It is Hadi’s prerogative if he wants to provide a life-line to support  Najib and shore up the Prime Minister  in the gathering storm over the  1MDB scandal, but PAS leaders should not expect DAP leaders to keep quiet when they make baseless  attacks on the DAP

(Scroll down for English text)

Terserah kepada Hadi jika beliau mahu membantu memanjangkan jangka hayat Najib sebagai Perdana Menteri di tengah taufan skandal 1MDB, namun pemimpin-pemimpin PAS tidak boleh mengharapkan DAP berdiam diri apabila mereka membuat serangan tidak berasas ke atas DAP.

Saya telah menasihatkan para pemimpin DAP untuk tidak mencontohi sikap Presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang dan bekas Setiausaha Agung PAS Datuk Mustapha Ali menyerang pemimpin DAP tanpa asas. Saya juga telah menasihatkan para pemimpin DAP untuk sentiasa “berpegang dengan prinsip, menjaga etika, sopan dan jangan sekali-kali menggunakan pembohongan dan pendustaan, memfitnah, atau menggunakan gelaran yang buruk atau memburukkan peribadi sesiapa.”

Terpulang kepada Hadi jika beliau mahu membantu memanjangkan hayat politik Datuk Seri Najib Razak sebagai Perdana Menteri di tengah taufan politik skandal 1MDB dan mengecam percubaan mantan Perdana Menteri Tun Mahathir untuk menjatuhkan Najib sebagai PM (mungkin Hadi boleh juga jelaskan mengapa beliau tidak cuba menyelamatkan Tun Abdullah ketika beliau menerima tekanan yang sama daripada Mahathir selepas pilihan raya umum 2008.

Namun pemimpin PAS tidak boleh mengharapkan para pemimpin DAP berdiam diri apabila mereka membuat serangan tidak berasas terhadap pemimpin DAP seperti yang dilakukan oleh Mustapha di Kuala Terengganu kelmarin.

Mustapha mengulangi dua tuduhannya terhadap pemimpin DAP, iaitu bahawa para pemimpin DAP angkuh serta menuduh DAP menyediakan “perangkap” buat para pemimpin progresif dalam PAS yang tewas dalam pemilihan parti itu baru-baru ini untuk menjadikan Gerakan Harapan Baru (GHB) “proksi” DAP.

Apakah Hadi dan kepimpinan tertinggi PAS ingin menafikan bahawa sejurus selepas Pilihanraya Umum ke-13, pemimpin PAS telah meminta persetujuan DAP supaya Hadi diberikan tempat di sebelah Ketua Pembangkang di Parlimen walaupun jumlah kerusi parlimen PAS adalah yang terkecil, iaitu 21 kerusi berbanding 380 kerusi DAP dan 30 kerusi PKR.

Tidakkah benar juga bahawa tanpa berfikir panjang saya telah bersetuju agar Hadi ditempatkan di kerusi kedua pembangkang itu di Parlimen – sesuatu yang tidak mungkin dilakukan jika DAP “angkuh” atau “chauvinistik” seperti yang kini kerap dituduh oleh kepimpinan Hadi terhadap DAP?

Selain itu, Mustapha juga adalah “saksi mata” penghinaan yang dilakukan Hadi terhadap Ketua Pembangkang Parlimen Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim di Terengganu sewaktu krisis Menteri besar Selangor Ogos tahun lalu.

Tidakkah bekas Setiausaha Agung PKR Saifuddin Nasution berkata benar apabila beliau menceritakan perkara mengejutkan yang telah berlaku dalam pertemuan antara Anwar dan Hadi itu? Saya masih merasa terkejut dan marah mendengar tentang kejadian itu kerana DAP yang telah memujuk Anwar yang ketika itu berat hati untuk pergi menemui Hadi di Terengganu bagi merungkai kebuntuan yang ditimbulkan PAS dalam krisis Menteri Besar Selangor.

Sewaktu krisis Menteri Besar Selangor itu, Hadi bukan saja mengaibkan Anwar tetapi juga Presiden PKR Datuk Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail kerana beliau seorang wanita.

Menyedihkan apabila Mustapha masih bermain politik pembohongan dan tidak jujur dengan terus menyebarkan tuduhan bahawa para pemimpin progresif PAS dalam GHB hanyalah “proksi” DAP.

Sebelum Pakatan Rakyat dibunuh oleh pemimpin PAS, parti itu telah dituduh oleh propagandis dan cybertrooper UMNO sebagai proksi DAP, sepertimana DAP dituduh oleh MCA dan Gerakan sebagai boneka dan kuli PAS.

Pemimpin PAS tidak pernah menjadi proksi DAP, sepertimana pemimpin DAP tidak pernah menjadi boneka dan kuli PAS.

Mengapa Mustapha menggunakan taktik yang sama seperti digunakan propagandis dan cybertrooper UMNO untuk mencemarkan integriti dan sifat para pemimpin progresif PAS yang mereka itu tentunya lebih lama Mustapha kenal berbanding mana-mana jua pemimpin DAP?

Apakah kerana kita bercerai jalan politik apa saja taktik tidak bermoral, bertentangan dengan agama, dan tidak berprinsip, termasuk menyebarkan pembohongan dan pendustaan, boleh digunakan terhadap lawan?

Sudah tentu ini bukan ajaran Islam atau apa jua agama dalam negara ini. Ia adalah perbuatan tidak bermoral dan tidak beretika.

Mungkin ini salah satu sebab mengapa Pakatan Rakyat berkubur, iaitu apabila pemimpin PAS tidak bersedia untuk menjadi pemimpin politik yang boleh dipercayai, setia, dan komited dengan Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat dan prinsip operasi secara muafakat Pakatan Rakyat.

Gabungan politik baru untuk menggantikan Pakatan Rakyat, sama ada dinamakan sebagai Pakatan Rakyat 2.0 atau apa saja nama, mestilah didasarkan pada prinsip dan matlamat politik bersama yang boleh menyelamatkan Malaysia daripada menjadi negara gagal lantaran rasuah yang bermaharajalela, ketidakadilan sosioekonomi dan kegagalan urus tadbir, bukan cuma satu pakatan oportunistik untuk menangguk laba daripada kedudukan di Putrajaya.

Saya masih ingat sewaktu menyampaikan ucapan di sebuah forum anjuran PAS di Melaka 15 tahun lalu, pada Jun 2000, saya telah mengemukakan pertanyaan berikut:

(1) Apakah PAS serasi dengan demokrasi.

(2) Apakah PAS serasi dengan pluralism esok.

(3) Apakah PAS serasi dengan hak asasi.

(4) Apakah PAS serasi dengan kepelbagaian budaya.

(5) Apakah PAS serasi dengan hak-hak wanita, prinsip kesetaraan untuk wanita, termasuk hak wanita untuk memegang jawatan awam dan terlibat dalam kehidupan awam.

(6) Apakah PAS serasi dengan pembangunan dan kemodenan.

Ketika Hadi dan kepimpinan PAS berpaling tadah daripada Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat, mereka seolah-olah memberikan jawapan “tidak” kepada semua pertanyaan yang sama kemukakan 15 tahun lalu itu.

PAS dan DAP berpisah dengan berkuburnya Pakatan Rakyat kerana PAS berulang kali mencabul Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat dan kerana Hadi meminggirkan prinsip muafakat Pakatan, kerana beliau mahu menggunakan kuasa veto ke atas keputusan yang disepakati sebulat suara oleh Majlis Kepimpinan Pakatan Rakyat, walaupun mesyuarat ketika itu dihadiri oleh Timbalan Presiden PAS Mohamad Sabu.

Untuk menangani perbezaan antara kita, marilah kita guna akal dan hujah, bukan pembohongan dan pendustaan.

(Kenyataan media di Kuala Lumpur, 23 Julai 2015)

————————-

I had advised DAP leaders not to follow the example of the PAS President, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang and the former PAS Secretary-General Datuk Mustapha Ali in their baseless attacks on  the DAP  leadership and to be always “principled, ethical, civil and never to resort to lies and falsehoods, slander and name-calling to demonise and character-assassinate anyone”.

It is Hadi’s prerogative if he wants to provide a life-line to support Datuk Seri Najib Razak and shore up the Prime Minister in the gathering storm over the 1MDB scandal, even  reprimanding Tun Mahathir in the former Prime Minister’s  attempt to topple Najib as Prime Minister (Hadi may want to explain why he did not go to Tun Abdullah’s rescue when Abdullah had faced such a similar pressure from Mahathir after the 2008 general election).

But the PAS leaders should not expect DAP leaders to keep quiet when they make baseless attacks on  the DAP leadership, as Mustapha did in Kuala Terengganu yesterday.

Mustapha repeated his twin charges against the DAP leadership, that the DAP leaders are arrogant and accused the DAP of laying  a “trap” for Progressive PAS leaders annihilated in the recent PAS Muktamar  to make Gerakan Harapan Baru (GHB) movement a DAP “proxy”.

Is Hadi or the top PAS leadership denying that immediately after the 13th General Election, the PAS leadership asked for DAP agreement that Hadi be seated at the second Opposition seat next to the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, although PAS parliamentary representation was the smallest with 21 MPs as compared to DAP’s 38 and PKR’s 30.

Wasn’t it true that without a second thought, I consented to the arrangement for Hadi to be seated in the second Parliamentary seat for Pakatan Rakyat benches, which would not be the case if DAP is “arrogant” or “chauvinistic”, another recent favourite accusation of Hadi leadership against the DAP?

Furthermore, Mustapha was  “eye-witness” to the humiliation of the then Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim by Hadi in Terengganu during the Selangor mentri besar crisis in August last year.

Was the former PKR Secretary-General Saifuddin Nasution telling the truth when he recounted what happened at that shocking encounter between Hadi and Anwar, which I still feel shocked and outraged as the DAP had persuaded a very reluctant Anwar to go to Terengganu to meet with Hadi to resolve the impasse created by PAS in the Selangor Mentri Besar crisis?

In the Selangor Mentri Besar crisis, Hadi not only humiliated Anwar but also the PKR President, Datuk Seri Dr. Wanj Azizah Wan Ismail because she is a woman.

It is sad that Mustapha is still resorting to the politics of falsehood and dishonesty in continuing to dish out the canard that the Progressive PAS leaders in the GHB are just DAP “proxies”.

Before Pakatan Rakyat was killed by the PAS leadership, PAS was accused by UMNO propagandists and cybertroopers as DAP proxies, just as DAP is still accused by MCA and Gerakan of being PAS puppets and stooges.

PAS leaders had never been proxies of DAP, just as DAP leaders have never been puppets and stooges of PAS.

Why is Mustapha using the same tactics employed by UMNO propagandists and cybertroopers to besmirch the integrity and character of Progressive PAS leaders, whom Mustapha should have known longer than any one in the DAP?

Does a political parting of ways a justification for the use of the most immoral, irreligious and unprincipled tactics, including lies and falsehoods, to attack the opponent?

This is surely not the teaching of Islam or any religion in the country.  This is most immoral and unethical to say the least.

This may be one reason for the demise of Pakatan Rakyat  when top PAS leaders are not prepared to be  trustworthy political leaders and stay loyal and committed to the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework and the Pakatan Rakyat consensus operational principle.

A new political coalition to replace Pakatan Rakyat, whether called Pakatan Rakyat 2.0, new Pakatan Rakayt, Harapan Rakyat or whatever, must be a political coalition based on common political principles and objectives that can save Malaysia from becoming a failed state because of rampant corruption, socio-economic injustices and failure of good governance,  and not just an opportunistic coming-together for the spoils of office in Putrajaya.

I remember that I gave a talk to a PAS forum in Malacca 15 years ago in June 2000, and I posed the following questions:

(1) Was PAS compatible with Democracy.

(2) Was PAS compatible with pluralism.

(3) Was PAS compatible with human rights.

(4) Was PAS compatible with cultural diversity.

(5) Was PAS compatible with women’s rights, the principle of equality for women including women’s access to public office and public life.

(6) Was PAS compatible with development and modernity.

When Hadi and the PAS leadership turned their back on the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework, they were giving negative answers to these six questions I posed 15 years ago.

PAS and DAP have parted ways with the demise of Pakatan Rakyat because of the repeated PAS violation of the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework and Hadi’s contempt for the PR consensus operational principle, wanting to exercise a veto power over decisions adopted unanimously by the PR Leadership although PAS was attended by the then Deputy President, Mohamad Sabu.

Let us use reason and argument to deal with our differences but not lies and falsehoods.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 July 2015, 8:42 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


It’s not about being Malay, Zahra

Erna Mahyuni

Malay Mail Online

July 22, 2015

JULY 22 — More than a week after the “Saya Zahra” video went viral, people are still talking about it.

My social media timelines seem to be divided equally between the people who support what she’s saying and those who think she’s being whiny and entitled.

Sure, I can empathise with a lot of her struggles as Lord knows, it isn’t easy trying to survive in Klang Valley on very little. But when she called on the government to help and do more for the Malays, whatever sympathy I had for her disappeared where 1MDB’s money went.

Last I checked, Zahra, the Malays form the majority in Malaysia. Go to any civil service department and you’ll see very few minorities working there, much less leading it.

It’s not just the Malays who are poor. There are poor Chinese. Poor Indians. Poor non-Muslim, non-Malay bumiputera. Poor Malaysians of every creed and colour.

But that’s the problem when you keep getting fed the rhetoric that the non-Malays are rich and prosperous and the Malays are being held back by them. Just go to Ampang and TTDI; you’ll see plenty of Malays living in big houses, with fancy cars and drivers.

The refrain is getting tiring and I’m frankly sick of hearing: “I am Malay, I am struggling, the government owes it to me to help me. Because I am Malay.”

I am trying to imagine a white person saying that in the United States or Britain. “I am struggling, I can barely cope with living costs, help me, I’m white.”

How long are we going to continue to live with this bullcrap? “Tolong Melayu” (help the Malays) is the common refrain but all I can see are the richer Malays in power helping themselves. I’m sorry, Zahra, the rich don’t want to help you. They just want to get rich. Just in case you didn’t get the memo that the world is a terrible, unfair place.

It’s so easy for people like Zahra to supplicate the government, begging for more aid and justifying it with “I am Malay. You must help me.”

But would you be willing to supplicate rich people? Would you have the gall to go up to a privately-owned company and say right to the owner’s face: “You must hire me and pay me a high salary. Because I am Malay”?

No one owes you anything for the colour of your skin or for what culture you identify with. The government is not God, no matter how culturally ingrained it is locally to worship whoever is governing. We have replaced the royalty with the government, bowing, scraping, prostrating. Soon, we’re going to end up including politicians in our lèse majesté laws but I’d rather go to jail than stop calling our politicians idiots.

I’m not going to be like Datuk Ahmad Maslan and suggest you “ubah gaya hidup” (change your lifestyle) to cope. Well, you will have to make adjustments like the rest of us out of sheer necessity but I don’t want you to shut up, Zahra. Keep talking, keep speaking up, but stop making it about your race.

The economy needs to be fixed. Wages need adjustments. Whatever our deputy prime minister says, our education system is broken. Rather than weep in front of politicians and ask them to “tolong Melayu”, ask them to do their jobs better. Ask them to truly be our representatives, instead of our overlords.

All those who are poor, who are struggling, who are suffering, all of them need attention and help. God made all of us, didn’t he? So stop kidding yourself about your special status because that imaginary status is obviously not getting you where you want to be.

There’s nothing wrong with being Malay, or identifying yourself as Malay. But it is wrong to make it all about what race you are and being stubbornly fixated on just getting your own race ahead. Learn to say “tolong rakyat” (help the people) and maybe, just maybe, we’ll get somewhere. Because at the end of all things on Judgement Day at Padang Mahsyar, Bumiputera status isn’t going to matter any more and the angels aren’t going to ask: “Melayu ke?” (Are you Malay?)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 July 2015, 6:35 am and is filed under
Malays
,
Malaysian Dream
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Judiciary in spotlight as Najib heads to court to clear name, say lawyers

by V. Anbalagan

The Malaysian Insider

22 July 2015

The Malaysian judiciary, already perceived as being subservient to the executive, could be under further strain now that Datuk Seri Najib Razak has filed defamation suits against his political rivals and some media outlets, lawyers said.

Whether the suits were in his personal capacity or not, lawyers said Najib’s administration would have to contend with public perception of him going to court for defamation – making him the first sitting Malaysian prime minister to do so.

Najib, as head of the executive arm of government, has a role in the appointment and promotion of judges. The prime minister appoints some members of the Judicial Appointments Commission, which selects judges.

While he still has the right to legal recourse, lawyers said it would be better for the prime minister to reply to criticism by engaging the media and to speak in Parliament to clarify issues.

Lawyer S.N. Nair said Najib’s moves to sue has certainly placed the judiciary in state of discomfort.

“There will be a lot of pressure when the suits are heard by junior judges,” said Nair whose legal forte is defamation suits for clients both in their capacity as plaintiff and defendants.

He said the judiciary was widely seen as the weakest among the three branches of government.

“The judiciary does not determine who the prime minister is but the prime minister has influence on who sits in the Judicial Appointments Commission to select judges for promotion.”

Nair said on this account alone, the prime minister should have been more circumspect in his actions to due to public perception.

Nair said even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the longest serving prime minister, did not go to court because he was sensitive to public sentiment and the repercussion of filing defamation suits while holding public office.

He said Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, the chief legal adviser to the government, should have advised Najib of the perils of turning to the court to clear his reputation.

Najib’s legal actions

The lawyer said this in response to a slew of suits filed by Najib against opposition politicians, the media and also threats of civil actions against foreign publications.

Najib last year filed a suit against news portal Malaysiakini over readers’ comments following the replacement of former Terengganu menteri besar Datuk Ahmad Said.

He had also filed suits against Petaling Jaya MP Tony Pua over 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli and the Mediarakyat news portal for remarks at a forum against him and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, over oil subsidies.

Najib has also sued PAS organ Harakahdaily over allegations that 1MDB had financed his stepson’s venture in the production of a Hollywood movie.

He and Rosmah have also sued Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming over a photograph posted on Facebook.

In his latest legal action, Najib has sought clarification from The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) over a report which claimed that US$700 million (RM2.67 billion) were channelled into his private bank accounts.

The letter is meant to get a clarification from WSJ and its publisher, Dow Jones, to state whether they meant that Najib had misappropriated the funds, in other to decide subsequent legal action.

In another recent action, Najib instructed his lawyers to act against Australian papers The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, both owned by Fairfax Media, for carrying an article alleging that he and former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi were involved in improper dealings with “two Australian Reserve Bank (RBA) firms over contracts to print polymer bank notes”.

Obliged to answer

Lawyer R.

Kengadharan said it was unprecedented for Najib to file multiple suits and this had given rise to the belief that he no longer tolerated press freedom.

“This is a worrying trend but I hope it will not be permanent feature in our political landscape,” he said.

Kengadharan said Najib’s action was bound to invite mixed reactions from the public and hoped judges would decide without fear and favour.

Lawyer Andrew Khoo said judges were expected to be impartial and would remain true to their oath of office.

“Whether the prime minister files the suit in his personal or official capacity, the fact remains that he will have to take the stand and be subjected to cross-examination,” said Khoo, a member of the Malaysian Bar Council.

A defamation trial presented an “open season” for Najib to be asked any searching question about his reputation, and the prime minister would not be able to avoid it, Khoo added.

“This is why it is undesirable for a sitting prime minister to launch defamation action,” he said, adding that Najib could have been poorly advised.

Lawyer Ang Hean Leng said the court had pronounced that those holding public office could not bring an action in their official capacity.

“There is little to divide official and personal capacity like in the case of Najib who is the chief political executive of the government.”

The lawyer said the law did not stop Najib from going to court but there would be consequences which followed when a sitting prime minister became a litigant.

Lawyer Fahri Azzat said by going to court, Najib must be supremely confident of proving his case in order to be awarded damages for the injury to his reputation.

He said the prime minister would have to take the stand to prove the published articles were defamatory, and would put his credibility at stake if he chose or refused to answer probing questions on his reputation.

“As lawyer, I would not put my client on the witness stand if he or she is on shaky ground. The client will be subjected to rigorous cross-examination and has to answer relevant questions.”

There was still the possibility, however, that the cases Najib has filed could be settled out of court, Fahri said, since they were still at the preliminary stage before trial.

One scenario could see the defendants retract the defamatory articles and make a public apology – the best outcome for the plaintiff.

Another scenario could be Najib’s withdrawal of his suits, “but then the allegations against him will stand,” Fahri said. – July 22, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 July 2015, 6:20 am and is filed under
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib is taking Malaysia to his Vision 2020 of a “banana republic” and not a fully developed nation under original Vision 2020

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, clearly has a very different Vision 2020 from former premier Tun Mahathir, for from what is happening in recent days, weeks and months, Najib is taking Malaysia to his Vision 2020 of a “banana republic” and not a fully developed nation under the original Vision 2020.

It is only in a “banana republic” where the principles of accountability, transparency and good governance are totally alien in practice, whatever the hifalutin slogans eulogising them, that there is a Prime Minister who could keep dumb for close to three weeks about allegations in an internationally reputable newspaper that Malaysian government investigators have found  US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) had been deposited into the Prime Minister’s personal bank accounts just before the previous general elections in 2013, without being frank and truthful where the RM2.6 billion came from,  where and to whom they had gone to – as the Prime Minister had tacitly admitted the deposits into his private bank accounts by repeating the refrain in the past three weeks that he had not taken funds for personal gain.

It is only in a “banana republic” that either the entire or the overwhelming majority of the  Cabinet is “suspect” and “tainted” of having received improper  funding from these personal banking accounts of the Prime Minister for the 13th General Election campaign, and for three weeks, the Ministers dare not make any statement to clear themselves of such impropriety, malpractices and conflict of interest.

No wonder former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir in his blog “Conspiracy” on 20th July 2015 commented:

“11. To all comments made against 1MDB, the standard answer is to deny, to say “No it is not true.” It is like somebody upon being asked whether he had stolen the money as alleged, simply denies that he had stolen, expecting the judge to acquit him simply because he denied.

“12. There is no denial that money was deposited in the private account. The explanation to UMNO is that it was for the elections. UMNO seems satisfied. Don’t they know that Government money cannot be used to help a political party to win elections? But the money was from donation. Who donated 2 billion Ringgit? No answer.”

It is only in a “banana republic” that subordinate officers are appointed to investigate into a mega-financial scandal directly implicating the Prime Minister, officers who are junior, answerable and responsible to the Prime Minister, when the investigation should be by a Royal Commission of Inquiry of independent and credible elders of the country, who are not beholden to the Prime Minister,  with the Prime Minister going on leave pending the outcome of the investigations.

It is only in a “banana republic” that “soldiers of fortune” and the dregs of society are elevated to a position where their  lies and falsehoods are given even greater weight than those of  patriots and solid citizens of the country who want to save Malaysia from becoming a failed state because of rampant corruption, socio-economic injustices and the collapse of good governance.

It is only in a “banana republic” that a person is appointed Strategic Communications Director when he is not even fit to be made Communications Director, making “strategic errors” by the dozen in his first week in office.

It is only in a “banana republic” that Members of Parliament and media practitioners who have spent months trying to pry upon the 1MDB mega-financial scandal are placed on an immigration blacklist prohibiting them from leaving the country when the persons who should placed on the blacklist are people accused of serious malpractices and  criminal breach of trust headed by none other than the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

It is only in a “banana republic” that diligent, conscientious and patriotic MPs like DAP MP for PJ Utara, Tony Pua and PKR MP for Pandan, Rafizi Ramli, are wanted by  police for their sterling role in demanding accountability for the 1MDB scandal in the police’s  first investigations into the new-fangled crimes created in the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 of “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” (Section 124B) under which person could be jailed up to 20 years.

The new-fangled offence of “Activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” should protect MPs in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. Instead it  has become a weapon to cow and intimidate MPs from carrying out their duties – which fits the offence of “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy”.

Those responsible for the unconstitutional action against Pua and Rafizi, violating their freedom of movement, are guilty of the offence of “Activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” and police investigations should be initiated against those responsible for these directives against Pua and Rafizi, regardless of whether he is Director-General of Immigration, Home Minister or Prime Minister.

Will the Inspector-General of Police twitter-direct police officers to start investigating the Director-General of Immigration, the Home Minister and the Prime Minister as to whether they have committed the  offence of “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy”, where a person is liable to be jailed up to 20 years?

Section 130A of the Penal Code  defines “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” as “an activity carried out by a person or a group of persons designed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy buy violent or unconstitutional means”.

Prohibiting an MP from carrying out his or her parliamentary duties by violating his or her constitutional right to travel is clearly “activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy” designed to undermine parliamentary democracy by unconstitutional means, and the question is whether the Police will immediately open files to investigate the person or persons responsible for violating Pua and Rafizi’s freedom of movement.

Malaysia should stop become a laughing stock in the world, and Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation,  must not allow Malaysia to degenerate into a “banana republic” when we should be marching towards a fully developed nation status.

I call in particular on the elders in our society, regardless of race, religion or politics, irrespective of  the positions in government or private sector which they had served, to come forward to speak out to ensure that Malaysia is not enveloped by a new darkness of misrule, misgovernance and violation of democracy!

(Media Conference Statement at DAP Hqrs in Kuala Lumpur  on Thursday, 23rd July 2015 at 12 noon)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 July 2015, 12:03 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Travel ban on MPs, media owner politically motivated, says lawyers’ group

The Malaysian Insider

22 July 2015

Putrajaya’s move to prevent two lawmakers and a media owner from leaving the country is politically motivated, legal rights advocacy group Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) said today.

Its executive director, Eric Paulsen, said barring opposition MPs Tony Pua and Rafizi Ramli, as well as The Edge Media Group owner Datuk Tong Kooi Ong, from leaving the country was likely due to their criticism and exposes on 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).

Paulsen said the authorities should remember that freedom of movement was guaranteed under the federal constitution.

Freedom of movement was also subject to security, public order, public health and the punishment of offenders, but Paulsen said these reasons were not applicable to the trio who are barred from leaving Malaysia.

“These reasons are not applicable to any of them and the immigration authorities’ actions are clearly politically motivated, irrational and a blatant abuse of power,” he said in a statement.

” As no clear reasons were given for barring the trio from travelling out of the country or under what legal provisions the immigration authorities have acted upon, we can only assume that they have been targeted due to their criticisms and exposes concerning the massive 1MDB scandal,” Paulsen said.

The immigration authorities stopped Pua today at klia2 airport, while Rafizi believes he has been barred after a check on the Immigration Department’s website.

Tong is said to have been barred also, after Malaysiakini checked his travel status with the department’s website.

Paulsen said it was appalling that he authorities were more concerned about probing information leaks into 1MDB rather than the alleged wrongdoing revealed by the information itself.

“Investigating the whistle-blowers or the press is clearly misconceived. It is a case of shooting the messenger bearing bad news,” he said.

“We call upon the authorities to lift the travel ban, cease investigations into the whistleblowers or the press, and more importantly, bring to justice the perpetrators and account for the massive 1MDB scandal,” he added.

Pua, who is Petaling Jaya MP, was due to fly to Yogyakarta, Indonesia, for work when he was stopped Immigration officers at low-cost carrier terminal klia2 at 3.15pm today.

“They stopped me and told me I can’t go aboard. They said the instructions came ‘from above’. No reasons were given why I was prevented from leaving,” he said earlier.

One of 1MDB’s staunchest critics, the DAP national publicity chief had been among those who has consistently highlighted alleged malpractices in the state investment vehicle’s operations and dealings.

Pua is also being sued by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who has accused the DAP MP of incessantly attacking him over the Finance ministry-owned fund to gain political mileage for the opposition. – July 22, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 July 2015, 6:00 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Human Rights
,
Media
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A post-PR, post-BN future for Malaysia?

— Zairil Khir Johari

Malay Mail Online

July 23, 2015

JULY 23 —Many Malaysians are understandably dismayed by the recent break-up of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR), a seven-year-old coalition that had been cobbled together by force of necessity following the unprecedented results of the 12th General Election in 2008.

In the aftermath of the landmark polls, which saw the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition losing its customary two-thirds Parliamentary majority for the very first time, and in the process also relinquishing control over five out of 13 state governments, the three main opposition parties of DAP, PKR and Pas suddenly found themselves in the awkward position of having won enough seats to form five state governments – together. Thus, as entrenched differences were set aside for the sake of pragmatism, a tripartite coalition pact was forged.

For the most part, the arrangement functioned. By the next General Election in 2013, despite visible hairline cracks, the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition was able to present itself as a viable alternative to the decades-long domination of the BN. This premise was confirmed by the results of the 13th General Election (GE13), which saw the three-party coalition picking up 52 per cent of the popular vote – but unfortunately denied the right to form the Federal Government, thanks to creative gerrymandering and malapportionment of seats.

Alas, that was to be the pinnacle of the PR story. Everything began to slide downhill after that. Aggressive goading by the dominant, Umno-controlled Malay media, quickly saw the Malay-Muslim ethno-religious nationalist agenda gaining traction. Coupled by factional infighting within Pas, this led to the resurgence of highly divisive issues such as the shariah criminal code, or hudud law.

In the end, amidst broken promises and much mudslinging between and within the PR component parties, Pas capitulated by ushering in a new slate of right-wing hawks as leaders, and by means of a motion to cut ties with the DAP during its general assembly, the fate of the coalition was sealed.

Permanent and centralised coalitions are unsustainable

While some may mourn the PR’s demise as a setback for democracy in Malaysia, I would not necessarily agree. In truth, the fundamental differences within the coalition had always put its sustainability in doubt.

As such, I would posit that a break at this moment, with ample time before the next and very crucial General Election, provides an opportunity to reconfigure the Malaysian political landscape via the introduction of a more progressive form of coalition politics.

For too long, politics in Malaysia has been dominated by one formal coalition, namely the BN and its predecessor, the Alliance. Attempts were of course made to form opposition coalitions in the past, such as the Socialist Front, the Gagasan Rakyat and the Barisan Alternatif, but by and large they were sporadic and short-lived. However, given that the PR was not merely an “opposition” coalition, but one that governed in five states at its peak, there was great hope that the coalition would congeal into a permanent alternative to the BN.

However, as much as it was thought otherwise at the beginning, we now know that the PR was an unsustainable concept. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that any kind of coalition that seeks to bind together all the vastly divergent regional and cultural interests of our country in a uniform, permanent and centripetal manner would not succeed. This is because it would be unnatural to do so.

In the case of the BN, it is held together only by the practicalities of power and the fact that it is dominated from the centre in the form of Umno, a party that on its own holds two-thirds of the coalition’s total Parliamentary seats. Resultantly, smaller and previously influential parties have seen their relevance and capacity diminish. Today, their loyalty in the coalition is premised only upon the assurances of positions and largesse.

This is particularly applicable to previously influential regional parties such as the PPP, which has gone from being a major Perak-based party to one with no elected representation today, and Gerakan, which has seen their dominance in Penang gradually eroding to the point that they were outnumbered by Umno state representatives even before the BN lost the state in 2008. Another victim of the ruling coalition is Pas, whose short-lived stint in the BN eventually saw them ceding control over Kelantan to Umno, a loss that took them over a decade to recover from.

Though the PR coalition did not share the dynamic of a single dominant partner, the friction between the centre, in this case being the west coast Malayan leadership, and the periphery regions of east coast Malaya and the Borneo states, would prove to be its undoing.

Outside the west coast, the PR concept itself was a nebulous one. For example, while Penang, Selangor, Perak and, to a lesser extent, Kedah, could rightly be described as PR states, the same label was always dubious in reference to Kelantan. How was Kelantan a PR government when DAP does not contest in the state and PKR only has one single representative? For all intents and purposes, it was and still is, simply a Pas government.

At the same time, there was always the awkward question of East Malaysia. Was the idea of PR ever relevant to Sabah and Sarawak? How can it be, when Pas is as relevant to the two states as DAP is in east coast Malaya? This tension eventually led to DAP Sarawak adopting an independent stand with regards to the coalition.

In the same vein, regional interests and aspirations also meant that Pas in the east coast had much difficulty accepting the PR arrangement. In a way, the hudud issue – the straw that broke the proverbial camel, was a manifestation of this conundrum. According to its supporters, the Kelantan state government was merely exercising its democratic rights in pursuing its legislative aspirations – the constitutionality of it notwithstanding. In this context, as much as Pas Kelantan has the right to attempt the implementation of hudud, the DAP and anyone else has as much a right to oppose it, not merely legislatively but also through the courts.

However, such a dynamic, which reflects a functioning democracy, cannot emerge in the context of permanent coalitions. As hudud was not part of the PR Common Policy Framework that all three parties signed off on, Pas Kelantan’s attempt to implement it constitutes a clear breach of agreement.

However, therein lies a bigger question – should the Pas state government have been bound by the PR contract, when it was in actuality not really a PR government? The problem, therefore, was a structural one.

Decentralised coalition-building

That some interests and aspirations of the various regions of our country differ, and at times even seem at odds with one another, should not come as a surprise. After all, every region is different, culturally, socio-economically and demographically.

Hence, instead of trying to impose the unwieldy structure of a permanent coalition for all, a better option is to encourage decentralised coalition-building through non-permanent, contractual coalitions. This means that different regions or states could have their own local coalitions, which may be very different from their own party’s coalition at the federal level.

Such a concept is actually widely practised throughout the world. In Germany, for example, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) forms a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) at the federal level, while the opposition bloc is made up of the Green Party and Die Linke.

However, the configuration is vastly different at the state level. In the state of Brandenburg, the SPD governs in partnership with Die Linke, while in North Rhine-Westphalia, the SPD shares government with the Green Party. Even more interestingly, the state of Hessen currently sees the CDU in a coalition government with the Green Party, an incredible arrangement bearing in mind the two parties come from opposing ideological axes.

Far from being confusing, these flexible and dynamic configurations make a lot of sense, as they reflect the needs and aspirations of the different regions and levels of politics. One may wonder how such coalitions can be held together, especially given the often-contradictory ideology of the parties involved. Simple – because they are not permanent, each coalition is bound by contractual agreements agreed for the duration of a single electoral cycle. These agreements are made public so that the people know exactly what to expect.

Another advantage of such an arrangement is the ability of smaller parties to play an important role without permanently binding themselves to any particular coalition. Take the case of the Free Democratic Party (FDP). While it is a minor player compared to juggernauts like the CDU and the SPD, the FDP has interestingly been in power longer than any other party in Germany. They have achieved this by playing the role of junior coalition partner in both CDU and SPD governments at separate times.

In addition, decentralised coalition-building also means that smaller parties such as Die Linke and the Green Party, though lacking in national strength, are also able to contribute to the governance of various states through forming state-level coalitions, something that would not be possible if they were all part of permanent and centralised coalitions.

Decentralised coalitions are not only more democratic, they are also less polarising. Two-party or two-coalition dichotomies often manifest itself in very antagonistic terms, such as is the case in Malaysia, hence leaving very little room for compromise and cooperation. However, when parties are aware that their opponent today may become their partner tomorrow, there would be an instant, moderating effect.

Are decentralised coalitions relevant for Malaysia?

A natural question that arises when discussing this issue is whether the Malaysian electorate is mature and sophisticated enough to grasp the idea of non-permanent and decentralised coalitions, given that they are so used to the existing framework. I am also often advised that I should not compare Malaysia to Germany, as the latter is an advanced, democratic country.

However, as valid as that concern sounds, I must correct the fallacy. Lest we forget, the whole of Germany has only been democratic for the last 25 years following the collapse of the iron curtain and German reunification in 1990. That said, even the former West Germany had only been democratic since 1949. Prior to that, Germany was the most infamous fascist dictatorship in the modern world.

Furthermore, it is not only advanced countries like Germany that practise decentralised coalitions, but also our neighbours like Indonesia and the Philippines. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest why Malaysians would not be able to comprehend the concept.

Given the demographically diverse make-up of our federation, and the clear differences between the various geographical regions, decentralised coalitions may actually be the most practical and efficient political configuration for our country. Not only would it encourage the formation of regional coalitions that better reflect local aspirations and needs, it would also set the tone for a more progressive and inclusive political landscape.

Hence, in the midst of the on-going political crisis in our country, with the PR dissolved and the BN heading towards implosion, there is much hope and opportunity that a brighter and more democratic future for Malaysia can be forged.

* Zairil Khir Johari is DAP Assistant National Publicity Secretary and the Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 July 2015, 5:45 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hadi is the single cause of the death of Pakatan Rakyat not only for violating  the PR Common Policy Framework and the PR consensus operational principle but trying to be “master” of PR

(Scroll down for English text)

Hadi adalah punca utama kematian Pakatan Rakyat bukan saja kerana mencabul Dasar Bersama dan prinsip muafakat Pakatan Rakyat tetapi juga kerana cuba untuk menjadi “tuan” Pakatan Rakyat

Berat hati saya untuk menyatakan rasa kesal saya yang bersangatan melihat Presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang terus mengulang-ulang propaganda UMNO bahawa DAP mahu menjadi “tuan” ke atas parti lain bagi menyelindungkan pendirian politik baru beliau untuk menjadi pembela terkuat Datuk Seri Najib Razak dalam keadaan para pemimpin dan ahli UMNO sendiri sedang mencari arah baru untuk negara ini.

Sebagai contoh, ketua UMNO Cheras Syed Ali Alhabshee kelmarin menyifatkan pakatan baru pembangkang tidak mampu menggugat UMNO sambil terus menyebarkan pembohongan bahawa gabungan baru berkenaan akan dikuasai oleh DAP seperti mana kononnya DAP dulu menguasai Pakatan Rakyat yang telah berkubur.

Dakwaan yang hampir sama diulang oleh Hadi kelmarin dengan menyebut bahawa golongan yang menghargai perjuangan Islam tidak akan menjadikan DAP sebagai ‘wali’, mengulangi tuduhan UMNO bahawa DAP mahu menjadi “tuan” dalam hubungan “tuan dan hamba” dengan parti-parti politik lain.

Tuduhan itu bukan saja tidak berasas sama sekali, malah ia pembohongan paling keji daripada seorang bekas pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat.

Pakatan Rakyat dulunya hampir menjadi sebuah gabungan politik baru antara kekuatan-kekuatan politik yang hampir setara di kalangan parti yang menjadi anggotanya, berasaskan prinsip muafakat di mana setiap keputusan atau dasar Pakatan perlu dicapai menerusi muafakat ketiga-tiga parti komponen, di mana tidak ada parti atau pemimpin memegang kuasa veto bagi membatalkan keputusan yang telah dicapai secara muafakat oleh pemimpin-pemimpin ketiga-tiga parti komponen.

Justeru tindakan Hadi mencabul Dasar Bersama Pakatan dan prinsip muafakat ini, kerana mahu menjadi “tuan” dalam Pakatan Rakyat, muncul krisis demi krisis dalam Pakatan, iaitu dengan:

1. Mencabul dasar Pakatan Rakyat untuk memastikan pertandingan satu lawan satu menentang Barisan Nasional dalam pilihanraya dengan meletakkan calon-calon PAS pada hari pencalonan untuk bertanding melawan PKR di enam kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke-13, menyebabkan UMNO menang di semua kerusi terbabit.

2. Mengenepikan keputusan Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat pada 17 Ogos 2014, yang dihadiri oleh Timbalan Presiden Mat Sabu bagi pihak Hadi, yang menetapkan Presiden PKR Datuk Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail sebagai Menteri Besar Selangor.

3. Melanggar janjinya sendiri pada mesyuarat Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat pada 8 Februari 2015 bahawa sebarang pindaan ke atas Enakmen Jenayah Syariah Kelantan dan sebarang usul persendirian Ahli Parlimen Pakatan berkenaan pelaksanaan hudud akan terlebih dulu dibentangkan di hadapan Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat.

Cita-cita Hadi untuk menjadi “tuan” dalam Pakatan Rakyat melanggar prinsip asasi Pakatan sebagai sebuah gabungan antara parti-parti yang setara, dimeterai dengan prinsip muafakat dan Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat.

Atas sebab inilah Hadi mengenepikan keputusan Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat untuk melantik Menteri Besar Selangor kerana Azizah seorang wanita.

Malah, Hadi juga tidak bersetuju dengan cadangan untuk menamakan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim sebagai calon dari Pakatan Rakyat untuk kerusi Perdana Menteri.

Tidak berlebihan jika disebut bahawa Hadi adalah punca utama Pakatan Rakyat berkubur, bukan saja kerana mencabul Dasar Bersama dan prinsip muafakat Pakatan Rakyat tetapi juga kerana cuba untuk menjadi “tuan” Pakatan Rakyat, menggunakan kuasa veto bukan saja ke atas Jawatankuasa Pusat PAS tetapi juga Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat.

Konsep politik Hadi, termasuk politik gabungan, sama sekali tidak serasi dengan demokrasi, pluralisme, hak asasi manusia, kepelbagaian budaya, hak wanita serta gagasan pembangunan dan kemodenan.

Saya telah sebutkan kelmarin bahawa terserah kepada Hadi jika beliau mahu membantu memanjangkan hayat politik Datuk Seri Najib Razak sebagai Perdana Menteri di tengah taufan politik skandal 1MDB, tetapi beliau tidak berhak berbohong dan berdusta tentang DAP demi matlamat politik barunya untuk menjadi sahabat sejati Najib yang sedang berdepan tuntutan untuk meletakkan jawatan, termasuk daripada khalayak UMNO.

Setahun yang lalu, saya boleh menyatakan dengan yakin bahawa jika ada usul untuk mengadakan undi terhadap Najib di Parlimen, semua Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat akan mengundi tidak percaya.

Berlainan keadaannya hari ini. Apakah Hadi dan para pendukungnya akan sanggup membuat undi tidak percaya terhadap Najib di Parlimen? Hampir tidak mungkin, melihat kepada pembelaan luar biasa Hadi terhadap Najib.

Setahun yang lalu, tidak diragui lagi bahawa semua Ahli Parlimen Pakatan Rakyat dari DAP, PKR, dan PAS akan seiya-sekata menuntut ketelusan dan kebertanggungjawaban berkenaan skandal 1MDB. Apakah hari ini Hadi dan pengikutnya akan menyokong usul sedemikian di Parlimen?

Hadi boleh mengubah pendirian dan belang politik beliau untuk menjadi pembela Najib yang paling kuat, namun janganlah melakukannya dengan cara mengorbankan kebenaran, keadilan, dan kejujuran dengan mengulang-ulang pembohongan dan pendustaan yang disebarkan UMNO berkenaan DAP.

(Kenyataan Media di Kuala Lumpur, Jumaat, 24 Julai 2015)

———————————————

(English Text)

It is with great reluctance that I have to state my utmost regret that  PAS President, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang is continuing to parrot the baseless UMNO propaganda line that DAP wants to be “master” over other parties to camouflage his new political stand to be Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s stoutest defender at a time when even UMNO leaders and members are looking for new directions for the country.

For instance, the Cheras Umno chief Syed Ali Alhabshee yesterday dismissed the proposed new opposition pact as incapable of posing any threat to Umno’s hold on power, but went on to perpetuate the lie  that the new coalition would  be dominated by DAP alleging that this was the case with the expired Pakatan Rakyat.

This the same line parroted  by Hadi  yesterday, saying that those who appreciate the Islamic struggle will not make DAP their masters, perpetuating the UMNO line that DAP wants to be “master” in a “master-servant” relationship with other political parties and forces.

This is not only utterly baseless and most contemptible falsehood from a former PR leader.

Pakatan Rakyat was to blaze a new coalition politics in Malaysia, based on a coming-together of political equals based on the PR consensus operational principle where every PR decision or policy must be reached by consensus of all three component parties, where no single party or leader holds veto power to override the decision reached by consensus of the leaders of the  three component parties.

It was precisely because Hadi violated not only the PR Common Policy Framework but the consensus operational principle, wanting to be “master” in Pakatan Rakyat that PR went from one crisis to another, viz:

1.	Violating the Pakatan Rakyat policy of promoting a one-to-one electoral contest with Barisan Nasional by despatching  PAS  candidates on Nomination Day to contest against PKR in six state assembly constituencies in the 13th General Elections, causing UMNO candidates to win in all these six seats;

2.	Overruling the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council decision on August 17, 2014 with PAS represented by Deputy President Mat Sabu on behalf of Hadi, that the PKR President Datuk Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail be appointed as Selangor Mentri Besar.

3.	Hadi’s breach of his personal commitment at the PR Leadership Council meeting of Feb. 8, 2015 that any amendment to the 1995 Kelantan Syariah Criminal Enactment and any private member’s bill motion in Parliament on hudud implementation would first be presented to the PR Leadership Council.

Hadi’s ambition to be the “master” in Pakatan Rakyat violates the fundamental principle of PR as a coalition of equals sealed by the operational principle of consensus and the PR Common Policy Framework.

This is the reason why Hadi overruled the PR Leadership Council decision to appoint Azizah as Selangor Mentri Besar on account of her being a woman.

In fact, Hadi also did not agree to the proposal for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to be the  PR candidate for Prime Minister.

It will not be an exaggeration to say that Hadi was the single cause of the death of Pakatan Rakyat because Hadi violated not only the PR Common Policy Framework and the PR consensus operational principle  but wanted to be the “master” of PR, exercising veto and overriding powers not only against the PAS Central Executive but also the PR Leadership Council.

Hadi’s concept of politics, including coalition politics,  is completely incompatible with democracy, pluralism, human rights, cultural diversity, women’s rights and the idea of development and modernity.

I said yesterday that it is Hadi’s prerogative if he wants to provide a life-line to support  Najib and to shore up the Prime Minister  in the gathering storm over the  1MDB scandal, but he has no right to tell lies and falsehoods about the DAP in pursuit of his new political objective to be “a friend in need is a friend indeed” to Najib who faced  mounting calls for his resignation, even coming from UMNO circles.

One year ago, I could state with confidence that if there is a confidence motion on Najib as Prime Minister in Parliament, all the MPs from Pakatan Rakyat would cast a vote of no confidence against Najib.

This is not the position today. Will Hadi and his stalwarts support any such vote of no confidence against Najib in Parliament?  This is unlikely considering Hadi’s extraordinary  defence of Najib.

A year ago, there will be no doubt that all the Pakatan Rakyat MPs from DAP, PKR and PAS would have voted in unison to demand full accountability and transparency into the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal.  Would Hadi and his stalwarts now support such a parliamentary motion?

Hadi can change his political stand and stripes to be the stoutest defender of  Najib but don’t do so as the expense of truth, justice and honesty by parroting UMNO lies and falsehoods against the DAP.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 July 2015, 10:45 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ku Li moots truth and reconciliation initiative to save Malaysia from leadership crisis

The Malaysiann Insider

23 July 2015

As Malaysia grapples with a national leadership crisis, Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah today said he plans to start a new reconciliation initiative involving Malay and non-Malay non-governmental leaders as well as civil society groups.

The Gua Musang MP, popularly known as Ku Li, said the worsening situation that was caused by allegations of financial impropriety against the country’s leadership, now called for efforts to reconcile and find solutions for the country’s future.

He said he would a start a “Truth, Reconciliation and Healing initiative” to seek solution to the current leadership crisis.

“Since the current leadership crisis involves mainly the Malay community, which is deeply divided, I would like to start and focus my consultative process with Malay leaders and relevant Malay organisations.

“But the fallout of the crisis also affects the non-Malays and in fact, the entire country, so I would also like to engage with non-Malay politicians and relevant civil society NGOs,” he said in a statement.

Ku Li said the initiative was needed to prevent the country from sliding into further “self destruction”.

“Something must be done quickly to prevent the country from descending further into civil chaos and conflict.”

He also described Malaysia’s leadership crisis as the result of “serious allegations of financial impropriety against the Prime Minister and calls for him to step down”.

“The crisis is further undermining the Malaysian economy which is already facing external and global challenges.”

Although he did not mention specific examples, Ku Li’s remarks about a national leadership crisis comes as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is faced with allegations that US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) was deposited into his personal bank accounts from entities related to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

1MDB has also allegedly committed financial wrongdoing and has put Najib in the spotlight as the finance minister and chairman of the state investment firm’s advisory board.

Najib is facing calls to resign, led by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Ku Li said the leadership crisis had begun to divert attention away from governance and socio-economic development.

“Investors’ confidence is low and many businesses are suffering. The signs of the times are not good for ordinary people.”

Appealing for support for his reconciliation effort, Ku Li said the “destructive infighting” among the leadership must stop so that focus could be returned to ensuring the well-being of citizens and the country. – July 23, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 July 2015, 6:16 am and is filed under
Malaysian Dream
,
Razaleigh Hamzah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The least Abdul Rahman should do as BN strategic communications director is to get Najib to declare at the PM’s birthday bash tonight  where the RM2.6 billion in his personal bank accounts in AmBank in March 2013 came from and to whom and where they have gone to

Minister for Urban Well-being, Housing and Local Government, Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan will be guilty of the greatest national disservice if the sole agenda of his appointment as Barisan Nasional Strategic Communications Director is to distract attention from Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) July 2 report that Malaysian government investigators have found US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) deposited into the  Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal accounts in AmBank in 2013 just before the 13th General Election instead of helping to establish the facts of the Prime Minister’s alleged RM2.6 billion personal accounts.

Since his sudden appearance  as BN Strategic Communications Director the previous Wednesday, Rahman had got so much eggs on his face, and  on a daily basis, that it is virtually impossible to find a centimeter on his face which is not egg-splattered – whether because of Rahman’s “God-send” Lester Melyani; Lester’s utterly discredited video confession even before all the parts had been aired publicly;  the crazy and counter-productive notion for Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to block access to Sarawak Report (forcing Malaysians to undergo an instant education of how to circumvent official Internet blocks) or the  hyping of patriotic and valiant efforts to pry open the RM42 billion 1MDB financial scandal whether by journalists in the Edge or by  MPs like Tony Pua and Rafizi Ramli as offences like “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”, sabotage, “toppling the elected government” or even treason!

The least Abdul Rahman should do as BN strategic communications director is to get Najib to declare at the PM’s birthday bash tonight  where the RM2.6 billion in his personal bank accounts in AmBank in March 2013 came from and to whom and where they have gone to.

Abdul Rahman, as BN strategic communications director, should advise the Prime Minister not only of the enormous cost to his image and reputation, both nationally as well as internationally, but also to the Federal Government and nation  in his failing  to say a simple Yes or No in more than three weeks of the WSJ expose of his RM2.6 billion personal bank accounts at AmBank in March 2013 just before the 13th General Election.

After all, Rahman had been yelling “Don’t shoot the messenger” since last Wednesday, and he should put his shouts into practice.

As BN Strategic Communications Director, Rahman should have the courage to  advise the Prime Minister that his repeated refrain in the past three weeks that he had not taken funds for personal gain and Tun Mahathir’s blog “Conspiracy” on 20th July 2015 could only mean  Najib’s implicit admission about the  RM2.6 billion in his personal accounts and  that there were not used for his personal gain but for 13GE campaigning.

Rahman should advise Najib that his reputation as “Father of Transformation” in Malaysia will be irreparably damaged if he continues to keep dumb on the WSJ report, and his birthday bash tonight will be a most ideal occasion for him to make a clean breast of the matter, including issuing an inventory of all the amounts of payment and receipients for a full accounting for the outlay of RM2.6 billion from his personal bank accounts in AmBank in March 2013.

As all Ministers should attend tonight’s birthday bash by the Prime Minister, the event is also an ideal occasion for every Minister to declare whether he or she had been a receipient of the funds from Najib’s personal bank accounts for the purposes of the 13th general election, the amount received and the amount spent, and what has happened to the balance if there are outstanding sums.

Making public an inventory of all the receipients and amount of payments made out from the RM2.6 billion personal accounts may be tricky, as it will immediately raise questions whether there had been any pocketing of such funding or whether there had been a  full payout to all the intended beneficiaries downstream  – but these are risks and problems that will have to be faced if we want an open, accountable and transparent inventory of all the amounts paid out from Najib’s RM2.6 billion personal accounts in 2013.

Lets hope that there will be important news from  the Prime Minister’s birthday bash tonight. In fact, I understand there will  be a battle of two birthday bashes tonight!Lim Kit Siang

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 July 2015, 2:22 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Useless watchdogs, Tinju Dunia and 1MDB

Rama Ramanathan

The Malaysian Insider

23 July 2015

“It would appear… [that] Cerberus, the mythological three-headed hound guarding the gates of Hell, virtually guided and controlled the destinies of the Bank and held its fortunes in [the hands of the 3 accused]. The analogy is perhaps not inappropriate in view of the canine element injected into these proceedings, what with references to watchdogs, toothless, barkless, spineless, chained and all, Government or otherwise, and not forgetting the Press hounds.”

That quote is from Justice Abdoolcader’s 1976 judgment (upheld on appeal in 1978) at the conclusion of the 2 months long trial of Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris & 2 others.

Abdoolcader explicated various aspects of the law. And, in ripe words, he caricatured the so-called watchdogs: toothless, barkless, spineless, chained.

The case concerns crimes committed in 1975, in the Tun Razak era. Abdoolcader spelled out the political culture in Umno and the slovenliness of the watchdogs: at best wilful ignorance and at worst deliberate disregard for the law. Note: The judgment doesn’t implicate Tun Razak.

Tinju Dunia Sdn Bhd was the vehicle Harun used for Umno Youth to bring the Muhammad Ali-Joe Bugner fight to Malaysia. Harun was at that time president of Umno Youth and (non-salaried) chairman of Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad.

Malaysia was in recession. The government was low on funds. Razak wanted to do something to cheer the nation. A decision was made to host the Ali-Bugner fight. It had to happen within three months. The government couldn’t finance it, but offered to cover losses if any were incurred. And, as a sweetener, the government would exempt any profits from tax.

Umno had no money. Tinju Dunia was a two dollar company which was still a gleam in the eyes of its shareholders to-be. Money had be quickly wired to the USA to book the fight. What was to be done?

Of the seven eventual directors of Tinju Dunia, five were employees of Bank Rakyat and two were members of Umno Youth. Harun was managing director.

The trio, Bank Rakyat’s chairman, managing director and general manager/secretary – the latter two were shareholders in Tinju Dunia – collaborated to “borrow” assets of Bank Rakyat and use them as collateral to obtain a loan of RM6.5 million from First National City Bank.

The problem was, as a cooperative, Bank Rakyat could not use the stocks as collateral without the explicit agreement of its board of directors and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

In Abdoolcader’s judgment, the trio were aided by “the apathy and acquiescence of the directors, including the Government watchdogs or official sentinels or whatever and not excluding even the Registrar of Cooperative Societies himself” and representatives of the Treasury.

The trio concocted a document which created the fiction that the decision to use the stocks as collateral was properly authorized. Abdoolcader said the document, the central exhibit in the case, “would easily qualify for an academy award for court exhibits if there was one on the basis of the renown and publicity it has received.”

Blazing with rage at the extent and magnitude of lapses, the judge wrote of “a grotesque picture of passive connivance on the part of the directors in all these irregular and indeed unlawful activities.”

During the trial it even emerged that Datuk Abu Mansor bin Mohamed Basir, the managing director of Bank Rakyat, carried out his own private business which had some conflict with that of his employer: “[Abu Mansor] was a shareholder in Aman Properties Sendirian Berhad which was acquired by Rakyat Corporation of which he was the Managing Director and as a result the shareholders of Aman Properties obtained a profit of about $1.2 million out of which he personally made a clean profit of some $200,000 which apparently was never disclosed to the Bank.”

The judge didn’t have an ounce of sympathy for Abu Mansor, but had some sympathy for Harun.

During sentencing Abdoolcader said to Harun: “If a soldier stood before me to receive sentence I would have to take into consideration the service he has rendered to the country. Likewise, in your case I cannot efface consideration of the services you have in the past rendered.”

But the judge was very clear about what was at stake. He would excuse no one.

Not averse to quoting himself, he wrote: “No one is above the law, and I would repeat what I said in my judgment in Mak Sik Kwong v Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia (No 2) [1975] 2 MLJ 175 182 that ours is a system of law which no expediency can warp and no power can abuse with impunity.”

Abdoolcader characterized the case as “a grotesque picture of passive connivance.” 40 years on, so is 1MDB. – July 23, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 July 2015, 6:31 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


With three-month suspension of The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily, Malaysia in free fall to become a failed state

Three days ago, I warned: “A darkness is descending on Malaysia.”

Two days ago, DAP MP for Petaling Jaya Utara Tony Pua was barred from leaving the country to fly to Yogyakarta, Indonesia and may be investigated under the new-fangled offence of “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” which could send him to jail up to 20 years.

Today, the Home Ministry suspended the publishing permit of The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily for three months from July 27, for reporting on the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal which were regarded by the Najib premiership as “prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to public order, security or likely to alarm public opinion or is likely to be prejudicial to public and national interest”.

Darkness is swiftly descending in Malaysia.

Malaysia has become a topsy-turvy world.

It is freedom of speech, thought and expression, and the freedom of the press, which are the sine qua non of a free society and a fully developed nation.

It is not such freedoms but corruption, abuses of power and avarice which are prejudicial to public and national interests.

After spearheading  six years of National Transformation Programme, Malaysia of Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been “transformed” into a country where the expose of the  biggest financial scandal in Malaysia, the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, and not the 1MDB scandal which has become “prejudicial to public and national interest”.

More than three weeks after the Wall Street Journal report and allegation that US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) had been deposited into Najib’s personal bank accounts in AmBank in March 2013 just before the 13th General Election, not one of the three enforcement agencies in the “special task force”, namely Bank Negara Malaysia, the Royal Malaysian Police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, had yet  interviewed Najib himself.

Instead of going on leave until the outcome of an investigation by independent and respected Malaysians who are not subordinate and answerable to the Prime Minister, we have Najib remaining in office to “mastermind” the counter-attack against all those who had sought to pry upon the 1MDB scandal and to ensure that the “special task force” set up to investigate into the WSJ report on July 2 and the 1MDB scandal would clear him of any wrongdoing – and Najib had no hesitation in announcing such a result at the early stage of inquiry by the “special task force”.

With the latest assaults on press freedom, Malaysia is plunging to the bottom of the  World Press Freedom Index, when we had already fallen to a historic low of 147th out of 180 countries, a 25-point drop from 122nd ranking in 2012.

Is there  light at the end of the tunnel?

Is it possible to save Malaysia from a  free fall to become a failed state?

These are  questions which the birthday bash for the Prime Minister would not waste time on, for it is a night for celebration – but these two questions should be sombre food for thought for another birthday bash tonight for the  person who had previously caused darkness to descend in Malaysia, whether he  could now help save Malaysia from the free fall of becoming a failed state.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 24 July 2015, 6:39 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Mahathir
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Are we allowed to ask what happened to 1MDB?

Zan Azlee

The Malaysian Insider

24 July 2015

Malaysia is being plagued by one of its biggest scandals and it is even getting significant attention from the international community. You know it – the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal.

Sure, it’s a difficult issue for a lot of people to understand, me included. Complicated financial transactions and business negotiations can confuse a lot of people, even the experts.

But as the case develops and more media agencies cover the unfolding story, people understand it better and better. And when people start understanding it better, the more questions get asked.

It is a simple check and balance that is afforded to the people via a system called democracy. And that isn’t as complicated to understand as the 1MDB scandal.

Of course it is very clear to everyone that investigations are underway and that no accusations are being brandied around, as that would be defamatory and wrong.

But what can and should be accepted is the act that people have the right to question as to what has happened to cause such a stir in the first place.

And these people include the public as a whole, opposition politicians, the media and whatever authorities or investigating party that is given the responsibility to do so.

At the end of the day, it is the public’s money and hence, that makes the case of public and national interest, and as the government of the day, that means they need to answer.

One step is already correct – that investigations have been launched by the authorities to find out the truth as to what has happened. Of course, it has to be perceived as independent.

What shouldn’t be happening is for those who ask the question to be subjected to persecution and intimidation, as is what seems to be happening now.

It is surprising to see how those who have raised questions pertaining the 1MDB scandal have become subjects to investigations themselves.

How come the people who are the most vocal calling for the government to answer are the ones who are as if being put on trial and even being barred from traveling outside of the country?

How is it that news organisations are being threatened with legal action for asking for answers that the public has a right to know? Isn’t that the natural responsibility of their existence?

How is it that those who are supposed to be giving the answers to the questions are the ones who are accusing those who are questioning of having intentions to destabilise the country?

Of course it doesn’t help that the government is being perceived as not wanting to give straight and transparent answers to all the questions that is being asked.

Actually, the mechanics of it is very simple to understand. Those who are in government serve the people and when the people ask questions, they need to provide the answers.

Now, doubt exists in the action that has been taken by those in government and so the questions are asked. Isn’t that simple and valid?

So who is it in this whole chain of events that is really the cause of the de-stability of the country? Is it those who asked the questions or those who refuse to answer? – July 24, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 July 2015, 5:57 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Based on reasons given by Home Ministry for 3-month suspension of The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily, will 1MDB become a new “sensitive” issue which will attract the full weight of  Najib’s law if discussed or mentioned?

The Home Ministry’s secretary-general, Alwi Ibrahim has given  three reasons for suspending The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily for three months, from July 27.

Firstly, the headings and reporting by the two publications has raised questions and created negative public perceptions towards 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and also implicated the government and national leaders.

Secondly, the published news reports were based on doubtful and unverified information, which might alarm public opinion and could/might be prejudicial to public order and national interest.

Thirdly, the 1MDB issue is being investigated by an investigation team that has been set up. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the reporting (on the issue) to create negative perceptions and done continuously, and it is unfair for 1MDB and consequently for the government and national leaders.

Based on the reasons given by Home Ministry for the three-month suspension of The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily, will 1MDB become a new “sensitive” issue which will attract the full weight of  Najib’s law if discussed or mentioned?

Talking about being “unfair” for 1MDB, the government and national leaders, has the Home Ministry secretary-general ever thought about unfairness, in fact injustice, to Malaysia and the 30 million Malaysians caused:

Firstly, by the failure of the Prime Minister and the Umno/BN Government to give full accounting on the 1MDB scandal in the past five years and in particular Najib’s failure to give a simple Yes or No to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report of July 2 that US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) had been deposited into Najib’s personal banking account in AmBank in March 2013 just before the 13th General Election, where the money came from and where to whom they had gone to – as Najib had implicitly confirmed the RM2.6 billion deposits with his repeated statement that he had never taken funds for personal gain; and

Secondly, the unprecedented spectre of a Cabinet which is tainted by the 1MDB scandal because the Cabinet or the majority of the Cabinet Ministers had received improper funding from these personal accounts of the Prime Minister for the 13th General Election funding, disqualifying them from participating in any Cabinet discussion or decision on 1MDB scandal because of confrict-of-interest;’ and

Thirdly, reducing Malaysia into an international joke all because of the 1MDB scandal with a quartet of four violations of fundamental rights, viz, violating Internet freedom with the blocking of the Sarawak Report website and breach of  Malaysia’s Bill of Guarantee of “No Internet Censorhip”; Violating freedom of movement by banning two patriotic MPs who had done great national service in trying to pry open the 1MDB scandal from leaving the country; violating the freedom of the press with the suspension of two publications for its articles on the 1MDB scandal although not a single article on 1MDB in these publications had ever been challenged for its veracity; and serious human rights violation in unprecedented invocation of  the new-fangled offence of “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy”, when everybody inside and outside the country knows that the authorities are in fact undermining and not protecting parliamentary democracy in Malaysia.

In other parliamentary democracies, where the doctrine of separation of powers are honoured not by the breach, government actions to restrict the freedom of movement of MPs or to intimidate MPs by accusing them of “activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy” which could send patriotic and conscientious MPs to jail for up t5o 20 years, would have set off titanic battle between Parliament and the Executive.

Is the Malaysian Parliament so cowed and supine that the Executive can ride roughshod over the most sacred of parliamentary traditions and conventions?

This is why I am seeking an appointment with the Parliament Speaker, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin on how to mobilise both national and international opinion to defend Parliament and protect MPs from such insidious and nefarious Executive attacks on parliamentary privileges.

One thought that struck me when I read the Home Ministry’s reasons for suspending The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily – why Utusan Malaysia had not been closed down long ago, as it had repeatedly and unrepentantly published not only “doubtful and unverified information”, but downright lies and falsehoods, to alarm public opinion and cause prejudice to public order and national interest.

Why one law for Utusan Malaysia and another law for the Edge publications?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 July 2015, 9:12 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


For truth’s sake, don’t hound the heroes

By Kee Thuan Chye

Malaysiakini

Jul 24, 2015

COMMENT
 Counter-measures to discredit the credibility of citizens and media organisations making allegations against Prime Minister Najib Razak and 1MDB are sick and getting out of hand.

And the reported latest action of limiting the movements of a few concerned citizens who have been in the thick of exposing what might be terribly wrong with 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) appears to be sinister.

It also prompts the public to make connections – rightly or wrongly – between this latest measure and related incidents that have occurred in the last couple of months.

These include the arrest of former PetroSaudi International director Xavier Andre Justo in Thailand; the hoax perpetrated by the fictitious NGO Citizens for Accountable Governance Malaysia (CAGM) to entrap Malaysian online media and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ); and the allegation made by former Sarawak Tribune editor Lester Melanyi of opposition leaders having colluded with Sarawak Report to tamper with 1MDB documents.

The inference one could make from all this is that some forces are doing their darnedest – and, in the process, sinking to the lowest depths – to tamper with the truth regarding 1MDB.

It begs questioning, too, that Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar appears to favour Lester’s allegation that “there are those who are attempting to overthrow the government through undemocratic means”.

Khalid has even said that the people named by Lester could be arrested.

Why would Khalid give more credence to Lester, a man who has admitted to The Malay Mail Online that he was paid to expose the so-called conspiracy, than the reports published by The Edge, Sarawak Report and WSJ alleging corruption and dirty dealings?

Are the arrests hinted at now pending?

Are the arrests, Khalid hinted at already pending, now that at least four main people who have been in the forefront of exposing 1MDB’s dubious activities are reportedly being investigated under Section 124 of the Penal Code and barred from travelling outside of Malaysia?

The four – DAP’s Tony Pua, PKR’s Rafizi Ramli, The Edge Media Group owner Tong Kooi Ong and its CEO Ho Kay Tat – are supposedly being investigated for allegedly indulging in activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy. If found guilty, they could face a maximum jail term of 20 years.

This sounds like repression, intimidation, and a sick joke. Because, when you consider what these people have stood for, borne out by their ideas, actions and words publicly expressed over the course of many years, you’d laugh at the notion that they would do anything to harm our democracy.

In fact, barring them from moving about freely, as guaranteed in the Federal Constitution is what harms parliamentary democracy.

I know Kay Tat personally, having been his colleague at the New Straits Times Group for several years, and can vouch for his professionalism as a journalist and his concern for doing the right thing for Malaysia. He sure as hell is not one to cause harm to the basic foundation of our nation.

The real people doing damage to it appear instead to be those who want to suppress the truth about 1MDB.

They, too, are the ones who would invest in efforts that incur a waste of energy, public funds, and time for the purpose of confusing the public.

If we are a democracy, let the truth come out. That’s the way it should be. That’s what those four good men are after.

All it takes is fair investigations

All it takes is for the investigations into the entire 1MDB mess and the allegations against it and Najib to be carried out fairly and impartially. And also for Najib to come out and convince us that the allegations against him are false, if they are.

He has not even said if the report by WSJ of US$700 million having been deposited into his private accounts is false. His silence implies the allegation is true, and if that is so, he could be charged with corruption and abuse of power.

But meanwhile, the manhunt is focused instead on high officials of 1MDB’s subsidiary companies and those of a company used as a conduit to transfer the alleged funds to Najib’s accounts. This appears more like going after scapegoats with the hope that prosecuting them eventually would be enough to appease the Malaysian public.

I don’t think that would be enough, though. I think the Malaysian public would not be satisfied until their prime minister is cleared of suspicion.

I also think that any attempt to kill the messengers and persecute the whistleblowers would be unjust. Any attempt to convince the public that the messengers and whistleblowers are part of a conspiracy to topple Najib would be heinous.

Pua, Rafizi, Tong and Ho should therefore not be investigated, least of all barred from leaving the country. DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang is right in calling them “patriots”. They are the real heroes in bringing us the truth about 1MDB.

We must support these heroes. They need us now, more than ever, to help them accomplish their noble quest.

When a nation persecutes its heroes – citizens who want what is good and right for the country – it is sick. It is damned. It is doomed.

We must not let our nation become that. We must speak out against repressive measures taken to intimidate citizens who mean well for the country. We must show our disapproval.

We must demand justice, decency and the truth. If we want to save our country, we have no other choice.

KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of the bestselling books No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians and Can We Save Malaysia, Please!

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 July 2015, 6:26 am and is filed under
Malaysian Dream
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hard Realities of Malaysian Politics – Hadi will again by “played out” by Najib in the next Parliamentary meeting as Hadi’s private member’s bill motion on hudud will not see the light of day as Najib has already achieved his objective of breaking up Pakatan Rakyat

I am shocked by the downright dishonesty of the PAS President, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang in continuing to accuse the DAP of wanting to grab political power for the Chinese as the reason why DAP wanted to restore local government elections and the break-up of Pakatan Rakyat.

I have just seen the video of Hadi’s interview with Channel News Asia (CNA) where he accused the DAP of violating the “morals” of Pakatan Rakyat and of wanting to grab political power for the Chinese in wanting to restore local government elections.

I am both shocked and saddened that a former Pakatan Rakyat leader could be reduced to a level to  tell such a lie, which is a most immoral act for any top political leader.

When UMNO spread lies about the DAP, top UMNO leaders stay out of the picture, leaving  the dirty work to their propagandists and low-level political characters.

 But in PAS, it is the PAS President himself who is actively spreading such UMNO lies and falsehoods!

One can be charitable and excuse Hadi for suffering from short memories, as it is a blatant lie for anyone to accuse the  DAP of launching a grab for political power by the Chinese in our demand for the restoration of the third vote, allegedly at the expense of the Malays on the ground that 60 per cent of the state assembly seats in the country are already under the DAP control.

Such lies are most preposterous and nonsensical for six reasons:

(i) DAP does not control 60% of the state assembly seats, as all the three Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PKR and PAS (until PR was killed at the PAS Muktamar on June 3) did not even win 50% of the total state assembly seats in the 13th General Election. The total number and percentage of state assembly seats won by the three PR parties in the 13GE are 229 seats or 45% of the total of 505 state assembly seats in the country.

(ii) The DAP had never been a party for the Chinese or any one race or religion, as right from our establishment nearly 50 years ago, DAP had been committed to the goal of being a party for Malaysians of all races and religions. In fact, DAP is the first Pan-Malaysian political party in Malaysia, with branches in all the states in the country.

(iii) Restoration of local government had been the objective of DAP ever since our formation in 1966.

(iv) It is utterly misleading and irresponsible to suggest that restoration of local council elections would benefit the Chinese at the expense of the Malays.  It ignores the local government restructuring and the process of Malay urbanization in the past five decades, resulting in Malaysia having 148 local authorities, about 90% of which have Malay majorities of over 50% of the population, while only two per cent or three of the 148 local authorities have Chinese majorities, leaving a balance of 13 with plurality of races, seven of which are Chinese-dominant and six Malay-dominant.

(v)  It is the height of irresponsibility of accuse advocates of local government elections as “chauvinist” or “communist”, as local government elections are also held in Indonesia, Turkey and Iran. Surely Hadi is not suggesting that Presidents Jokowi of Indonesia  and Erdogan of Turkey and former Iranian President Ahmadnejad are “communist” and “chauvinist” for their success at local government elections?

(vi)  the allegation DAP had violated PR “morals” in unilaterally and arbitrarily seeking the restoration of the third vote in violation of Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework is baseless. In actual fact, the restoration of local government elections was in both the Pakatan Rakyat national manifesto and the Selangor PR state manifesto for the 13th General Elections.

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

I am sad to see Hadi resorting to UMNO lies and falsehoods to demonise the DAP, when he should know in his association with the DAP in the Pakatan Rakyat for seven years that  these allegations were  downright lies and falsehoods.

Even worse, Hadi tried to foment division and disunity in DAP, alleging that “some DAP leaders” and “state leaders” disagreed with the DAP national leadership and that the relationship of the PAS leaders with these DAP leaders are still “intact”.

Hadi is entitled to his hallucinations as there is not going to be any “witch-hunt” or “wild goose’ chase” in the DAP  as a result of Hadi’s mischievous insinuations.

What is more important is for everyone to recognise the hard realities of Malaysian politics.

Hard Reality One
 – Pakatan Rakyat (PR) would have been wiped out in the next general election if Pakatan Rakyat had contested the next polls in total disregard of the violation of the PR Common Policy Framework by PAS, making  hudud  a controversial issue in the election campaign.

In fact, if there had been a violation of the PR Common Policy Framework before the 13th General Election, with hudud as a controversial issue, the results on May 5, 2013 would have  been very different –  as  PR would have lost the Selangor state government which would have reverted  back to UMNO/Barisan Nasional while at the national level, UMNO/BN would have regained  parliamentary two-thirds majority with far-reaching long-term political consequences.

In such circumstances of the violation of the PR Common Policy Framework in the 13GE, the effect among Malay voters would be negligible, but the effect on non-Malay support would be quite devastating, leading to a loss of non-Malay voter support of  up to 20%.

Assuming an increase of 1% Malay support and decrease of 20% support among non-Malay voters in the 13th General Election, the ensuing political scenario on both the national and various state  scenes in Peninsular Malaysia  would be far-reaching, as shown by the following scenarios:

State by State GE13 Projections if Hudud had been an election issue

Scenarios

Support for Opposition

New Scenario

Malay

+1%

Non Malay

-20%

Summary by State

        GE13

        New Scenario

        Summary Parliament

        PAS

        PKR

        DAP

        PAS

        PKR

        DAP

        PERLIS

        0

        0

        0

        0

        0

        0

        KEDAH

        1

        4

        0

        0

        0

        0

        KELANTAN

        9

        0

        0

        9

        0

        0

        TERENGGANU

        4

        0

        0

        4

        0

        0

        PULAU PINANG

        0

        3

        7

        0

        2

        7

        PAHANG

        1

        2

        1

        0

        1

        0

        SELANGOR

        4

        9

        4

        2

        4

        4

        W.P. KUALA LUMPUR

        0

        4

        5

        0

        0

        5

        NEGERI SEMBILAN

        0

        1

        2

        0

        0

        1

        MELAKA

        0

        1

        1

        0

        0

        1

        JOHOR

        0

        1

        4

        0

        0

        0

        TOTAL

        21

        28

        31

        16

        7

        21

        GE13

        New Scenario

        Summary Parliament

        PAS

        PKR

        DAP

        PAS

        PKR

        DAP

        PERLIS

        1

        1

        0

        0

        0

        0

        KEDAH

        9

        4

        2

        5

        1

        0

        KELANTAN

        32

        1

        0

        34

        0

        0

        TERENGGANU

        14

        1

        0

        14

        0

        0

        PULAU PINANG

        1

        10

        19

        1

        7

        17

        PERAK

        5

        5

        18

        1

        2

        14

        PAHANG

        3

        2

        7

        2

        0

        2

        SELANGOR

        15

        14

        15

        5

        5

        11

        NEGERI SEMBILAN

        0

        3

        11

        0

        0

        6

        MELAKA

        1

        0

        6

        0

        0

        3

        JOHOR

        4

        1

        13

        0

        0

        4

        TOTAL

        85

        42

        91

        62

        15

        57

Under such  scenarios, instead of winning a total of 89 Parliamentary seats or 40% of the total parliamentary seats, PR’s parliamentary score would have been slashed to 53 seats (44 in Peninsular plus 9 in Sarawak/Sabah) seats or 24%, with the UMNO/BN coalition regaining two-thirds parliamentary majority, enabling it to redelineate electoral constituencies to perpetuate its undemocratic hold on political power.

At the State Assembly level, the 229 State Assembly seats in Peninsular Malaysia won by Pakatan  Rakyat would have been slashed by 42% to 134 State Assembly seats.

Although PR would retain Penang state government with 25 State Assembly seats (DAP 17, PKR 7, PAS 1) as compared to the 13GE total of 30 (DAP 19, PKR 10, PAS 1) , the Selangor state government would be lost back to Umno/Barisan, with the 13GE result of 44 PR seats (DAP 15, PAS 15, PKR 14) slashed to 21 (DAP 11, PAS 5, PKR 5).

The results in the other West Coast states would have been equally devastating.

In Johore, instead of the breakthrough winning 18 PR State Assembly seats (DAP 13, PAS 4, PKR 1) in the 13th General Election, the state  would revert back  to a “fixed deposit” state, with PR winning only 4 state assembly seats – all from DAP with nil seats for both PKR and PAS.

In Perak, the PR score of 28 state assembly seats (DAP 18, PKR 5, PAS 5)  in May 2013 would be slashed to 17 (DAP 14, PKR 2, PAS 1);  in Pahang, the PR  total of 12 seats (DAP 7, PAS 3, PKR 2) reduced to 4 (DAP 2, PAS 2, PKR 0); in Negri Sembilan, PR’s score of 14 (DAP 11, PKR 3, PAS 0) reduced to 6 (DAP 6, PKR 0, PAS 0); and  in Malacca, from 7 (DAP 6, PAS 1, PKR 0) reduced to 3 (DAP 3, PAS 0, PKR 0).

If Hadi had violated the PR Common Policy Framework before the last general election  and hudud had been a controversial election issue in the 13th General Election, PAS would have been completely  wiped out in Johore,   Malacca and Perlis, reduced to only 1 State Assembly seat in Perak, 2 in Pahang and 5 each in Selangor and Kedah – only maintaining their positions in Kelantan and Terengganu.

Hard Reality Two:
  In the next 14GE, PAS may lose Kelantan which it had governed for 15 year since 1990, as all that is needed is a 4% swing of votes in the state against PAS in Kelantan.

Hard Reality Three:
 It will be a major mistake to dismiss the possibility of PAS losing Kelantan state government in the next general election with a 4% swing of votes against PAS, as there was a 15% swing of voters against PAS in Terengganu in the 2004 general election, sweeping out the Terengganu PAS State government after only one term of Hadi as Terengganu Mentri Besar.

Hard Reality Four:
 Hadi will again by “played out” by Najib in the next Parliamentary meeting as Hadi’s private member’s bill motion on hudud will not see the light of day as Najib has already achieved his objective of breaking up Pakatan Rakyat.

Artikel ini juga boleh didapati dalam Bahasa Malaysia di:
https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2015/07/25/kenyataan-pahit-politik-malaysia-hadi-sekali-lagi-akan-dipermainkan-oleh-najib-pada-persidangan-parlimen-akan-datang-kerana-usul-rang-undang-undang-persendirian-berkenaan-h/

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 July 2015, 11:44 am and is filed under
DAP
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.