishment of a RCI  into Teoh’s death.

MIC President, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said yesterday that MIC Minister for Human Resources Dr. S. Subramaniam will support in Cabinet the proposal to set up a RCI.

So far, the only Minister and Barisan Nasional component party to openly declare opposition to the establishment of a RCI into Teoh’s death is Datuk Peter Chin, Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water from SUPP.

There are also UMNO Ministers who are supportive  of a RCI into Teoh’s death, like the Minister for Information, Communication and Culture, Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim who said yesterday that the setting up a RCI to investigate Teoh’s death can remove whatever doubt the people may have because the outcome of investigation by the Commission will carry more weight compared to other investigations.

He said the request to form the RCI should be supported by everyone and that as a member of the Cabinet, he would not oppose the suggestion.

With the three major parties of the Barisan Nasional in Peninsular Malaysia – MCA, Gerakan and MIC – declaring public support for a RCI, together with Ministers from Umno (with only the  solitary objection from the SUPP Minister), the question that must be asked is:

What is the use of MCA, Gerakan and MIC Ministers remaining in Cabinet if three of the four major Barisan Nasional component parties could be overruled on the establishment of Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death at MACC?

The reason why a RCI is imperative and that no second option is acceptable  is because Malaysians have lost confidence in the independence and professionalism of the police in impartially dealing with high-profile political cases.

The 1998 scandal of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s “black eyes” while in police custody is the most classic case where only a RCI could force out the truth that it was perpetrated by the then Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor in the presence of top police officers and debunk police and government allegations that Anwar’s “black eyes” were “self-inflicted wounds”.

Another case which illustrates the collapse of public confidence not only in the police but important national institutions to act efficiently and professionally is the allegation of underworld links to the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat state government.

Even the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Gani Patail reacted with lightning speed to the allegation of the underworld links of a Pakatan Rakyat state executive councillor, particularly on the use of his office in the state secretariat building as a meeting room for criminals, declaring within 24 hours of the allegation that “he wants the police to look into the matter immediately”. (“A-G calls for immediate probe into allegations” NST 12 July 2009).

Gani said on Saturday, 11th July 2009: “I want this matter investigated. If a police report isn’t lodged soon, I will call up the police on Monday morning and ask them to investigate.”

The police duly swung into immediate action on Monday in its investigations against the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat state government.

In contrast, compare the utter indifference of Attorney-General, the police and the MACC to the recent public allegations of the MCA President and Transport Minister,Ong Tee Keat of “evil and corrupt elements” with increasing influence in government and Cabinet to the extent that corruption and decadent rule have emerged from the “darkness” into the open to victimise and frustrate justice and integrity as well as attempts to block his publication of the limited PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report on the Port Klang Free Zone scandal.

If these allegations had been made against the Pakatan Rakyat, PR leaders would have been subjected to the fullest investigations but there has been no action whatsoever by the Attorney-General, the Police and the MACC on Ong’s very serious allegations about “dark forces in high places”!

For these reasons, there can be no option or alternative to the establishment of a RCI to get into the bottom of Teoh’s death.

I still expect the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak on announce the establishment of such a RCI on his return from overseas and not to wait for the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

Najib should consult with Pakatan Rakyat leaders, the first to call for RCI into Teoh’s death, in deciding on the composition and terms of reference of the RCI so that it would command continued public confidence that there would be no cover-up into the real culprits and actual causes of Teoh’s death.

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 July 2009, 10:53 am and is filed under
Crime
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Arresting the Slide in Our Public Institutions

By Farish A. Noor

The term ‘Asubhabhavana’ is familiar with many historians of Buddhist theology by now, for it refers to a meditative mode of introspection that has become ritual practice over the centuries. In layman’s terms, Asubhabhavana refers to the simple process of self-reflection and mental back-tracking where one contemplates the manifold paths, steps and mis-steps that were taken to get us to where we are today; prompting the simple yet direct question: “Why have I become what I am today, and what were the mistakes that I made that continue to hurt me now?”

As it is with individual subjectivities, so is it with states, governments and institutions. For when we look at the process of historical development and decline of so many post-colonial societies we also need to ask what were the steps and mis-steps that were taken to get them to their present state of degeneration and decline?

A case in point is the recent one in Malaysia, where a young political assistant to the DAP opposition party was found dead under the most suspicious of circumstances. The young man had been summoned by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to its offices in order to answer some questions related to allegations of corrupt political practice. The next time anyone sees him, he is found lying dead on the rooftop of the building next door. Needless to say the fact that the young man may have died while under MACC custody begs the immediate and obvious questions: How did he die, and why? This is the burning question that has brought Malaysians of all walks of life, across the political divide, together. Already the same question is being asked even by the component parties of the BN ruling coalition, and prominent BN leaders have likewise called for an enquiry into what happened that day at the MACC office.

Sadly Malaysia’s convoluted politics has begun to twist the facts of the case. The death of the young man has been turned into a racial-ethnic issue, with the vernacular Malay press in particular arguing that those who question the official version of the story are actually working to undermine the Malaysian government and its related public institutions that are dominated by Malaysian Malays. But no amount of spin can alter the fact that the death of the young man was mysterious to say the least; and no amount of spin can alter the fact that Malaysians want to know the truth.

Firstly it has to be noted that Malaysians have every right to complaint about and to question the conduct of state institutions that are, after all, being paid for by the Malaysian tax payers themselves.

To suggest otherwise would be to miss the point that state institutions are there to serve the needs of the citizenry, and that it is the citizenry who have the right as stakeholders to ensure that the institutions of governance are run well. For if the citizens of Malaysia are not allowed to ask how institutions like MACC are run, then who does?

Which brings us to the second question: namely, who does run these institutions? In so many developing postcolonial societies we have seen how the institutions of the state such as the police, army and judiciary used and abused by entrenched political elites who continue to act and behave as if these institutions are part of their party-political apparatus. In the worst case scenario as we have seen in countries like Indonesia (under Suharto) and the Philippines (under Marcos), the army and police were no more than extensions of the political apparatus of the dictators in power. In other countries across Africa and Asia we have seen how anti-corruption agencies were used in the most biased and selective manner, to bring about the selective persecution of opposition politicians, activists and members of the public.

In the long run, these casual and routine instances where the distinction between political elites and the institutions of state are blurred will do more damage to the latter than the former. One should not wish for a situation as was the case when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan even had his own pseudo-state paramilitary apparatus, the Federal Security force, at his beck and call. In such instances, the state has all but dissolved itself and things can only degenerate further.

Which brings us to the theme of Asubhabhavana and the need for states to be self-reflective and for societies to ask how and why did the institutions of governance slide so far? The controversy surrounding the death of the young political assistant at the office of MACC will now force Malaysians to look seriously into the decline in standing and credibility of our state institutions, and to ask how they can arrest the slide in performance and credibility of bodies such as the Anti-Corruption Commission. To be sure, Malaysia – like all countries – needs an Anti-Corruption Commission, but it has to be one that is credible, transparent and accountable to the people themselves, and not merely political elites in power. Anything less will make a mockery of the process of governance, and reduce us to the level of the proverbial banana republic, where state violence has been normalised and the rule of law rendered irrelevant.

Malaysia is a country that now has 1,535 cases of death in custody as part of its developmental record. If that figure alone does not give us cause to pause and  reflect on how far we have veered from the ideal set by the nation’s founding fathers, then nothing will.

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 July 2009, 5:30 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Crime
,
Farish Noor
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Five prerequisites for Najib to demonstrate he has the political will to break the back of the problem of endemic crime which has given Malaysia an international notoriety of a nation where citizens, tourists and investors are not safe from crime

Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said yesterday that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib will announce on Monday details of the measures to fight crime under one of the six National Key Result Areas to be implemented in September.

Hishammuddin said the details to be announced by Najib would include the hot areas and crime statistics. Najib would also announce the co-operation to be effected with the non-police sector, such as the Attorney-General’s Chambers, courts and prisons.

In his “Hundred Days as PM” address on 11th July 2009, Najib announced a slew of goodies and pledged delivery of promises in six key areas, viz:

The prevention of crime;

The fight against corruption;

Access to quality education;

The improvement of the living standards for the lower income group;

Improvement of rural infrastructure;

Improvement of public transportation.

In less than a week, Najib’s KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and KRAs (Key Result Areas) in one of these six sectors, the fight against corruption, is in tatters and utterly discredited.

This is why the director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives Dr. Lim Teck Ghee has issued an Open Letter to the 41 members of the five Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) advisory board, committee and panels to resign collectively following the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock at MACC headquarters last Thursday as Malaysians have lost faith in the MACC and the five watchdog or advisory committees.

As Lim said:

“I myself have lost faith with the MACC and I must also declare here, with the advisory bodies which you are members of.

“I know some of you personally – a few for many years now. Because you are honourable people and had good intentions when you agreed to serve, I strongly feel that the only way for you to redeem that lost honour and integrity when Teoh Beng Hock died under the custody of the MACC, is for you all to resign en bloc.

“I know that it may prove difficult for you to resign all alone by yourself given the long and vindictive reach of our political authorities in dealing with individual dissent.

“But as a group, that decision to resign should be a lot easier.

“Not only will you redeem that lost honour and integrity when you resign but your decision will – in my view – impact positively on the political consciousness of the nation at large.

“With your decision, we can console ourselves that during this period of finger pointing and blame deflecting, there is a group of leaders that is willing to shoulder responsibility personally when things they are entrusted with go horribly wrong.”

These are very strong words but all the 41 members of these five MACC committees, the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, Special Committee on Corruption, Complaints Committee, Operations Review Panel and the Corruption Consultation and Prevention Panel must wrest with their individual conscience whether they are prepared to continue as “fig leaves attempting to cover up or justify the political agenda of an untrustworthy and disreputable agency”.

The dismal failure of one of Najib’s six key KPI/KRA areas is also the reason why veteran Umno/Barisan Nasional political leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has openly lambasted the MACC for becoming a “rogue” organisation, with a witness called up for queries ending up in a coffin as well as blasting the MACC for investigating minor cases while ignoring major examples of graft.

Actually, the rot of corruption and decadence has  reached the highest levels of the seats of power in the country, as admitted by the MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat in a wide-ranging interview with Sin Chew Jit Poh last Thursday and in his  Sunday speech, where he said  high-level corruption and abuses of power have  reached all the way to the Cabinet, and lamented that corruption has now  emerged from the “darkness” into the open under the Najib premiership to do their evil work.

But both the MACC and Cabinet have  closed their eyes and ears to pretend Ong had never made such serious allegations of worsening corruption in the country, reaching all the way to the Cabinet?

Four of the five scrutinising bodies of MACC held an emergency meeting yesterday and collectively called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh’s death.

But is this adequate? No, unless there is public confidence in the composition and terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry!

This is why in my Open Letter to the Prime Minister and all Cabinet Ministers last evening, I had stressed that the formation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh’s death must be the result of consultation with Pakatan Rakyat leaders with regard to its terms of reference and composition.

Furthermore, the Royal Commission of Inquiry should not be confined to investigating Teoh’s death but must be a wide-ranging remit to authorise a total review of MACC’s investigation procedures and its independence, professionalism and integrity particularly from political interferences and directions of the government-of-the-day.

Will Najib’s pledge to combat crime go the sorry way in the fight against corruption?

There are at least five prerequisites for Najib to demonstrate he has the political will to break the back of the problem of endemic crime which has given Malaysia an international notoriety of a nation where citizens, tourists and investors are not safe from crime, viz:

Appoint a new Inspector-General of Police to provide new police leadership to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional police service to carry out the three core police functions identified by the Dzaiddin Police Royal Police Commission, viz to keep crime low, to eradicate corruption and to protect human rights.

Name the capitals of crime in Malaysia, which will include Johor Baru, Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya, and the time-line to get rid of endemic crime in these capitals;

Ensure that the Home Minister is personally answerable to Parliament for the war against crime, with a progress report at every parliamentary meeting followed by a debate;

Revive and establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as proposed by the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission, after suitable amendments; and

Establish an all-party Parliamentary Select Committee on Police and Crime to issue half-yearly reports on the police and crime situation in the country.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 July 2009, 11:30 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Governance between Idealism and Realism

By Farish A Noor

Malaysia-watchers would have noticed by now that cracks have begun to appear in the opposition People’s Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat) and that recent events have given some cause for worry. Notably, public spats and open rows among PR leaders in state assemblies have not given us any reason to be confident about the coalition’s future, and at the rate that the PR is going today one is not surprised to hear much speculation about the impending fall of two more state assemblies. There are, understandably, many reasons for these rows to have come into the public domain – though none of these reasons could justify such acrimonious and self-defeating displays by public politicians whom we expect to behave with more decorum and professionalism.

One of the reasons, we are told, is the constant bickering and demands that are coming from the business community – predominantly in Selangor and Penang – who feel that their earlier support for the Pakatan should now be reciprocated by the handing out of lucrative development projects and other perks and bonuses that come with political sponsorship and patronage. This, however, is precisely the root of the malaise to Malaysian politics, and was one of the primary reasons why the vote swing in March 2008 was as strong and vocal as it was.

It is known to many in the business world and corporate sector that the mode of governance in Selangor has changed: Calls for transparency and accountability have been met with a more stringent form of quality control and hands-on management. Contracts have to be tendered for openly, and the accounting has to be visibly cleaner and more transparent. Likewise the very nature of the development contracts have changed as well, with environmentally-dangerous forms of development (such as hillside development) put on hold for the moment.

The business community however – particularly the all-powerful developers’ lobby – seem impatient to see the money flow once again and are clamouring for a less hands-on approach to governance where developmental projects can be carried out with less fuss and scrutiny. The rumblings we see and hear seem to emanate from these quarters, from lobby groups linked to business interests that want to see a more relaxed mode of governance in Selangor (and Penang) that would allow contracts to be passed and projects undertaken, and profit made of course.

Now the dilemma faced by the state governments of Selangor and Penang are not unique to the PR, for it is indeed the same dilemma faced by any government: How to straddle that uncomfortable thin line between idealism and realism. Idealistic politics dictates that governance has to be based on set principles that are seldom compromised and that these ideals should guide governance, and not vice versa. Realism and realist politics on the other hand points to the opposite direction  altogether, and maintains that compromise and give-and-take are the rules of the political game, for the sake of survival. The idealistic politician is prepared to resign his/her seat on the basis of principle – but then again how many idealistic politicians have you met?

Now we ought to be clear on this matter: Having made a public commitment to the principles of democracy, representative politics, anti-communitarianism, transparency and accountability; and having been elected to office on the basis of those promises, the PR governments in Penang, Selangor, and other states cannot backtrack for the sake of survival any more than they have done. In the case of hillside developments in Selangor for instance, any compromise to the earlier policy would be seen as a hypocritical betrayal of a promise made before the electorate, for the sake of continued corporate patronage and support. Whatever the reasons and justifications that may be given for the move, it would be seen as a moral defeat and a blatant act of hypocrisy.

This in turn might lead to an increasingly jaded and tired electorate thinking to themselves “See, they are no different from the other side”.

Now of all the damaging claims that can be made to stick, that would be by far the worst: For the PR was elected to office on the basis that they were different from the BN. Now with PAS and UMNO engaged in unity talks that have blurred the distinction between the two (leading perhaps to the results of Manek Urai), the PR needs to emphasise its distinction from its opponents and competitors more than ever. To be labelled as being ‘no different’ from the BN whom they condemned so

vociferously last year would be the final nail in the coffin of the PR, and would bring us back to a politics of realism and pragmatism where ideals and ethics are just froth for sound-bites and headlines.

PR however has to realise that its back is to the wall at the moment and to cling on to its idealism would also entail an enormous political cost, not least the very real  prospect of losing support, patronage and power from those (particularly in the business community) who may decide to shift their loyalties elsewhere. Yet clinging on to its ideals and policy promises is not a case of misplaced juvenile idealism or romanticism gone off the tangent: Without its ideals, the PR is nothing. In the long run we need to maintain this ideal of a just and equal Malaysia that is colour-blind and non-sectarian. It may not happen in our lifetime, but to abandon our ideals now for the sake of votes and donations will surely kill it even before such a new Malaysia is born.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 July 2009, 9:53 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Repentance in retirement : The Badawi baffle

By Augustine Anthony

A very interesting behavioural pattern is emerging amongst the Malaysian politicians whilst in power and when they are no longer in power.  Even prime ministers are not spared.

In Malaysia there are many repressive laws, legislations and stifling administrative procedures that are archaic and unworkable in a modern democratic system of governance.

Often we witness politicians within the ruling government, when called upon to state their views on these laws, governmental directives and administrative procedures, either support it openly or maintain a puzzling silence.

No matter what degree of public outcry, the response is akin to “you shout as much as you can, I am in power and I will decide the way I want it” seems to be the trend in response.

But once they find place in retirement, their views become somewhat perplexingly inconsistent to their earlier views. Suddenly they are now champions of human rights and fundamental liberties.

The recent comment by the former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is now a famous example that one can refer to, to drive home the point.

Badawi is reported to have said that the government must consider abolishing the Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows for detention without trial.

He is also reported to have said that the draconian piece of legislation (introduced by the colonial masters)   which has drawn negative views – should be replaced with a new legislation that allows for preventive detention and at the same time protects fundamental rights.

After years of living in fear of many repressive laws, Malaysians in general gave the biggest electoral mandate to Badawi in 2004 with hopes that he would bring all the necessary reforms consistent with the need for more democratic space in the ever changing social and political landscape of this country.

With the huge backing from the people, Badawi had this one golden chance to dismantle all unjust systems that were backed by   unacceptable laws and place himself in the hearts of the majority of Malaysians, as the man who brought the promised reforms.

But alas, a golden opportunity, squandered.

Five years on, under Badawi, Barisan Nasional suffered the biggest electoral loss in Malaysian history. The loss was due to many perceiving him as unable to bring about many of the promised reforms that were announced when he took over from the previous prime minister.

However many still perceive that Badawi really wanted to make changes to better the country but he just did not have the political and personal will, stamina and courage to fight a long entrenched system of governance that has become a frothy cocktail of treachery, deceit, cunningness and dishonest personal survival of many within this system, be it political warlords or big boys of the bureaucracy.

Instead of Badawi getting the better of the system, the system got the better of him and he got sucked deep into the rabbit hole.

Now we have a new prime minister and the thought still lingers whether he will outsmart the system or otherwise.

Whatever the permutations are, one thing is certain and that is, the new breeds of voters are results oriented.

Announcements must be matched with delivery and promises are meant to be kept.

I do not think that the new generation of Malaysians, particularly the voting population, will pay much attention to rhymes of repentance in retirement.

(Note
 : In Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Alice follows a mysterious white rabbit into a
rabbit hole
 to enter ‘Wonderland’, an absurd and improbable world inhabited by many strange characters – source – Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 July 2009, 10:13 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Augustine Anthony
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Teoh Beng Hock’s death – Cabinet decision on Royal Commission of Inquiry falls far short of public expectation, unsatisfactory and unacceptable

I am disappointed by the Cabinet decision on the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock.

There will be no Royal Commission of Inquiry into the causes of Teoh’s death although an inquest would be held.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry will be set up, but only to look into the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigative procedures and to determine if there were any human right violations when Teoh Beng Hock was being interrogated.

This falls short of public expectations and is unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

What the Malaysian public want is a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the mysterious causes of Teoh’s death at 14th floor of  MACC Hqrs, the investigating procedures of MACC as well as into the independence, professionalism and integrity of the MACC whether it has become the catspaw of its political masters to declare war on the Pakatan Rakyat instead of declaring war on corruption.

MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP Ministers have led the Teoh family and the public “up the garden path” into believing that they support a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh’s death.

Did they press for a RCI into the causes of Teoh’s death and were outvoted by the rest of the Cabinet or had they agreed all along to only have a RCI into the investigative techniques of MACC but not into Teoh’s death.

Let MCA President and Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, Gerakan President Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon and all the other Ministers concerned speak up!

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 July 2009, 5:47 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Teoh Beng Hock must not die in vain

Don’t let Teoh’s death be in vain

By Oon Yeoh

Much has been said and written about the tragic death of DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock. There is anger, sadness and confusion over what has happened.

The calls for a Royal Commission of Inquiry are growing louder. Perhaps in due time we will be able to find out the truth of what actually happened, and, if some heads have to roll, let them roll.

But that alone will not stop situations like this from reoccurring, just as the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s black eye has not stopped police brutality from persisting. Similarly, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video has done nothing to bolster people’s confidence in the judiciary.

That’s because the underlying causes of these various problems have not been addressed, only the specific incidences of wrongdoing.

What we need are institutions that are truly independent and apolitical. The police force might claim it is above politics but its behaviour leading to, and during, the May 7 Perak state assembly sitting doesn’t make a strong case for its neutrality.

Likewise the MACC might claim to investigate graft allegations without fear or favour but, the fact that it has gone after a bunch of Selangor state representatives for allegations of corruption on relatively minor amounts (RM2,400 for the purchase of flags, for example) while not batting an eyelid over a former menteri besar’s luxury mansion, doesn’t exactly paint an image of impartiality either.

We also need our enforcement agencies to be more humane. Every one of these officers – from the top down – needs to take courses not just on civil liberties but also the Malaysian constitution. Far too often, those detained or questioned have their fundamental rights trampled all over.

Unless there is some CCTV footage of his interrogation, we might never know what exactly transpired during Teoh’s marathon grilling session which lasted from 5pm to 3.45 am. But if it’s anything like what Kajang municipal councillor, Tan Boon Hwa, says he endured, it’s certainly something that should be of grave concern to all right-thinking people.

Tan, who was also brought into questioning as a witness, says he was forced to stand for four hours, was threatened with physical violence and had to endure racial epithets. He claims there were even threats made concerning his family.

Such interrogation techniques are the kind of thing you would expect to happen when someone is detained under the dreaded ISA – which in itself is a gross violation of human rights and civil liberties – but certainly not during the questioning of witnesses.

We don’t know if Tan’s account is accurate or not, and if it is, whether Teoh was subjected to the same harsh treatment. It’s certainly something that an independent inquiry must look into.

Any independent inquiry must also shed light on whether such interrogation techniques, if indeed they were used, are part of MACC’s standard operating procedures or whether they were the actions of rogue MACC officials.

If they were the action of officials who had overstepped their boundaries, questions then need to be asked why there was no effective oversight mechanism or checks and balances to ensure such things do not happen.

The irony of the MACC, which is now viewed with total cynicism and distrust by the broader public, is that it was supposed to be a better version of the ACA, which was largely seen as ineffective. The MACC was given more powers to really go after graft but it seems to be using those powers for political persecution; to conduct unfair investigations using accusatory methods that are reminiscent of McCarthyism in the US in the 1950s.

Teoh’s death is tragic but it won’t be in vain if it brings about positive change. If Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak believes that economic reforms are all that’s necessary to appease an increasingly educated and demanding public, Teoh’s death should open his eyes. And if it doesn’t, his very savvy and capable political secretary, Oh Ei Sun, should tell him that if he wants his 1Malaysia concept to really work, he needs to buck up on civil liberties as well.

—————

Teoh Beng Hock’s Funeral, Vigil and Public Concerns

By Sagaladoola | Tuesday, July 21, 2009

On 21st July 2009, Teoh Beng Hock , the political secretary who went into MACC building alive and came out as a corpse has laid to rest in Semenyih.

His funeral is attended by many Pakatan Rakyat politicians as can be seen here in justiceforbenghock.blogspot.com . Certainly, it is not strange, considering that Teoh Beng Hock is a political secretary to an Exco of Selangor government Ean Yong Hian Wah of Democratic Action Party (DAP). One can’t help but wonder if there were any Barisan Nasional politicians present to pay respects.

Sivin Kit posted pictures in his blog : Justice for Beng Hock . Generally, Teoh’s mother, in-laws and would-be-wife cried over Teoh’s departure. Who wouldn’t? The death is so sudden and too mysterious and justice has yet to be seen.

Firstly, it was said that there are several media somewhere pointing out that Pakatan Rakyat is making this a racial issue. This is somehow surprising because I was there at the Kelana Jaya Stadium on 20th of July, listening to speeches from MPs such as  Husam Musa (PAS), Xavier Jayakumar (PKR), Lim Kit Siang (DAP), so on and so forth telling the attendees of the Memorial Vigil that Teoh’s demise should not be placed in the racial perspective.

I can remember clearly that it was mentioned that regardless if Teoh is a Malay, Chinese or Indian, Malaysians should stand together as one to ensure there is justice served to another Malaysian, Teoh Beng Hock himself. That includes Kugan too. In my honest opinion, perfectly sensible. Shall we say that is what 1Malaysia should be all about?

Secondly, I find it strange that somehow somewhere Somebody described the speculations surrounding Teoh’s untimely demise to be motivated by politics. We must be clear about a few things.

Why are people speculating? Probably, there is disbelief among the masses that Teoh had committed suicide. It is hard for the public to stomach the reason that a man with a promising career in politics, a father and husband-to-be (Teoh was supposed to get married soon with his pregnant would be-wife) would be suicidal (bear in mind, that this blog is stating the nature of his death is inconclusive. Hopefully, a Royal Commission of Inquiry would be formed to investigate the nature

of his death).

The information given to the public is just too little. Take for example, the public does not even know who were the interviewing officers etc. etc. When there is too little information, people tend to guess using their own version of logic and perspective. I am not in a position to say it is right nor wrong.

Teoh himself was in the political circle, it is not surprising that his colleagues, particularly the Pakatan MPs would speak about him in public. Even blogs write about Teoh, Malaysians talk about Teoh in coffee shops. Therefore, this issue is no longer simply motivated by politics.

It is a serious issue with social concerns. What else is going through the minds of the public concerning MACC and this incident? MACC is a powerful and important commission. Its positive image and public confidence are important. Malaysians are also concerned with bigger alleged corruption scandals. Are Malaysians concerned about their own security as well? What are the SOPs of MACC? In my opinion, it will be terribly unbelievable if SOPs are not clearly in black-and-white, authorised.

Federal and Selangor State MPs, NGOs irregardless of political affiliation (BN or non-BN) should address and discuss these issues in Parliament.

—————

The Rakyat will prevail….…

By Hussein Hamid

They just do not get it. When you have made a mistake you simply put up your hands and say “ I am sorry. It is my fault” then you try to make amends for whatever it is that you made done wrong. If you are contrite enough you might be forgiven and the people you have wronged might accept you back again into their fold and all will be forgiven.

Then there is the other way of doing things. Deny, deny deny. Go on the offensive straight away and plead innocent of all charges. Bluff your way through with enough bluster, thunderbolt and lighting..very very frightening…. and maybe though all that bluff the person wronged might be persuaded to just go away and accept that life is just not fair.

One of life’s constant memory for me is of Kirk Douglas standing up to proclaim “I’m Spartacus!” to Crassus (who had promised that the others will not be punished if they identify Spartacus or his body) only to be upstaged by Tony Curtis and all the others standing up together to proclaim “I’m Spartacus ! because they were all prepared to sacrifice themselves so that Spartacus could live.

In standing up for our rights and our dignity in our own country we all need to be Spartacus! There are too many of us for PDRM to arrest. Too many of us for them  to put under ISA. Too many of us for MACC to question. Too many of us to ignore. But it would still take great courage and determination for us to stand together against the might of Barisan. Even God, it can be argued, favors those with deep pockets and large armies.

These are not difficult days for us. In time to come we will look back and know that these were our greatest days for we are part of that movement that will give our children and our children’s children a secure and decent future in Malaysia.

There are many people on the side of Barisan. They are a coalition of the willing bounded together by their own selfish sense of purpose. Even the oppressed minority within UMNO (those UMNO members who are not yet rich) will always display a unwavering and unquestioning loyalty to UMNO’s in in the hope that they too can get their snout in the trough during feeding time (read General Election time or any by elections along the way !!!!).

So what can we do.

We cannot fight the Police on the streets. In a riot situation the Police are in their elements. They have the discipline the weapons and the technical know how to  control and subdued any numbers from our ranks. But we can keep the anger within us and not forget Justice for All, Respect for the rights of each citizen and leaders who are accountable and responsible in the things that they do. We must keep the anger within us my friend so that our Country, our Life, our Justice System, our  Government, our Police, our  Leaders will become accountable to us. Work for us. Listen to us and will look after us.

We do not have long to wait. The next General Election will put the fear of God into Barisan/UMNO. There will be desertion in droves from within their ranks to join us. If  they are rats fleeing a sinking ship, then it will be for us to do what we do to rats  fleeing a sinking ship – cut the rope that ties the ship to the berth and let them  drown. There will be desperation from within their ranks and attempts to negotiate  alliances and establish life lines with Pakatan Rakyat when all else fail for them – we  must resists the temptation to do so. No jumping frogs – but we do want an orderly  and dignified march to our side.

Do not concern ourselves too much with PDRM, MACC or any Government Ministries – they will take instructions from their political Masters – and after the next GE – we  will be their political masters.

So my friends our path is set. Our resolve must be strong and it is only for our Pakatan Rakyat leaders to lead us to the next election and victory.

“Victory at all costs and in spite of all terrors; victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.” Winston Churchill.

Teoh Beng Hock

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 July 2009, 10:09 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Ong Tee Keat facing a synthetic “life-and-death” crisis of leadership and if he is under siege, where does the unprecedented “threat” come from – Umno, MCA or BN?

Three MCA Ministers and seven deputy ministers have come out with a most extraordinary
joint statement
, describing the MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat as if he is in the “life and death” crisis of leadership, except that nobody whether in MCA, Umno, Barisan Nasional or outside could feel any such crisis – or would care less, for that matter!

My first reaction to the joint statement of the MCA Ministers and deputy ministers is whether they are referring to me as the cause of Tee Keat tottering in his ministerial seat, as they described Ong’s crisis as emanating from his handling of the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

I read the statement more than once and clearly it could not refer to me.

The joint statement of the MCA ministers and deputy ministers said  those who “ create obstacles, make threats, suppress the truth and mislead the public must be condemned in the strongest terms possible” in the unfolding PKFZ “mother of all scandals”.

It cannot be me, because I do not come under  the rubric of the sweeping generalisation and condemnation of those who “create obstacles, make threats, suppress the truth and mislead the public”, although I do not deny that I have been haunting and hounding Ong to “tell all” about the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal – in particular the causes and the culprits of the “scandal of all scandals” in Malaysian history.

And I will continue to haunt and hound Ong until the full facts of the PKFZ scandal, as to how a RM1.088 billion scandal under Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik as Transport Minister in 2002 could quadruple to RM4.6 billion under Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy as Transport Minister in 2006 and now set to become a RM12.5 billion scandal under Ong.

I had asked Ong 108 questions in my 36-day “three questions a day” on the PKFZ scandal and the MCA President had been running for cover for over a month, right from his scooting to France for the Paris Air Show when Parliament first met on June 15, 2009.

Ong’s failure and inability to answer the 108 questions is akin to his failure to pass as Transport Minister and MCA President like Shaolin disciples in “fighting stories” who could not pass the gauntlet of the 108 movements of Shaolin Wooden-men Lane and 18 Lohans to qualify leaving the Shaolin Mountain out into the world.

I will continue to haunt and hound Ong to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, not because there is anything personal between us but in the public and national interests.

For the past fortnight, I have not been able to get back to the subject of PKFZ scandal, not that I am satisfied with Ong’s responses or that I have nothing more to ask or say, but because more immediate national concerns had consumed my  time and energy, like the mysterious death of Teoh Boon Hock at MACC headquarters and the PPSMI controversy.

As a result, I have no time for Ong but will return to Ong and the PKFZ scandal when there is more time.

But I cannot be the one who is causing Ong to fight a political “life and death” battle in Cabinet as to require such a collective joint statement by MCA ministers and deputy ministers to swear eternal allegiance to Ong – just short of declaring that they will “sink or swim” with him, which of course they will not!

This is because Ong’s enemies are of a  totally different character as is evident from Ong’s  wide-ranging interview with Sin Chew Jit Poh last Thursday and Ong’s  Sunday speech, where he made the most serious allegations ever about high-level corruption and abuses of power reaching all the way to the Cabinet, causing him to allege that corruption had emerged under the Najib premiership from the “darkness” into the open to do their evil work.

In fact, in his interview with Sin Chew Daily, Ong himself claimed that he was now “under siege” from people with vested interest in PKFZ, including some from within BN, and claims to have received death threats from underworld figures and whose influence have gone as high as the Cabinet level.

The press had asked for my responses to the collective statement by MCA Ministers and Deputy Ministers. Actually, it is the MACC who should be asked for their responses to Ong’s serious allegations of corruption and “dark underground forces” extending the tentacles of their influence to high government places including the Cabinet.

Unless the MCA and Deputy Ministers are trying to distract public attention from the colossal failure of Ong and the other three MCA Ministers in Cabinet yesterday to establish a comprehensive Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death at MACC last Thursday – instead of a ridiculous Royal Commission of Inquiry not into Teoh’s death but the investigative procedures of MACC!

Malaysiakini
has described the collective statement of the MCA Ministers and Deputy Ministers as “a shot in the arm” for Ong.  This phrase cannot be more appropriate, except not in its literary sense. It is most applicable in its literal sense here, for the MCA Ministers and deputy Ministers could not have done more damage to Ong than their maladroit and ill-considered statement of solidarity with Ong.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 July 2009, 4:53 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
PKFZ
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.