Malaysia’s Najib tightens grip on power

Leslie Lopez

Jakarta Post

June 30 2016

  

After more than a year on the political back foot, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is striking back hard at his detractors.

Emboldened by a series of election victories over the last two months, the Premier has moved to purge his opponents to emerge stronger than he has been since taking over the premiership in April 2009.

In the last 10 days, Najib has turned the tables on his political foes, who were seeking his ouster for his deep involvement in the fiasco at state-owned 1Malaysia Development Berhad ( 1MDB ).

First came the surprise announcement last week that the chief of the country’s anti- corruption agency that led the corruption probe on 1MDB had decided to go into early retirement.

Najib then trained his guns on the irritants in his ruling Umno, with the sacking of the party’s current deputy president and former deputy premier Muhyiddin Yassin and Mukhriz Mahathir, the former chief minister of northern Kedah state and a son of former premier Mahathir Mohamad.

The latest is Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, who is also the secretary-general of the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP). He was arrested on Wednesday ahead of his arraignment in court Thursday on allegations of corruption.

“He [Najib] is flexing, telling those within his party and the opposition that he is in charge and will brook no nonsense,” says Ibrahim Suffian, of independent polling firm Merdeka Center, who adds that the Premier’s political strategy is aimed at solidifying his grip over his ruling party and government

But the strikeback is set to widen the trust deficit the Najib administration suffers with ordinary Malaysians.

“This whole campaign doesn’t give the impression that the institutions are completely impartial because people will compare what is happening to [Lim] Guan Eng with 1MDB and Najib,” argues Ibrahim, echoing a widely held view among political analysts.

Only a year ago, Najib was nearly ejected from power when his opponents, led by Muhyiddin, came close to forcing him to resign on allegations of corruption over the financial dealings at 1MDB and another state-owned entity known as SRC International.

Amid shocking international media reports of flagrant financial shenanigans and corruption at 1MDB, the embattled Premier bought time by removing Muhyiddin as his No. 2 and installing a close ally, Mohamed Apandi Ali, to the powerful position of Attorney-General.

Since then, Apandi has cleared the Premier of any wrongdoing.

Internationally, however, 1MDB has become the single-biggest public relations disaster for Malaysia with a state-owned fund at the center of probes in at least seven countries over a complex web of financial dealings that forced Singapore to close a branch of a Swiss bank over charges of money laundering.

Najib’s latest moves appear designed to send a message that he is in control. But they aren’t doing much for his political prestige.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 June 2016, 6:02 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Brexit is not just Europe’s problem. It highlights a crisis in democracies worldwide.

By Dan Balz

Washington Post

June 27, 2016

LONDON — Britain’s political system remained in turmoil Monday, virtually leaderless and with the two major parties divided internally. But the meltdown that has taken place in the days after voters decided to break the country’s ties with Europe is more than a British problem, reflecting an erosion in public confidence that afflicts democracies around the world.

Last Thursday’s Brexit vote cast a bright light on the degree to which the effects of globalization and the impact of immigration, along with decades of overpromises and under-delivery by political leaders, have undermined the ability of those officials to lead. This collapse of confidence has created what amounts to a crisis in governing for which there seems no easy or quick answer.

The debris here is clear. The Brexit vote claimed Prime Minister David Cameron as its first victim. Having called the referendum and led the campaign to keep Britain in the European Union, he announced his intention to resign the morning after the vote. The results also now threaten the standing of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who faces a likely leadership election after seeing more than two dozen members of his leadership team resign in the past two days.

Alastair Darling, a former chancellor of the exchequer, outlined the extent of the crisis here during an interview with the BBC’s “Today” program on Monday. “There is no government. There is no opposition. The people who got us into this mess — they’ve gone to ground,” he said “How has the United Kingdom come to this position? We have taken this decision and have no plan for the future.”

The seeds of what has brought Britain to this moment exist elsewhere, which makes this country’s problems the concern of leaders elsewhere. In Belgium and Brazil, democracies have faced crises of legitimacy; in Spain and France, elected leaders have been hobbled by their own unpopularity; even in Japan, where Prime Minister Shinzo Abe faces no threat from the opposition, his government has demonstrated a consistent inability to deliver prosperity.

Anthony King, a professor of politics at the University of Essex, said the underlying factor is that many people no longer believe that, however imperfect things are economically, they will keep getting better.

In the face of that change in public attitudes, he said, much of the political class “is behaving the way it used to behave, the old arguments, the old fights, the adversarialism.” That has created what he called “the palpable disconnection” between political leaders and ordinary people. “That is true across much of the democratic world,” he added. “How do you put that right?”

The problem is especially acute here at the moment and threatens to grow worse in the near term. A longtime analyst of politics here, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of his position, said: “If you thought your [American] politics were a mess, we can outdo you anytime. I’ve never known it in any way, shape or form as bad as this.”

Britain’s political system faces months if not years of instability. Cameron originally recommended that a new prime minister be in place by early October. On Monday, the party committee overseeing the rules for the selection of a new Conservative Party leader to succeed Cameron accelerated that timetable, calling for a decision to be made by Sept. 2.

Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and the leading voice in the campaign to leave the E.U., is seen as the favorite to succeed Cameron. But he is a controversial figure and faces resistance inside the party.

The selection of a new prime minister probably will be followed by an early election — almost four years ahead of the next scheduled election — because the next prime minister will need a public endorsement as they begin the process of negotiating a withdrawal from the E.U.

For the Conservative Party, the prospect of an election as soon as possible is attractive because of the chaos within Labour and the prospect of enlarging the narrow majority won in May 2015. It is the prospect of a crippling defeat that caused many Labour members of Parliament, long unhappy with Corbyn, to move swiftly against him now.

A left-wing backbencher, Corbyn was propelled to the leadership position after Labour’s wipeout in the 2015 general election. He won on the strength of support from the unions and particularly from rank-and-file members of the party.

Today, Labour is in a vicious civil war, split between its grass-roots membership and the party’s elected leadership in Parliament. Its future as a viable and effective opposition party is under threat at a time the country most needs one.

The party’s deputy leader told Corbyn on Monday that he has lost the confidence of the parliamentary party. But Corbyn has fought to fight on and might have enough grass-roots support to fend off a challenge.

The reality is that neither party enjoys a particularly stable coalition. Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University in London, argued that as cultural issues — here symbolized by immigration — have risen to the fore, they have put pressure on a party system long organized over economic differences of more or less reliance on free markets rather than government’s hand.

Labour saw many of its strong areas outside of London vote strongly in favor of leaving the E.U. Meanwhile, Cameron was relying on the votes of Labour districts in London to help prevent that from happening.

“In other words,” Bale said, “there’s possibly a mismatch between the party system we have and the party system we need.” But he added that history and institutional inertia mean there is no prospect of any realignment.

It will be left to the leaders of the next government to pick up the pieces after Thursday’s vote. But those who led the “leave” campaign to break with Europe and who are likely to lead the government by this fall will be challenged to live up to the promises they made in the weeks before the referendum. Already they have backed away from some of the more questionable assertions of the campaign.

That governing challenge could fall most heavily on Johnson, if he becomes the next prime minister. The normally flamboyant former journalist appears somewhat chastened by what lies ahead. In a column in Monday’s Telegraph newspaper, he sought to present himself as someone who would try to unite a sharply divided country and smooth over some of the issues that were at the heart of the Brexit debate.

He argued that the government would be able to take back control of immigration — the issue that above all animated the actions of many supporters of Brexit — while maintaining many of the economic benefits it now enjoys by being a member of the E.U.

“Britain is and always will be a great European power,” he wrote, “offering top table opinions and giving leadership on everything from foreign policy to defense to counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing.”

But so far there is no plan for implementing any of this from those who led the campaign to leave. To some outside observers, that is a recipe for more voter disappointment and a further decline in confidence in leaders and institutions. As Bale put it, “The time seems right for another betrayal.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 July 2016, 8:56 am and is filed under
International
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Futile to talk about double standards

By TK Chua

Free Malaysia Today

July 1, 2016

To be free from blemishes is not an option for any Opposition politician but an obligation to set the bar higher.

COMMENT

What is there to argue about on whether Lim Guan Eng should resign, take a leave of absence or continue doing his job as the chief minister of Penang?

To me there is really no answer to this argument. The choice really depends on which side of the political divide the individual in question is on – whether he is a supporter or adversary. This is what partisan politics has done to most of us. We have become blind and adamant in our struggle, regardless of the rights and wrongs involved.

This is the nature of our “legal system” – we cannot argue why someone is charged while others are not, even though they may have committed similar or even graver offences. We cannot argue why a person is charged even though the evidence is flimsy or probably ridiculous while others are let go even though the proof is substantial.

The system says the power to prosecute is discretionary. When it is discretionary, it could also mean arbitrary or selective. Seriously, which parts of these predicaments are we Malaysians still unable to understand?

The next issue is the risks politicians face each day. Again, let’s be honest with ourselves. It is never easy to be an Opposition politician in this country or in any third world country for that matter. One must be squeaky clean and not to indulge in whatever indiscretions – personal or official. Again, I expect Opposition politicians to understand this.

Why then are we still talking about double standards, selective prosecution, or ridiculous or trumped-up charges? Are these not what most Opposition politicians are expected to face?

But there is still hope left. First, Opposition politicians should try their level best not to provide a beachhead for others to attack/prosecute them. It is not easy, but they should try. To be free from blemishes is not an option but an obligation. Yes, it is a “double standard” i.e. Opposition politicians have to set the bar higher.

Second, if indeed some are unfortunate enough to be charged, there is no need to resign or to take a leave of absence. There is nothing to be ashamed of. They should salvage every minute of the positions they hold and try to do the best they can.

Any Malaysian with some sense of fair play, justice and morality in their hearts would understand perfectly why Lim does not have to resign or take a leave of absence. Only the bigots, the self-righteous, the self-conceited, and the hypocrites would suggest he does. I think the people have accepted a long time ago that there is no absolute principle, or shred of ethics and morality left in this country. Most are willing to accept the “the lesser of two evils.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 July 2016, 10:47 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Stung by a betrayal, former London mayor Boris Johnson ends bid to lead Britain

By Griff Witte

Washington Post

June 30, 2016

LONDON – It was a scene lifted from the scripts of Shakespeare — or perhaps a binge-watching session of “House of Cards.”

When Thursday morning broke, Boris Johnson, the transparently ambitious former mayor of London, was preparing to give the speech of his life — one that would vault him out of the political mayhem wrought by last week’s referendum on the European Union and straight to the job he had long sought: British prime minister.

But the man who was to be Johnson’s campaign manager had a different idea: Michael Gove, the bookish justice secretary who has repeatedly denied any aspiration to higher office, was getting ready to stick a dagger into Johnson’s chances, and twist.

By day’s end, Britain would be reckoning with one more betrayal in a political season full of them. This one stunned an already dazed nation, and left no doubt, if any had remained, that Britain is divided, directionless and leaderless as it prepares for a leap into the unknown of life outside the E.U.

Johnson, the mop-headed rogue who had been considered the odds-on favorite to take the keys to 10 Downing Street, has now been shunted to the sidelines of the contest to lead the Conservative Party and, by extension, the nation.

In his place, Gove will vie with Theresa May, the no-nonsense domestic security chief, for the privilege of running a country in the midst of an existential crisis. The current prime minister, David Cameron, has said he will step down by Sept. 9 after losing the campaign for Britain to remain in the E.U.

The narrowing of the field of likely winners to Gove and May leaves behind two candidates who are expected to drive an especially hard bargain with the E.U., meaning the country could be in for years of contentious and costly negotiations no matter who emerges as leader.

Johnson had been seen as a possibly more pliant figure in those talks: Although he was the face of the campaign for “leave,” most observers thought he took that stand less from a sense of ideological conviction than from a barely concealed well of political opportunism.

In the days since the vote, he had begun to walk back the promises of Brexit, signaling he would fold easily on immigration — the “leave” campaign’s signature issue.

It may have been that malleability that prompted Gove, a Brexit true believer and the campaign’s intellectual architect, to undercut his ally. Or perhaps it was just Johnson’s legendary disorganization.

Either way, Gove struck like a bolt from the blue: Less than three hours before Johnson was to declare his candidacy, Gove emailed a statement declaring that he had come “to the conclusion that Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead.”

Instead, Gove wrote, he would run for prime minister himself.

Gove, who has been nearly invisible since last Thursday’s vote, did not release any detailed vision for the country’s future, which he said would be unveiled “in the coming days.”

But the split in the pro-Brexit camp brought an immediate stampede of defections, with Johnson supporters abandoning their candidate in favor of a man who had been unceremoniously demoted to chief whip less than two years ago and who has long insisted he is temperamentally unsuited for Britain’s top job.

Later in the morning, with the clock ticking down on a noon deadline to enter the fray, Johnson broke his silence with a speech that had all the makings of a campaign kickoff.

He boasted of his achievements as London mayor and laid out a vision for making Britain a fairer and more prosperous society outside the E.U.

His supporters applauded lustily. But when Johnson came to what he called “the punchline,” he unleashed a stunner, saying that the country needed a leader to take it in a new direction but that “I have concluded that person cannot be me.”

The words brought tears to the eyes of his backers. But they also brought incredulity from critics, who wondered how he could simply walk away.

“Boris engineered the largest constitutional crisis in post-war history but won’t even put his name forward to clear it up?” tweeted University of Manchester political scientist Rob Ford.

Gove’s decision to ambush Johnson also brought immediate recriminations from both men’s corners. Asked by the BBC about Gove, Johnson’s father, Stanley Johnson, replied: “ ‘Et tu, Brute’ is my comment on that.”

Gove backer Dominic Raab told the network that Johnson had been “cavalier” in his approach to the campaign. “We’re picking a prime minister here to lead the country, not a school prefect,” he said acidly.

Gove’s turning on Johnson is just the latest in a string of betrayals at the highest reaches of British politics. Earlier this year, Johnson and Gove spurned Cameron, their friend and sparring partner since their days at Oxford, by campaigning for “leave.”

As the pro-Brexit camp splintered on Thursday, May presented herself as a unifying candidate for prime minister who, despite backing “remain,” could bring together the badly fractured Conservative Party.

She was introduced Thursday by Chris Grayling, a prominent Brexiteer, and described herself as the candidate best prepared for the tough talks ahead with E.U. leaders, having spent years wrangling with other European security chiefs as the country’s home affairs minister.

“I have not just done it. I’ve delivered on those negotiations,” she said.

Despite supporting “remain,” May said there would be no going back.

“Brexit means Brexit,” she said. “The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the government and of Parliament to make sure we do just that.”

May was considered only a reluctant E.U. backer, with a long record of Euroskepticism and a hard line against mass immigration.

May would be the second female prime minister in British history, after Margaret Thatcher. May’s unsmiling public persona and hard-line conservative politics have drawn occasional comparisons to the Iron Lady.

Britain’s next prime minister will not be picked by the public. Instead, he or she will be selected in a two-stage process within the governing Conservative Party. First, the party’s members of Parliament will whittle the field — which includes a number of dark-horse candidates — own to two over the next two weeks. Then the party’s rank-and-file members will select the winner.

In addition to Gove and May, three other candidates were nominated Thursday: Stephen Crabb, Liam Fox and Andrea Leadsom. All are considered long shots.

Cameron has said he will not formally trigger Britain’s exit and will leave that task to his successor. Once that happens, the next prime minister will have two years to negotiate a new deal with the E.U.’s 27 remaining members.

Europe has already signaled that it will refuse to budge on likely British demands that the bloc relax its rules requiring freedom of movement for workers across national borders. European leaders say that if Britain wants access to the single market, it will have to accept free movement.

As the political winds shifted throughout Thursday, the pound swung between gains and losses. Overall it is down about 10 percent against the dollar compared with where it was before the referendum.

While the pound has taken a hit, stock markets on both sides of the Atlantic have bounced back quickly after steep declines last week. The FTSE 100, a key index on the London Stock Exchange, climbed 2.27 percent Thursday and has reclaimed all its losses since Brexit. So have U.S. markets.

Britain’s political unrest has not been limited to the Conservatives.

The internal warfare among Tories has been matched — and even exceeded — within the opposition Labour Party.

Pressure continued to build Thursday on party leader Jeremy Corbyn to resign after what was seen as an ambivalent effort to rally party supporters to the pro-E.U. cause.

He has already lost an overwhelming vote of no-confidence among his Labour colleagues in Parliament, and he faced more defections Thursday. Plans to mount a formal challenge, however, were put on hold because mutinous members suggested they did not want to compete with news coverage of Thursday’s meltdown across the aisle.

Even by the occasionally bloody standards of British political history, the past week has been especially laced with treachery.

“You couldn’t make it up,” Tory member of Parliament Nigel Evans told the BBC. “It makes the ‘House of Cards’ look like ‘Teletubbies.’ ”

Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 July 2016, 8:25 am and is filed under
International
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why is Johari playing the old record about resolving the 1MDB issue “transparently” when the Finance Minister himself is not prepared to make any such commitment or the 1MDB issue would be behind the country long ago?

Three days after his appointment as the  new Second Finance Minister, Datuk Johari Abdul Ghani said he has made 1MDB one of his priorities and pledged to resolve the state investment fund’s problems transparently.

He promised that the government would address the issues raised in the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) report on 1MDB and said: “What had been raised in PAC report – whatever or whoever that caused (problems in) 1MDB – definitely action will be taken.

It speaks volumes that the new Second Finance Minister should be making such an assurance about the PAC Report on 1MDB which was submitted to Parliament on April 7, which could only mean that the Finance Ministry has yet to take seriously the recommendations of the PAC report although it had been made public for nearly three months on a financial scandal which had catapulted Malaysia to world attention for global corruption?

This is most shocking especially when  the PAC Report on 1MDB only revealed the “tip of the iceberg” of the financial chicanery and  fraud and global embezzlement, money-laundering and corruption  which is now the subject of investigation by seven other countries, but  despite its weak and minor recommendations, the Finance Ministry has yet to take full action to implement the PAC recommendations after the passage of nearly three months.

This shows that the Finance Ministry does not have the political will or capability to resolve the RM55 billion 1MDB global scandal and ensure full accountability to who is responsible, for the simple reason that the person who must bear the greatest responsibility of the nation’s first global scandal is none other than the Finance Minister himself – who happens to be the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

This single fact has undermined the capability of the PAC, under its “cari makan” chairman, Datuk Arifin Hasan, to conduct a professional and comprehensive inquiry into the 1MDB scandal or come out with a proper and commensurate report, which should at least have included the recommendation for the separation of the office of Finance Minister from the post of Prime Minister.

As far as I can remember, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Mahathir had doubled up as Finance Minister while being Prime Minister for a short period, but it had not brought about a disaster or scandal like the RM55 billion 1MDB scandal in the case of the premiership of Najib.

After Najib’s disastrous example, there should be an unwritten rule in Malaysia that a Prime Minister should not double up as Finance Minister –  but such a most basic and fundamental recommendation  escaped the PAC’s attention, simply because it  could not be independent and professional as it has a “cari makan” Chairman.

Why is Johari playing the old record about resolving the 1MDB issue “transparently” when the Finance Minister himself is not prepared to make any such commitment or the 1MDB issue would be behind the country long ago?

Johari is no stranger in the Ministry of Finance, as he had been Deputy Finance Minister for close to a year.

What did he do to ensure discipline, responsibility and accountability as these lapses had been responsible for the 1MDB scandal.

In fact, the question should be asked whether the 1MDB scandal was the real reason  Datuk Seri Husni Hanazlah had thrown in his towel and resigned as Second Finance Minister?

In his two months as Cabinet spokesman on 1MDB, Husni had never issued more misleading statements, half lies and downright falsehoods about the 1MDB and it is no exaggeration to say that in those two months,  Husni  virtually destroyed his reputation for credibility and integrity which he has painstakingly built up for over two decades.

If Johari is not to be the next political victim of the 1MDB scandal, he should be courageous enough to demand  full government accountability for the 1MDB scandal by firstly making public the Auditor-General’s Report on the 1MDB which had been submitted to the Public Accounts Committee; secondly, support the PAC continuing 1MDB investigations so as to come out with comprehensive and in-depth recommendations; and thirdly, persuade Najib to appear before the PAC to give testimony on 1MDB.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 July 2016, 1:53 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I will tour the country to hear views whether Guan Eng should resign as Penang Chief Minister or take leave facing corruption charges by the Najib government

Former Law Minister, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said that going by the RM1 million bail for Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng,  if the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is charged, he will attract a RM1 billion bail.

If Najib is given the same MACC (Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission)  treatment as Guan Eng in connection with the corruption allegation for his RM2.8 million bungalow, the Prime Minister would be questioned 16.4  years for his RM4.2 billion “donation” scandal.

This is because Najib’s RM4.2 billion “donation” scandal is 1,500 times bigger than Guan Eng’s RM2.8 million bungalow allegation, and if Najib is given the same MACC treatment as Guan Eng where the Penang Chief Minister was questioned for some 30 hours for four days, Najib will have to be questioned 1,500 x 4 days, yielding 6,000 days. This works out to 16.4 years – imagine Najib going in and out of MACC office to be questioned for 16  years and 4 months, from wake-up in the morning to retirement for sleep at night, and doing nothing else!

A hot topic for the last two days is whether Guan Eng should resign as Penang Chief Minister or take leave facing corruption charges by the Najib government.

The DAP Central Executive Committee has endorsed the Penang DAP State Committee decision that Guan Eng continues as Penang Chief Minister and not to go on leave as  the charges against Guan Eng are politically-motivated, unfounded, malicious and Guan Eng is the victim of another round of political persecution against him.

MCA President and Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai is strident among those who want Guan Eng to take leave as Penang Chief Minister.

The Party has rightly taken a decision on the matter, but I will tour the country to hear views whether Guan Eng should resign as Penang Chief Minister or take leave facing corruption charges by the Najib government or he should remain in his post and not bow down to high-handed forces and  pressures  in his latest battle against political persecution.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 July 2016, 3:55 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Instead of condemning the Pahang mufti for his dangerous classification of DAP  and non-Muslims as “kafir harbi”, has Prime Minister’s Office invented a new Islamic term of “kafir harbi” who need not be slain?

Eighteen years ago, Lim Guan Eng was jailed,  disqualified as MP for Kota Melaka, lost his parliamentary pensions and disenfranchised of his right to vote and stand for elective office for five years on release from Kajang Prison because he was defending the dignity and human rights of an underaged Malay girl.

Today, Lim Guan Eng faces another jail sentence, disqualification as Chief Minister of Penang and MP, loss of his Chief Minister and parliamentary pensions, and another period of civil enfranchisement because he wanted to introduce integrity and good governance in Penang, so that it could  be a model state for the rest of Malaysia.

When Datuk Seri Najib Razak became Prime Minister of Malaysia in April 2009, he announced the 1Malaysia Transformation Plans, and the war against corruption was listed as one of the seven NKRAs (National Key Result Areas).

He announced “Big Results” as an important methodology to realise  the National Transformation Plans.

Najib  has succeeded beyond expectations in achieving “Big Results”, for his RM55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion “donation” twin mega scandals have reached  global scale, catapulting the nation to its first global financial scandals in the world.

Something is very wrong with our national integrity system when seven separate countries are investigating into the 1MDB global multi-billion ringgit embezzlement, money-laundering and corruption but the RM55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion “donation” scandals are completely exonerated by the Attorney-General of the country.

The action against Guan Eng started with the series of purges nearly a year ago, when the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Rural and Regional Development, the Attorney-General, senior officers in key national enforcement and investigation agencies like the Attorney-General’s Chambers,  Malaysian Anti-Corruption  Commission (MACC), Bank Negara, the Police were summarily sacked, arrested, transferred with immediate effect, intimidated or cowed into silence, mass media closed down, websites blocked, critics arrested and prosecuted.

Such purges and repression redoubled  after Najib’s twin by-election victories in the Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar parliamentary by-elections on June 18, which saw the Prime Minister gained new confidence that he can sweep the twin RM55 billion 1MDB and RM4.2 billion “donation” scandals under the carpet at home, whether by intimidating or silencing critics or dissent, regardless what is happening in the rest of the world.

There was the swift chain of offensives, like the sacking of Tan Sri Muhyiddin and Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir from UMNO and the suspension of Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal as UMNO member; punitive actions against former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir, subjecting him to police investigation and interrogations and withdrawal of government funding for Mahathir projects like the Perdana Leadership Foundation; the final purge in the MACC involving the two top men in the MACC, marking the completion of the Grand Purges of the key figures in the former Special Task Force on 1MDB, involving topmost officers in Attorney-General’s Chambers, Bank Negara, the Police and MACC.

An important plank in the  political offensive by Najib to consolidate his power position was the series of  baseless attacks on the DAP as anti-Malay, anti-Islam and being “corrupt”, using its mouthpieces like Utusan Malaysia and propaganda arsenal of cybertroopers to spread baseless fear and alarm that if UMNO is evicted from Putrajaya, the Malays will lose political power which they can never recover; that the DAP is “kafir harbi” which could be slain for “warring” against Islam; and that the Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng is guilty of corruption.

Instead of condemning the Pahang mufti for his dangerous classification of DAP  and non-Muslims as “kafir harbi” who could be slain, the  Prime Minister’s Office had chosen to white-wash the mufti’s statement, claiming that the Pahang mufti Abdul Rahman Othman had been distorted.

Has the Prime Minister’s Office  invented a new Islamic term of “kafir harbi” who need not be slain?

The spontaneous and instantaneous support shown by all sectors of the population in Penang and Malaysia, demonstrated by the million-ringgit donation for Guan Eng’s bail within 21 hours, the thousands who participated in this morning’s “Walk with Guan Eng” and the full-house in Dewan Sri Penang to show support, sympathy and solidarity with Guan Eng, are powerful signs of the people’s commitment to the cause not just to Save Lim Guan Eng, but to save Malaysia from continuing the present national trajectory towards a fractured, failed and rogue state.

Let us  transform this new national energy, beginning from Penang, into  a powerful peaceful and democratic wave and  movement, not only to save Lim Guan Eng but to save Malaysia from hurtling towards a fractured, failed and rogue state so that the Malaysian people’s aspiration for a  just, democratic, progressvie and prosperous Malaysia for all Malaysians can be realized.

(Speech  at the SSSLge “Sympathy, Support and Solidarity with Lim Guan Eng” public meeting at Dewan Sri Penang on Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12 noon)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 July 2016, 6:45 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bamiyan-isation of Lim Guan Eng

K Temoc

Malaysiakini

1 Jul 2016

When Lim Guan Eng led Pakatan Rakyat to a resounding victory in Penang in 2008, he became the state’s chief minister (CM) and since then has impressed Penangites with his state government’s governance, policies and programmes, endearing himself to the locals. Pakatan Rakyat’s second election victory in 2013 further enhanced his image in the eyes of Penangites.

Lim Guan Eng became known, initially jokingly but subsequently quite credibly as a ‘tokong’ (deity) to his Penang political parish. In the eyes of most Penangites he could do no wrong. Thus he is politically invincible, iconic and idolised by Penangites. He has been seen as politically un-removable, with his favourable image and status quo as CM almost set in concrete.

His popularity is such that the Pakatan government (despite the absence of an original Pakatan partner but now foe) is seen as likely to hold office (majority rule) for several election terms.

The Gerakan Party and the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) in Penang have been in deep, very deep political trouble and I dare say, might have virtually given up hope for their respective futures in the face of such a formidable political god confronting their election prospects. To defeat Pakatan in Penang they must first defeat Lim Guan Eng. That would be a Sisyphean effort, but nonetheless he must be destroyed.

Well, how does one demolish such an iconic personality whose character, charisma and charm are so influential and deep set in the psyche of most Penangites? So what can his political opponents do with such an invincible foe, a virtual ‘tokong’? Let’s first take a wee detour into foreign history.

In 2001 in Afghanistan, the Talibans under its commander Mullah Mohmmad Omar decided to destroy the world heritage Buddha statues at Bamiyan as being idolatrous. The Talibans used a combination of artillery shelling, rockets, anti-tank mines at the base of the statues and implanted dynamites in bored holes in the statues to destroy the two sculptured icons.

Taliban information minister Qudratullah Jamal was reported to have frustratingly remarked, “This work of destruction is not as simple as people might think. You can’t knock down the statues by shelling as both are carved into a cliff; they are firmly attached to the mountain.”

But after several relentless weeks of dynamiting, rocketing and shelling, the Talibans finally achieved their destructive intent.

Well, we know that since Lim Guan Eng became CM ijn 2008, the shelling, rocketing, dynamiting, to wit, smearing and sniping of the Penang CM by his foes have been relentless, even culminating in a flabbergasting fabricated fib of Lim GE’s teenage son molesting a Chinese British girl, a chess grandmaster, by the name of Anya Sun Corke, someone whom Lim Junior had never seen, met or know of.

When contacted by the Malaysian media, Miss Sun said of the fabrication of sexual misconduct by Lim Junior that she was “shocked, dismayed and baffled” as to how her photo was used without her knowledge or consent.

“I have never met or even heard of any of the people involved. I have never been physically assaulted in any way. I have never been victimised in any way by this boy or his family.

“The only way in which my ‘modesty was outraged’ has been by the publication of my picture in connection with these scurrilous and unfounded rumours.”

But that was the outrageous slimy depth to which political detractors of Lim Guan Eng were prepared to sink down to just to destroy his near-impeccable character through a very wicked fabrication of his son’s so-called misdeeds.

The Taliban were not the first Islamists to commit those acts of vandalism at Bamiyan. Like the repetitive attempts to destroy the character of the Penang ‘tokong’, the sickening lies against Lim Guan Eng’s son were not the last to be shamelessly committed by Lim Guan Eng’s political foes.

To paraphrase Taliban information minister Qudratullah Jamal’s remarks about the attempts to destroy the Bamiyan statues, “This work of destruction of the Penang political ‘tokong’ that is Lim Guan Eng is not as simple as people might think. You can’t knock down the ‘tokong’ by mere fabrications as the integrity of his character is carved into the minds of most Penangites; thus firmly attached to their hearts as Bukit Bendera is to their beloved Island.”

But nonetheless, Tai-Koh (Big Brother) is impatient as the next general election approaches and he cannot afford to wait for his politically-moribund partners to resurrect themselves. Furthermore, the growing attraction of the DAP party led by Lim Guan Eng to young Malays have been worrying. The efforts to destroy Lim Guan Eng or at least his character and integrity, etched in stone as they might be, must continue and must be achieved, whatever it takes.

After several relentless weeks of dynamiting, rocketing and shelling the local demolition group believe they might have finally achieved their destructive intent. So Lim Guan Eng, long a primary target for his political opponents to politically assassinate after Anwar Ibrahim, has now been charged with corruption.

Old political smear campaign

With the massive government machinery behind his opponents, it was just a matter of time when (not if) he would be kowtim-ised. The old political smear campaign of flinging enough bovine dust around in the hope some may stick on to Lim Guan Eng has commenced.

Even if Lim is eventually found not guilty of whatever alleged crimes he was charged under, hopefully some blemishes will have been inflicted on his near-perfect image in Penang. If he can be found guilty, wow, that will be a bonus for BN.

But ironically, even as his foes hope Lim Guan Eng’s image will be in tatters as a result of the bungalow affair, very few Penangites will believe he is at all guilty of what he has been charged with, and that it is nothing more than a nasty dirty unscrupulous political plot to assassinate his good character. Such, too, has been the wicked image of a rotten Barisan Nasional in the eyes of most non-Malay Penangites.

As we hear so often, in politics perception is everything regardless of the truth and facts. And the perception regarding Lim Guan Eng is that he was once politically-assassinated by BN so that he had to serve time in prison for a noble cause while the culprit got away scot-free (many people still believe in this and have dismissed whatever SD involved with the case came about), and now he is once again being politically murdered because he is far too invincible in the eyes of his foes to be defeated in fair competition, and a dangerous attraction to young Malays.

His image as a ‘tokong’ is thus ironically further glorified through his pending second martyr-hood.

Now, let me reveal to all of a secret about Chinese and their ‘tokongs’. The Chinese do not hold their ‘tokongs’ (the divine ones, not the mortal political version) as omniscient or perfect. They are to the Chinese as the Greek Olympian gods had been to the ancient Greeks, with faults, follies, fickle-mindedness and their funny sides, though alas, not so sexually naughty as Zeus, Aphrodite and Dionysus have been known to be.

Thus Penangites will continue to favour Lim Guan Eng no matter what mud he might be dragged through during his court case such as the over-the-top RM1 million bail, a staggering amount perhaps to imply the Penang CM is a very corrupt person with a high flight risk .

This is the legal fact – Lim Guan Eng is innocent until proven guilty.

This will be the perception – Lim Guan Eng will still be innocent even if proven guilty.

And (sadly or padan muka for Gerakan and MCA), that’s the concretised political perception in Penang.

Indeed, there will be a lot of resentment against BN, in particular the Gerakan Party and MCA of Penang.

K TEMOC is a Penangite who enjoys being an independent blogger and loves to share his opinion on Malaysian and world affairs without fear or favour.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2016, 11:04 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dastardly distractions?

Rom Nain

Malaysiakini

4th July 2016

It is widely believed now that a snap general election (GE) will be held, possibly as early as in November this year.

Word in the grapevine also is that, leading up to the GE, numerous disruptive strategies will be implemented, meant to distract the people’s attention from the real issues at hand, especially 1MDB.

And to relate everything to race and religion, and, of course, to cripple if not totally destroy an already divided opposition.

That idiotic, evil and dangerous accusation of ‘kafir harbi’ hurled at the DAP (and those who support them) is a clear example of the form of ethno-religious distraction that is, yet again, being employed to demonise the secular political party.

That – and the highly-questionable assertion that DAP is an ethnically-chauvinistic party – has been the stock ammunition of a regime that for many, for a long time, has been devoid of any worthwhile ideas.

Truth be told, if the DAP is a chauvinistic party, what then does that make Umno, the MCA and the MIC?

And what are we to make of the credibility of this particular mufti who made the kafir harbi accusation when one of South-East Asia’s top casino complexes is perched on a hill overlooking his turf and has been there for absolute eons, despite gambling being a sin in Islam?

This aside, the latest attacks on Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng clearly are reflective of this demonising strategy.

I am sure we all believe that it is all purely coincidental that Lim has been charged just a few days after the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) head stepped down and a new one appointed.

It’s coincidental too, I am sure, that, suddenly, convicted criminals like the disgraced former Selangor MB are crawling out of the sewer and are given a voice to speak out against Lim.

And I think we can all agree that it is certainly purely coincidental – and, of course in the ‘national interest’ – that the media (certainly the regime-owned and regime-friendly mainstream press and broadcast media) are urging Lim to take leave or, worse, step down even before he goes to trial.

Indeed, as certain as we are that freedom of expression is alive and kicking in this land.

It is surely, too, purely coincidental that as swiftly as he was arrested and charged, the media started stressing his immediate duty and responsibility and then sought the opinion of anybody and everybody who wishes their fifteen minutes of fame (or, in many cases, shame).

So, for the past couple of days, the inane, leading question that the media have asked especially those who talk about ethical political behaviour and leadership has been: Should Lim Guan Eng take leave or even step down in the wake of these charges?

Best response from Ambiga

And, for me the best, utterly brilliant, response to this question has been that from the highly-respected lawyer and activist, Ambiga Sreenevasan.

Ambiga has been quoted as replying, “Ask me again when the prime minister does.”

Indeed, many find this question galling, not simply because they are blind followers of Lim, which they definitely are not, but because it smacks of hypocrisy and double standards.

Where and when was this question asked by those highly-paid professionals in the mainstream media when Najib became embroiled in the 1MDB scandal?

Indeed, as the scandal has grown and more questions of the PM demand to be asked, where are the dedicated, fearless members of the mainstream media, speaking truth to power?

So, for many of us on the outside, as it were, much, if not all of this sheer wayang designed to distract the people and, at the same time, inflict injury on the opposition – a shock and awe strategy, as it were.

We can, of course, see similarities between this strategy and that used against Anwar Ibrahim right from the beginning. The alleged bag of dirty tricks evidently has not been changed.

Unfortunately, thus far, it seems to have backfired.

When what seems like a record bail of RM1 million was set, within 24 hours the DAP, after a public donation drive, managed to secure the amount.

And the reaction from their opponents, mainly members of this very same regime, has been truly pathetic, accusing the DAP of ‘troubling’ the people of Malaysia, when nobody’s arm was twisted in the first place or a gun held to their heads.

I am just surprised that there has been no accusation that the RM1 million was a foreign donation. Perhaps this is because such an accusation would have hit closer to (their) home.

The point is, if someone is hit with allegedly dubious charges, at a time when the credibility of those making the charges is at an all-time low, Malaysians who believe in fair play – and there are quite many of them – just won’t buy it.

Worse, they feel insulted and appalled by such antics.

A friend wrote that the country has ‘rosak’ when we privilege the questioning of the system over the possibility that Lim may be guilty.

I disagree.

The system most certainly is ‘rosak’. But the fact that we are now questioning it – some, like Bersih, vociferously – is a good sign that a solution must be, and will be, found. ‘Rosak’ will not remain a constant as long as there are people who care for each other and for the country.

What is ‘rosak’ we can – and will – fix.

And as for Lim Guan Eng, let’s just leave it at him being innocent until proven guilty in an untainted court of law.

Yes, untainted.

ROM NAIN is a media analyst and academic who is weary of incompetent, unethical leaders and their apologists and spin doctors in the media who try to get away with murder while professing to rub shoulders with God’s angels.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2016, 10:23 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The man who could never be PM

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

4th July 2016

COMMENT
 The plot thickens in the final lap towards GE14. If PAS is aiding Umno Baru to recapture Selangor, the arrest of the chief minister of Penang will be the precursor to the retaking of Penang by Umno Baru. These two moves are part of a bigger Umno Baru plan to regain control of Penang and Selangor, the most valuable jewels in the Malaysian crown, in GE14.

PAS’ role in the twin by-elections was crucial. Its hudud bill caused uproar and drove people towards the devil they know, Umno Baru. What choice did they have? PAS and hudud? The untested Amanah, a splinter group from PAS?

Umno Baru conceded that they would need more work to recapture Penang. So, why do you think that the Pahang mufti, Abdul Rahman Osman, stated that kafir harbi ought to be slain? Worse still, he equated DAP with kafir harbi, traditionally viewed as the people who oppose Islam.

The mufti’s remark was no coincidence. His motive was political, and delivering this message during Ramadan is sacrilegious. Gullible Muslims with closed minds had the message that DAP is kafir harbi etched in their heads for 10 days.

When the arrest warrant was issued for Lim Guan Eng, who is also the secretary-general of DAP, Umno Baru did not want the Muslims to support him; but they underestimated the rakyat’s intelligence.

The story about Lim Guan Eng is a story of triumph and tragedy. When he became chief minister, he dared to do the impossible and did away with the old Barisan Nasional work ethics.

Despite the controls of Putrajaya and the lack of federal government investment, Lim lifted Penang out of the economic doldrums, to make Penang greener, cleaner and less corrupt. Penang is now well-developed. It is richer and has become a hub for the arts. Penang has the highest amount of foreign direct investment, in Malaysia and is said to have the lowest unemployment rate in the nation.

Like other opposition politicians, Lim travels on budget airlines like AirAsia and not on private jets, or in first class on Malaysia Airlines.

Lim’s detractors blame him for making Penang into a mock Singapore or a mini-Hong Kong. They are also worried about over-development and the disregard for conservation and sustainable development. Whilst a few call him arrogant behind his back, others are more direct when they say that the party he leads stands for Developers Action Party, and not the Democratic Action Party. Perhaps, Lim’s success is also his downfall.

Nevertheless, his talks at locations overseas are attended by record crowds. He finds time to meet the audience and the scores of young people, eager to take selfies with him. The empire which he built in the Pearl of The Orient has its foundations in transparency and accountability.

Jail is not a new experience for Lim. In 1987, during the tenure of former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad, he was jailed in Operation Lalang under the Internal Security Act (ISA). In 1994, he was jailed for sedition when he defended a Malay girl, the victim of an alleged statutory rape by a former chief minister of Malacca.

Following the same plot as the jailing of Anwar

Lim’s arrest for corruption follows the same plot as the jailing of Anwar Ibrahim. Only the naive will not realise that this is part of Umno Baru’s masterplan for GE14. ‘The Chosen One’ is feeling invigorated after the by-election successes. If cash and handouts had not been freely available in Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar, does anyone think Umno Baru would have won?

The death of PAS’ Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, and the imprisonment of former opposition leader Anwar, appear to have unleashed a malevolent streak in PAS president Hadi Awang. Hadi is keen to move out of the shadow of the two men who were able to restrain him politically. When Hadi made a pact with Najib Abdul Razak, he did not care about the consequences of his actions.

PAS’ spiritual leader, Haron Din, has urged that Lim should leave, resign or be suspended from DAP. He cited the chairperson of the CIMB Group Holdings Bhd, Nazir Razak, who voluntarily took a leave of absence, despite not being charged.

The irony is that Haron, who some people allege is blessed with extra-sensory vision, and can ‘see’ ‘hantu Toyols’, could not see that Lim’s graft charge is piddly in comparison with Najib’s alleged billion-ringgit corruption scandal.

Lim has revealed the details of the transaction of the purchase of his bungalow, whereas Najib fudged the details of the money which appeared in his personal bank account, first claiming ignorance, and later saying that it was a donation from an allegedly mythical Saudi prince.

It would be true to say that Lim owes his success to the people of Penang. They dared to share his vision of the proper management of a city. They agreed that a clean attitude to work and governance can transform their city.

Will Lim receive a fair trial? His future may depend on the rakyat. The ball is now back in their court. They should not forget that Penang did not prosper in Umno Baru rule.

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO). Blog, Twitter.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 July 2016, 11:11 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Corruption
,
DAP
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Does the Najib government accept Merdeka Constitution 1957, Malaysia Agreement 1963 and Rukunegara 1970  that provide that  all Malaysians are citizens and not “kafir harbi” or “kafir dhimmi” and what it proposes to  do to stop the rhetoric of hate, intolerance and bigotry

The Pahang Mufti Datuk Seri Dr. Abdul Rahman Osman is trying to pull the wool over the people’s eyes, by inventing a new category of “kafir harbi” who need not be slain or put to death, following religiously the Prime Minister’s Office’s statement last Wednesday which “whitewashed” instead of condemning the mufti’s statement by coining a new category of “kafir harbi”.

Does the Najib government accept Merdeka Constitution 1957, Malaysia Agreement 1963 and Rukunegara 1970 that provide that  all Malaysians are citizens and not “kafir harbi” or “kafir dhimmi” and what it proposes to do with official religious officers who preach the dangerous message of hate, intolerance and bigotry in plural Malaysia by classifying DAP and non-Muslims who disagree with Hadi’s hudud motion or hudud law as “kafir harbi”?

Three days ago, the Christian Federation of Malaysia chairperson Eu Hong Seng expressed dismay at the “silence over the years as our society is hit by the divisive issues of race and religion” and called for the Prime Minister’s leadership at such an “incendiary” statement by the Pahang mufti by eradicating such rhetoric.

Eu stressed that Malaysians had a constitutional right to question implementation of Islamic laws as “Questioning, doubting, or rejecting any change in laws or policy – such as with establishing hudud – is the fundamental constitutional right of all Malaysians”.

Eu said hudud is a small part of the syariah, not even constantly or consistently applied throughout the history of Islam, so how can such Malaysians be designated as enemies of Islam?

Five days ago, 55 NGOs of the Malaysian’s multi-racial and multi-religious  civil society, in a joint declaration, stressed that all Malaysians are citizens, and no more “kafir harbi” or “kafir dhimmi”.

The joint declaration said:

“1. The categorisation of humans into ‘kafir harbi’ (non-Muslims who fight against Muslim rulers) and ‘kafir dhimmi’ (non-Muslims who accept the supremacy of and protection from Muslim rulers) happened in the ancient time. In such times, when countries waged wars against each other, wars between countries appeared as wars between religions.

“In fact, some wars were fought in the name of faith when the strongest motivation was often territorial conquest in the pursuit of power and wealth. Due to the lack of religious freedom, whether or not Muslims could profess Islam often depended on the strength of Muslim political power.

“The dichotomic division of non-Muslims into ‘kafir harbi’ who must be killed or ‘kafir dhimmi’ who are subservient to Muslim rulers, must be understood in the context of deep inter-religious enmity.”

The Joint Declaration stated:

“Great Muslim thinkers like Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawy have urged that terms like ‘dhimmi’ be abandoned and for non-Muslim members of a nation to be recognised as ‘muwatinun’ (citizens) just like their Muslim counterparts.

“This is in fact nothing new. According to Egyptian scholar Dr Fathi Osman, Muslims and non-Muslims indeed enjoyed equal citizenship in Madinah under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. because Madinah itself was also a multi-religious society. In fact, according legal scholar Al Ghunaimi Mohammad Talaat, the ‘dhimmi’ status for the non-Muslims disappeared when the Ottoman Empire – the last Caliphate – proclaimed in 1839 the principle of equality between Muslims and Christians.

“Born in 1963 with the merger of Malaya, Singapore (left in 1965), Sabah dan Sarawak as equal partners, Malaysia is a civil federation hosting a plural society. The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims are one of fellow citizens (muwatinun) with equal rights and equal responsibilities. They are neither enemies to each other nor ‘the protector’ on one side and ‘the protected’ on the other side.”

Pro-reform group G25 has likened Abdul Rahman Osman’s kafir harbi allegations against non-Muslims to calls made by militant group Islamic State that uses religion as a purported tool for terror.

It said: “This understanding is very dangerous for our country that is multi-racial and multi-religious. The government and authorities should urgently crack down on this matter.”

Muslim scholars in Malaysia, like Maslee Malik and Dr. Musa Mohd Nordin warned:

“Never before has our beloved nation witnessed such an excess of religious and racial strife since the bloody days of May 13, 1969.

“The latest fatwa (religious edict) of the mufti of Pahang is one such gross aberration to the values of equality, diversity, mutual respect and harmony espoused by the teachings of the Quran and the authentic traditions of the Prophet (pbuh).

“And unless this malicious abuse of religious authority is checked with an effective and just political and societal governance, we are surely on the slippery slope towards anarchy.”

They added: “Many contemporary Muslim scholars, the likes of Syaikh Muhamamd Abu Zahrah, Syaikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, Syaikh Dr Yusuf Qaradawi, Syeikh Wahbah al-Zuhayli, Dr Fahmi Huwaidi and Dr Muhammad Emarah Syakh have opined that the categories of kafir harbi and kafir dhimmi are no longer relevant and applicable within the socio-political structure of the modern world today.

“Instead, under the framework of constitutional modern state that has been acknowledged by most Muslim prominent scholars (except al-Qaeda, IS, Boko Haram, et al) it should be replaced by the term Muwatin which denotes citizens, who are granted equal rights, similar to the majority Muslim population of the contemporary Islamic state.”

Yesterday, the police confirmed that the attack on Movida nightclub in Puchong last Tuesday was the first act of terror by Islamic State (IS) elements in the country.

In the past week, the Police have arrested 15 IS militants, including low-ranked police officers, who were plotting robberies in Kuala Lumpur to raise funds for IS cells in Malaysia.

The war against IS in Malaysia must not be confined to IS militants but must target ISIS-minded religious officers who spread the message of hate, intolerance and bigotry, and repudiate the fundamental principles in the Merdeka Constitution 1957, Malaysia Agreement 1963 and Rukunegara which  provide that  all Malaysians are citizens and not “kafir harbi” or “kafir dhimmi”.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2016, 11:24 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Islam as a religion of peace, moderation, justice and harmony

Hari Raya 2016 will be held in a very sombre backdrop, both nationally and internationally.

On the eve of Hari Raya Aildifitri, the Police have confirmed that Malaysia is in the crosshair of Islamic State terrorism, with the attack on Movida nightclub in Puchong last Tuesday the first act of terror by Islamic State (IS) elements in the country  and the arrest of 15 IS militants.

Internationally, there has been a wave of  unprecedented Islamic  State terrorist attacks killing hundreds of innocent lives, ranging from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Malaysia and the world must stand guard against extremist interpretations of Islam, like turning Ramadan from a month of restraint and reflection into a month of war and conquests or nearer home, the classification of DAP and non-Muslims as “kafir harbi” who could be slain.

Malaysia must show the world that Islam stands for moderation, peace, justice, harmony and not the  bloody consequences of IS terrorism or the hatred, intolerance and bigotry of IS-like interpretation of Islamic doctrines and teachings.

(Hari Raya Aidilfitri Message in Gelang Patah on Tuesday, 5th July 2016)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 July 2016, 9:44 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Analysis: Month of Terror During Ramadan Shows ISIS’s New Phase

by RICHARD ENGEL

NBC News

JUL 6 2016

Comment

ISTANBUL, Turkey — Muslims around the world on Wednesday were celebrating Eid, the holiday that marks the end of Ramadan. But this year, the end of the month of fasting brings special relief because ISIS turned Ramadan — a time of prayer, charity and self-restraint — into a month of terror.

The terror group used Ramadan as a rallying cry for violence.

But was the wave of attacks — from Turkey to Bangladesh, Baghdad to Medina — a sign of ISIS strength or weakness? The answer may be a bit of both.

Many Iraqis believe the latest Baghdad bombing was ISIS’s revenge for Iraq’s much-celebrated victory in Fallujah.

The Iraqi army, backed by Shiite militias, defeated ISIS in battle and drove the militants out of one of their key strongholds, so ISIS militants responded by driving a truck bomb into the Shiite community’s soft underbelly, destroying a shopping street in Karada — one of Baghdad’s more upscale neighborhoods, home to many Shiites and considered relatively safe.

In Istanbul, ISIS commandos rampaged through the airport on June 28, killing 45 and scaring off tourists before the summer rush, which is vital to the local economy. The Turkish government had long turned a blind eye to ISIS, treating the militants more or less the same way it treated Syrian opposition groups that seemed to share Turkey’s officially stated goal of toppling Syrian President Bashar Assad.

But Turkey has recently been cracking down on ISIS, tightening controls along the Syrian border and allowing the United States to carry out more airstrikes and surveillance missions from Turkish soil. One might say ISIS struck Turkey out of weakness, too — the attack perhaps designed to send a message to the Turkish government that ISIS will burn down the country unless things go back to the way they were.

Both the Baghdad and Istanbul attacks are part of a new phase for ISIS as the group adapts to battlefield losses — and a tightening noose around the areas it still controls.

ISIS is acting less like a state — or as it prefers to call itself, a caliphate — and more like an international terrorist group, arguably the biggest, best-trained, best-funded and most media-savvy terrorist group the world has ever known. Some analysts have called this new phase ISIS 2.0, but is seems to be more like ISIS 4.0.

ISIS is entering its fourth phase of development:

Phase 1:
 ISIS insurgency. A decade ago, the group, which was then-known as al Qaeda in Iraq, was an anti-American insurgency that gained valuable military experience fighting American forces mainly in western Iraq.

Phase 2:
ISIS dormancy: A U.S. troop surge, helped by an alliance with Sunni tribes, relentlessly fought the insurgents in Iraq and ultimately succeeded in driving them out of their strongholds. The group was reduced to a small core that was largely dormant, a seed waiting for water, soil and light.

Phase 3:
 ISIS caliphate: The chaos in the Middle East following the Arab Spring revolts and Syria’s civil war allowed ISIS to regenerate. The group’s expansion was rapid after it captured the Iraqi city of Mosul and seized huge stockpiles of U.S.-made, Iraqi-owned weapons and tens of millions of dollars in cash.

Phase 4:
 ISIS the international terrorist group: The ISIS footprint is shrinking as the group is under pressure in Iraq and Syria from a bizarre mix of adversaries who themselves are at odds with each other and include the United States, independence-seeking Kurds, Russia, the Iraqi government, the Syrian Regime, Iraqi Shiite militias, Iran and Hezbollah. ISIS is trying to stay relevant and conceal its losses by striking out with high-profile terrorist attacks, anywhere and everywhere it can. A high-profile attack in the United States would be the ultimate prize.

Why attack during Ramadan?

Why would ISIS, a terrorist group claiming to be Islamic, choose to make Ramadan a season of violence, and why attack primarily in Muslim countries? In other words, why kill fellow Muslims during a month explicitly dedicated to expressing devotion to the faith?

Last year’s Ramadan edition of the ISIS propaganda magazine Dabiq spoke at length about the supposed benefits of fighting during the holy month:

“This is because Allah opens gates for the Muslims in Ramadān and upon them He sends His mercy. Thus, it is indeed a noble month. The gates of Jannah (heaven) are opened and the gates of Hell are closed. The devils are chained up. It is a noble month in which good deeds are multiplied and lowly desires are subdued.”

For ISIS, Ramadan is an auspicious time to fight because “the devils” are chained up and heaven is open.

It is not the first time Ramadan has been a time of holy war. The first significant battle in Islam, the Battle of Badr in 624 AD, waged by the Prophet Mohammed himself and his early followers against non-believers in what is now Saudi Arabia was fought during the Ramadan.

The Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel, is usually called the Ramadan war in the Muslim world.

Just as it is considered especially pious to pray and to be kind during Ramadan, it is equally considered an honor to die in battle for a Muslim cause.

Why Attack Saudi Arabia?

Many in the Islamic world expressed shock and surprise that a suicide bomber would attack in the city of Medina in Saudi Arabia close to the Prophet Mohammed’s own tomb. The condemnations poured in after the blast.

Al-Jazeera quoted Saudi Arabia’s supreme council of clerics as saying the attacks, “prove that those renegades … have violated everything that is sacred.”

Jordan, Lebanon, the UAE, Turkey and Pakistan were all quick to condemn the attacks. The foreign minister of Qatar, tweeted, “Bloodshed in the name of religion is unacceptable. #Qatar strongly condemns blasts targeting #SaudiArabia, and reaffirms solidarity.”

In an increasingly rare show of sectarian unity, Shiite Iran and Hezbollah denounced the Medina attack.

But the attack should have come as no surprise. While there has been no claim of responsibility, one of ISIS’s main goals is to discredit and ultimately overthrow the Saudi royal family. A caliphate without the Muslim world’s holiest sites, the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, is no caliphate at all.

For decades, the rulers of Saudi Arabia have used the adopted title “custodians of the two holy mosques.”

Explicit in the job title is a responsibility by the Saudi monarchs to safely watch over Islam’s most sacred places, the main mosque in Mecca, built around the Kaaba, to which Muslims all over the world turn to pray, and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, where Mohammed is said to be buried.

The attack in a Medina was designed to show that the Saudi “custodians” are failing at their job.

What’s next? After Ramadan comes of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to the Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia. Now that Saudi Arabia and its holy places are in the cross hairs, it seems only local that ISIS would want to continue its violence during the Hajj.

ISIS is evolving as it losses ground, but it is clearly no less dangerous. Some analysts have compared ISIS now to a wounded animal, striking out in desperation — but that may be wishful thinking.

ISIS is far larger than al Qaeda ever was, and has a penchant for sadism that has repulsed even rival terrorist groups. ISIS is losing its caliphate, one city at a time. The question is — what will it morph into next?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 7 July 2016, 12:15 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Chilcot report: key points from the Iraq inquiry

Guardian staff

6 July 2016

The main points from Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry regarding Tony Blair’s decision to go to war and how he put his case.

The Chilcot inquiry has delivered a damning verdict on the former prime minister Tony Blair’s decision to commit British troops to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. It says:

The UK chose to join the invasion before peaceful options had been exhausted

Chilcot is withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. He says: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein

Chilcot finds that Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Iraqi regime as he sought to make the case for military action to MPs and the public in the build-up to the invasion in 2002 and 2003. The then prime minister disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action, and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgments of the intelligence services. “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities … were presented with a certainty that was not justified,” the report says.

George Bush largely ignored UK advice on postwar planning

The inquiry found that the Bush administration repeatedly over-rode advice from the UK on how to oversee Iraq after the invasion, including the involvement of the United Nations, the control of Iraqi oil money and the extent to which better security should be put at the heart of the military operation. The inquiry specifically criticises the way in which the US dismantled the security apparatus of the Saddam Hussein army and describes the whole invasion as a strategic failure.

There was no imminent threat from Saddam

Iran, North Korea and Libya were considered greater threats in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation, and the UK Joint Intelligence Committee believed it would take Iraq five years, after the lifting of sanctions, to produce enough fissile material for a weapon, Chilcot finds. Britain’s previous strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time.

Britain’s intelligence agencies produced ‘flawed information’

The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, the basis for going to war. Chilcot says the intelligence community worked from the start on the misguided assumption that Saddam had WMDs and made no attempt to consider the possibility that he had got rid of them, which he had.

The UK military were ill-equipped for the task

The UK’s military involvement in Iraq ended with the “humiliating” decision to strike deals with enemy militias because British forces were seriously ill-equipped and there was “wholly inadequate” planning and preparation for life after Saddam Hussein, the Chilcot report finds. The Ministry of Defence planned the invasion in a rush and was slow to react to the security threats on the ground, particularly the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that killed so many troops, the report says.

UK-US relations would not have been harmed if UK stayed out of war

Chilcot rejected the view that the UK would lost diplomatic influence if it had refused to join the war. “Blair was right to weigh the possible consequences for the wider alliance with the US very carefully,” the report says. But it adds: “If the UK had refused to join the US in the war it would not have led to a fundamental or lasting change in the UK’s relationship with the US.”

Blair ignored warnings on what would happen in Iraq after invasion

The report says that between early 2002 and March 2003 Blair was told that, post-invasion, Iraq could degenerate into civil war. In September 2002, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, predicted “a terrible bloodletting of revenge after Saddam goes”, adding: “Traditional in Iraq after conflict.” Sir Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the US, added: “It will probably make pacifying Afghanistan look like child’s play.” Chilcot rejects Blair’s claim that the subsequent chaos and sectarian conflict could not have been predicted.

The government had no post-invasion strategy

According to Chilcot, Blair did not identify which ministers were responsible for postwar planning and strategy. The prime minister also failed to press Bush for “definitive assurances” about the US’s post-conflict plans. Nor did he envisage anything other than the best-case scenario once the invasion was over: that a US-led and UN-authorised force would find itself operating in a “relatively benign security environment”. All of this contributed to Britain’s ultimate strategic failure.

The UK had no influence on Iraq’s postwar US-run administration

The Bush administration appointed ambassador Paul Bremer to head a new coalition provisional authority in Baghdad. The UK had practically no input into subsequent decisions taken by Bremer, including the dissolving of Saddam’s army and security structures. This decision alienated the Sunni community and fed the insurgency. Blair continued to talk to Bush, but Britain had little influence on the ground over day-to-day policymaking.

The UK did not achieve its objectives in Iraq

Chilcot says that by 2009, when UK forces were pulled out of Iraq, Downing Street was facing strategic failure. Iraq was gripped by “deep sectarian divisions”. There was a fragile situation in Basra, rows over oil revenues, and rampant corruption inside Iraqi government ministries. No evidence had been found that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. During this period the government did not reappraise the situation, Chilcot says. He describes as “meagre” the results of Britain’s costly six-year occupation.

The government did not try hard enough to keep a tally of Iraqi civilian casualties

Before the war, Blair had said that the US-led invasion coalition would try to minimise civilian casualties. As the war and occupation unfolded, however, the MoD made only a “broad estimate” of how many Iraqis were being killed. The report says that more time was devoted to which department should have responsibility for the issue than was spent on finding out the number. The government’s main interest was to “rebut accusations that coalition forces were responsible for the deaths of large numbers” of Iraqis.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 7 July 2016, 7:55 am and is filed under
International
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tony Blair unrepentant as Chilcot gives crushing Iraq war verdict

Luke Harding

Guardian

6 July 2016

Sir John Chilcot delivers highly critical verdict on Iraq war but ex-PM says: ‘I believe we made the right decision’

Chilcot report: ‘A devastating critique of Blair and the British government’

A defiant Tony Blair defended his decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 following the publication of a devastating report by Sir John Chilcot, which mauled the ex-prime minister’s reputation and said that at the time of the 2003 invasion Saddam Hussein “posed no imminent threat”.

Looking tired, his voice sometimes croaking with emotion, Blair described his decision to join the US attack as “the hardest, most momentous, most agonising decision I took in 10 years as British prime minister”.

He said he felt “deeply and sincerely … the grief and suffering of those who lost ones they loved in Iraq”.

“There will not be a day when I do not relive and rethink what happened,” he added.

But asked whether invading Iraq was a mistake Blair was strikingly unrepentant. “I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he declared. He argued that he had acted in good faith, based on intelligence at the time which said that Iraq’s president had weapons of mass destruction. This “turned out to be wrong”.

Blair also said the Iraq inquiry – set up by his successor Gordon Brown back in 2009 – shot down long-standing claims that he had lied about the war to the British public and cynically manipulated intelligence. Where there had been mistakes they were minor ones involving “planning and process”, he said. He said he “couldn’t accept” criticism that British soldiers died in vain.

Blair’s extraordinary two-hour press conference came after Chilcot, a retired civil servant, published his long-awaited report into the Iraq debacle. In the end, and seven years after hearings first began, it was a more far-reaching and damning document than many had expected. It eviscerated Blair’s style of government and decision-making.

It also revealed that in a remarkable private note sent on 28 July 2002 Blair promised Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.”

The head of the Iraq war inquiry said the UK’s decision to attack and occupy a sovereign state for the first time since the second world war was a decision of “utmost gravity”. Chilcot described Saddam as “undoubtedly a brutal dictator” who had repressed and murdered many of his own people and attacked his neighbours.

But he was withering about Blair’s choice to sign up to a military plan drawn up in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 by the US president, George W Bush, and his neo-con team. Chilcot said: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

The report also bitterly criticised the way in which Blair made the case for Britain to go to war. It said the notorious dossier presented in September 2002 by Blair to the House of Commons did not support his claim that Iraq had a growing programme of chemical and biological weapons.

The then Labour government also failed to anticipate the war’s disastrous consequences, the report said. They included the deaths of “at least 150,000 Iraqis – and probably many more – most of them civilians” and “more than a million people displaced”. “The people of Iraq have suffered greatly,” Chilcot said.

Chilcot did not pass judgment on whether the war was legal. But the report said the way the legal basis was dealt with before the 20 March invasion was far from satisfactory. The attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, should have given written advice to cabinet and ministers – one of few findings that Blair accepted on Wednesday.

Lord Goldsmith told Blair that war without a second UN resolution would be illegal, only to change his mind after a trip to Washington in March 2003 and meetings with Bush administration legal officials.

Overall, Chilcot’s report amounts to arguably the most scathing official verdict on any modern British prime minister. It implicitly lumps Blair in the same category as Anthony Eden, who invaded Egypt in a failed attempt to gain control of the Suez canal. Chilcot’s 2.6m-word, 12-volume report was released on Wednesday morning, together with a 145-page executive summary.

The venue was the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in Westminster. As families of service personnel killed in Iraq welcomed its strong contents, anti-war protesters kept up a raucous chorus of “Blair Liar”.

The report concluded:

• There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.

• The strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time.

• The judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMDs – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.

• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam were wholly inadequate.

• The widespread perception that the September 2002 dossier distorted intelligence produced a “damaging legacy”, undermining trust and confidence in politicians.

• The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, apologised for his party’s “disastrous decision to go to war”, calling it the most serious foreign policy calamity of the last 60 years. Jack Straw, the foreign secretary at the time, and who largely escaped Chilcot censure, said that Blair was never “gung ho” about war.

Other allies also came to Blair’s defence. Alastair Campbell, his former press secretary, said Blair had not given Bush a blank cheque. There were no easy decisions, Campbell added. In a statement on Wednesday Bush acknowledged mistakes but said he continued to believe “the world is better off without Saddam in power”.

The report, however, disagrees. It sheds fresh light on the private discussions between Blair and Bush in the run-up to war. The report says that after the 9/11 attacks Blair urged Bush “not to take hasty action on Iraq”. The UK’s formal policy was to contain Saddam’s regime.

But by the time the two leaders met in April 2002 at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, the UK’s thinking had undergone “a profound change”. The joint intelligence committee had concluded that Saddam could not be removed “without an invasion”, with the government saying Iraq was a threat “that had to be dealt with”.

‘I will be with you whatever’

Blair sent Bush a series of private notes setting out his thinking. They included the 28 July 2002 note, released for the first time on Wednesday, in the face of opposition from the Cabinet Office, which said: “I will be with you [Bush] whatever.”

It added: “This is the moment to assess bluntly the difficulties. The planning on this and the strategy are the toughest yet. This is not Kosovo. This is not Afghanistan. It is not even the Gulf war.”

At times, Blair’s notes read more like stream of consciousness than considered policy documents. The note continued: “He [Saddam] is a potential threat. He could be contained. But containment … is always risky.” It says “we must have a workable military plan” and proposes a “huge force” to seize Baghdad.

Asked what “whatever” meant, Blair said on Wednesday his support for Bush was never unconditional or unqualified. He said that he had persuaded the US president to go down the “UN route”. Blair also linked his actions in Iraq with the ongoing global struggle against Islamist terrorism.

According to Chilcot, however, Blair shaped his diplomatic strategy around a “military timetable” and the need to get rid of Saddam. He told Bush in his note this was the “right thing to do”. Blair suggested that the simplest way to come up with a casus belli was to give an ultimatum to Iraq to disarm, preferably backed by UN authority.

Chilcot rejected Blair’s view that spurning the US-led military alliance against Iraq would have done major damage to London’s relations with Washington. “It’s questionable it would have broken the partnership,” he writes, noting that the two sides had taken different views on other major issues including the Suez crisis, the Vietnam war and the Falklands.

The report said that by January 2003 Blair had concluded “the likelihood was war”. He accepted a US military timetable for action by mid-March, while at the same time publicly blaming France for failing to support a second UN resolution in the security council authorising military action.

Chilcot was again unimpressed. “In the absence of a majority in support of military action, we consider that the UK was, in fact, undermining the security council’s authority,” he said.

The report also demolished Blair’s claim made when he gave evidence to the inquiry in 2010 that the difficulties encountered by British forces in post-invasion Iraq could not have been known in advance.

“We do not agree that hindsight is required,” Chilcot said. “The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and al-Qaida activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.”

The report is critical of the Ministry of Defence and military commanders who were tasked with occupying four southern provinces of Iraq once Saddam had been toppled. “The scale of the UK effort in post-conflict Iraq never matched the scale of the challenge,” Chilcot said, noting that security in Baghdad and south-east Iraq deteriorated soon after the invasion.

In the end, 179 British service personnel died before UK forces pulled out in 2009. Chilcot said the MoD was “slow in responding to the threat from improvised explosive devices”. He said that delays in providing properly armoured patrol vehicles “should not have been tolerated”. Nor was it clear which official was in charge. “It should have been,” Chilcot said.

As part of his remit, Chilcot also set out what lessons could be learned. He said that Blair “overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq”.

He added: “The UK’s relationship with the US has proved strong enough over time to bear the weight of honest disagreement. It does not require unconditional support where our interest or judgments differ.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 7 July 2016, 8:16 am and is filed under
International
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s push for his own political survival is threatening Malaysia’s future

Editorial

South China Morning Post

06 July, 2016

A crackdown on opponents may strengthen his position, but is threatening the country’s racial and religious harmony and the possibility of clean and effective governance

A scandal that may well rank as Malaysia’s biggest has not dented the political fortunes of Prime Minister Najib Razak. His Barisan Nasional ruling coalition easily won two by-elections last month and a state poll in May, prompting a cabinet reshuffle and a fresh crackdown on critics. A prominent opposition figure has been arrested on graft charges and a new investigation launched against vocal detractor and former leader Mahathir Mohammad. The moves strengthen Najib’s position ahead of the 2018 national elections, but are also threatening the country’s racial and religious harmony and the possibility of clean and effective governance.

Lim Guan Eng, the chief minister of Penang and secretary-general of the Democratic Action Party, is the latest in a string of opponents to be accused of wrongdoing. Other critics, among them members of Najib’s United Malays National Organisation (Umno), the leading party in the coalition, have been removed for claiming the law has been selectively enforced over the money-laundering scandal involving the state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad. The latest are Umno vice-president Shafie Apdal, who quit the party after being suspended, deputy president Muhyddin Yassin and Mahathir’s son, Mukhriz Mahathir, who were both sacked.

Seven jurisdictions, among them the US and Hong Kong, are investigating the disappearance of up to US$4 billion from 1MDB. Najib has been cleared by Malaysian authorities of acting improperly over the movement of US$681 million from a 1MDB entity through his bank account. The accusations have not gone away, but neither have they harmed him politically and he has been able to capitalise on a fracturing of the opposition. Umno has also been moving closer to a conservative Muslim party that supports the introduction of Sharia law.

Najib’s government is undermining the country’s fundamentals. He is putting political survival ahead of Malaysians’ interests. Business and foreign investment will stay away until he embraces open and inclusive politics.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 8 July 2016, 12:07 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The two latest whistleblowing feats of Sarawak Report raised the disturbing question whether Malaysian Parliament is the first in the world to be denied opportunity and materials to decide whether its PAC had done a proper and competent job, viz the inquiry into a RM55 billion 1MDB scandal

The two latest whistleblowing feats of website Sarawak Report have raised the disturbing question whether the Malaysian Parliament is the first in the world to be denied the opportunity and materials to decide whether its Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had done a proper and competent job, in its inquiry into the RM55 billion 1MDB scandal.

Yesterday, Sarawak Report published some of the contents of what it claimed was the Auditor-General’s report on 1MDB, which was submitted to the PAC on March 4 and was the basis of the PAC Report on 1MDB presented to Parliament on April 7, but the AG’s Report on 1MDB was not tabled in Parliament on the ground that it was classified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

Sarawak Report listed out the various concerns that auditor-general Tan Sri Ambrin Buang had pointed out in his report, especially with regard to several questionable fund transfers.

Sarawak Report  said it will publish more details from the auditor-general’s report in the coming days.

Today,  Sarawak Report  made the  revelation of another key document in the PAC probe on 1MDB, a letter from Bank Negara Malaysia to the PAC Chairman, Datuk Seri Hasan Arifin, related to its correspondence which among other things, confirmed Penang billionaire Jho Low was the sole owner of Good Star Limited, which had received US$1.03 billion from 1MDB.

How far can the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, the Cabinet, Parliament, the PAC, the various law enforcement and investigative agencies, whether Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Police, Bank Negara, Attorney-General’s Chamber, continue to play the  collective role of the three traditional monkeys of eyes that see not, ears that hear not, and mouths that speak not, while outside in the  borderless world in an information era, information are freely available pointing to 1MDB scandal as a heinous crime which is  global embezzlement, money-laundering and corruption scandal?

As a first step, the Report of the Auditor General on 1MDB which had been submitted to the PAC should be made public forthwith without any further delay, which will allow Members of Parliament the opportunity to decide whether to approve or demand further PAC investigations on the ground that the PAC Report touched only on the “tip of the iceberg” of the global 1MDB scandal.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 8 July 2016, 1:53 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The worst day of his career was perhaps Dallas Chief David Brown’s finest hour

By Jacquielynn Floyd

Dallas Morning News

8 July 2016

Dallas Police Chief David Brown is not an especially polished speaker. He doesn’t love the cameras; he doesn’t always have carefully prepared remarks ready to deliver with a politician’s effortless grace. When he can, he leaves it to somebody else.

That makes his remarkable performance on what was surely the most anguished day in the Dallas Police Department’s history so moving, and so persuasive. In the hours after five officers – four Dallas policemen and one Dallas Area Rapid Transit officer – were murdered by a deranged sniper, Brown’s delivery was pitch-perfect, unrehearsed and straight from the heart.

“We are heartbroken. There are no words to describe the atrocity that occurred in our city,” Brown told reporters early Friday, less than eight hours after his officers were mowed down while escorting a peaceful protest through downtown Dallas.

“All I know is that this must stop, this divisiveness between our police and our citizens.”

With those words, he spoke for every police department in America – many of which have far worse relationships with their minority communities than ours.

“We don’t feel much support most day,” he said. “Let’s don’t make today most days. We need your support.”

The nobility in that direct appeal was profound. If he had responded with tough talk about hunting ’em down, vowed vengeance, assigned blame, it would have been understandable, given the depth of the tragedy.

If he felt such rage, Brown kept it to himself. He was matter-of-fact about the measures taken to negotiate with and ultimately kill the gunman.

The chief, a lifelong resident and 30-year DPD veteran, is experienced in the ways of the city’s frequently strident politics. He has detractors on the City Council; he has critics in the department; he knows the ego-bruising realities of his position.

And it’s no secret that he has had his share of personal tragedies, some directly involving police. In 2010, when Brown was less than two months into his tenure as chief, his adult son shot and killed two people – including a police officer.

There were none-too-subtle calls for Brown to step down; the merciless publicity was clearly a torment to a man who describes himself as self-described “loner” who guards his privacy.

Earlier in his career, Brown’s longtime patrol partner was shot and killed. His own brother was a homicide victim, reportedly at the hands of drug dealers.

But you can’t be vaccinated against tragedy. Past suffering will not make you immune to more, which was clear in Brown’s appeal Friday.

In spite of that grief, the chief articulated, in remarkably few words, the vision of the role of police in our society that we all want, that we all agree on.

If stronger security measures are needed to protect officers, he said, then that’s what they’ll do. But he also described his own officers’ heroism in very human terms.

He described the terrifying street scene Thursday, when “some of the bravest men and women you’d ever want to be associated with” rushed not away, but toward the gunfire in an effort to protect the demonstrators – who were there to protest police shootings of civilians in other cities.

In his own low-key way, Brown has worked in recent years to create the kind of police force that will at least ease, if not end, the divisiveness that created so much bitterness in American communities.

His vision is not of warrior-cops girded for urban warfare but of “protectors” and “guardians” keeping us safe from chaos.

“We’re not going to let a coward change our democracy,” Brown said. “Our city, our country [are] better than that.”

As with any long-tenured public official, Brown has seen ups and downs in his years with the department, and never more so than since becoming police chief.

As the hours passed and Thursday bled into Friday, Brown was enduring the worst workday of his career. His authority tempered with grief, he met it with uncommon candor and clarity.

Dallas didn’t deserve this tragedy. No city does. But it was fortunate to have David Brown in charge.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 9 July 2016, 10:43 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.