Nik Aziz dianggap liberal dalam usaha pecah tembok perkauman, kata pemimpin PAS

The Malaysian Insider

18 February 2015

Sebelum sebahagian pemimpin dilabelkan sebagai liberal dan mengamalkan pluralisme agama, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, mursyidul am PAS yang meninggal dunia Khamis lepas, terlebih dahulu menerima label sedemikian, kata Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

Pengarah Pusat Penyelidikan PAS itu berkata, golongan agamawan, sama ada dari luar mahupun dalam parti PAS sendiri, tidak memahami strategi siasah dan pendekatan dakwah Nik Aziz dalam memecahkan tembok perkauman dan agama di negara ini.

“Hanya dengan ilmu yang mengizinkan Tok Guru meneroka dan merentas keluasan siasah dan dakwah serta faham batas-batasnya,” kata Dr Dzulkefly dalam satu tulisan sempena mengingati pemergian Nik Aziz, yang juga dikenali dengan panggilan Tok Guru, pada usia 84 tahun minggu lalu.

Label itu katanya, diterima Nik Aziz kerana orang tidak memahami pendekatannya yang luar biasa dalam menangani masyarakat plural dan pelbagai agama dan kaum di negara ini.

“Tok Guru tidak takut dikritik keras ketika hadir menziarahi kematian Sami Buddha yang terkemuka.

“Tok Guru menghadiri tempat ibadat seperti Tok Kong dan keramaian budaya di restoran-restoran besar di kalangan kaum Tionghua meskipun terdapat arak serta hidangan yang kurang ‘menyenangkan’ di mata masyarakat umat Islam,” katanya memberi contoh yang amalan Nik Aziz sama seperti Hassan Al-Banna, pengasas Ikhwanul Muslimin yang melazimi anak muda Mesir di pusat-pusat hiburan di bandar-bandar di Kaherah.

“Bahkan, Tok Guru dikatakan memberi keutamaan meraikan program seumpama ini, seandainya bertembung dengan perihal pentadbiran yang lain,” katanya mengimbau kembali kepimpinan Nik Aziz semasa hayatnya.

Dr Dzulkefly berkata, bekas menteri besar Kelantan itu kerap memulakan ucapannya di hadapan kaum Tionghua dengan ayat-ayat al-Quran yang relevan dan sesuai dengan tujuan dakwahnya.

Contohnya, beliau sering mengungkapkan ayat 13 Surah Hujurat yang menekankan hakikat yang manusia datang daripada datuk dan moyang yang sama iaitu Adam dan Hawa.

“Itu biasa. Tetapi apabila Tok Guru tekankan, bukan sahaja kita bersaudara, tetapi acap kali didengari beliau menggunakan kalimat ‘kita ini adik beradik’. Itu satu yang ajaib dan istimewa,” katanya yang sangat tertarik dengan pendekatan dakwah Nik Aziz sehingga beliau diterima semua pihak.

Sebelum ini, ketua pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dilabelkan sebagai liberal dan mengamalkan pluralisme agama. Menjelang muktamar tahunan PAS Jun ini, sebahagian pemimpin parti Islam itu pula turut dilabelkan sedemikian rupa.

Kesan pendekatan Nik Aziz dengan masyarakat bukan Islam selama ini, beliau diiktiraf DAP sebagai tokoh semua kaum dan agama.

Setiausaha Agung DAP Lim Guan Eng ketika memberikan ucapan di majlis pengebumiannya menyifatkan  Nik Aziz sebagai tokoh yang bukan saja disanjung oleh umat Islam dalam dan luar negara tetapi juga disanjung orang bukan Islam.

Ketua menteri Pulau Pinang itu berkata, kehidupan ‘sempoi’ (serba sederhana) dan bersih Nik Aziz akan diingati semua pihak sampai bila-bila.

“Saya masih ingat, ketika kita tawan lima negeri dalam pilihan raya 2008, kami semua memandang kepada Tok Guru Nik Aziz untuk meminta panduan dan nasihat,” katanya sebak, merujuk kepada Nik Aziz yang menjadi menteri besar selama 18 tahun ketika Lim dan pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat (PR) lain dilantik sebagai ketua menteri dan menteri besar.

Bagi Dr Dzulkefly, persoalan yang perlu dihalusi ialah, mengapa Nik Aziz mengambil pendekatan untuk benar-benar mendampingi kaum Tionghua, sehingga negara luar yang pertama dilawati sebaik sahaja menjadi menteri besar Kelantan pada 1990 ialah China.

“Mengapakah Tok Guru mengizinkan ‘kalimah Allah’ digunakan penganut agama lain sementara wujud golongan agamawan yang bertegas tidak mengizinkan?” soal AJK PAS pusat itu dalam tulisannya.

Terdahulu, katanya,  ramai masih ingat pelbagai reaksi dan kontroversi terhadap usaha Nik Aziz  membina masjid yang reka binanya berbentuk bumbung pagoda, sehingga mendapat jolokan Masjid Cina.

“Mungkin ada masjid seperti ini lebih awal di negara ini, tetapi tatkala Tok Guru membinanya, beliau punya matlamat yang jelas dalam siasah dan dakwahnya bagi menambat hati kaum Tionghua dan meredakan prejudis terhadap Islam.

“Kerap Tok Guru menekankan, kaum Cina lebih dahulu memeluk Islam dan lebih ramai yang Islam daripada orang Melayu!” katanya.

Ini menunjukkan, katanya, betapa Islam itu bukan hanya untuk Melayu, bahkan untuk semua kaum, seluruh alam.

“Ini mesej Tok Guru yang sangat mendalam penghayatan siasah dan dakwahnya. Bukan sahaja untuk kekal berkuasa seperti sang penguasa politik di mana pun di dunia ini,” katanya. – 18 Februari, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 February 2015, 9:27 am and is filed under
Islam
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Public corruption in China: Then and now

Richard Wong

South China Morning Post

17 February, 2015

China has waged a campaign against public corruption for the past two years and there is no sign of abatement. At first, there was speculation it was a cover for a power struggle and therefore would be short-lived. Increasingly, it appears to be a means of forging a new social contract for the post-Deng era.

The social contract forged by Deng Xiaoping traded market-driven economic growth for political stability. Some individuals and families amassed huge fortunes in the process. Many were private entrepreneurs whose gains were made through fair market competition, but others were public officials who captured economic benefits through the exercise of political influence. The rise of this public corruption has incensed the public.

Some commentators allege that corruption might be inherent to Chinese culture because, for over two thousand years, the traditional Chinese economy was quite corrupt despite failing to grow.

But the public corruption that existed in traditional China is fundamentally different in nature from that which has appeared in a modernising China.

Traditional China had an agrarian economy. Its defining characteristic was a large collection of geographically dispersed village communities founded upon kinship relations.

In 221 BC, at the end of the Warring States period, China became a unified, centralised, bureaucratic imperial state that became the main glue holding together the diffusion of local agrarian economies. The latter were not economically integrated even up until Deng’s reforms.

The state ruled through an imperial bureaucracy based on merit that was expensive and difficult to operate. Government officials were chronically underpaid. Public corruption therefore became a normal practice for supplementing their incomes.

The public corruption that existed in traditional China is fundamentally different in nature from that which has appeared in a modernising China

The state combated this corruption by training officials in public virtues, specifically the upholding of Confucian ethics. Unfortunately, the conflicting Confucian requirements of piety towards the family and loyalty to the state pitched the interests of the state against the family. The dark drive to embezzle and extort was ultimately tied to love and concern for the welfare of one’s family and kinsmen. Family interest is still at the centre of most cases of public corruption in China today.

In a modern economy, funding a centralised bureaucracy becomes easier because the economic surplus is much larger. Public corruption, however, can actually worsen because there are far more opportunities for officials to sink their teeth into.

Three circumstances can cause public corruption to worsen. First, if a large share of the economy is under state ownership, then officials have greater opportunity to siphon off public resources into private pockets.

Second, if a large share of economic activities is regulated by the state, officials have more opportunity to abuse their public authority for private gain.

And third, as old economic sectors decline, new sectors emerge and government policies seek to hinder or facilitate this process, public officials and politicians have opportunities to extract private economic benefits for themselves. Public corruption then hurts economic modernisation by halting or delaying the adjustment process of “creative destruction”.

Deng’s reforms achieved the greatest economic miracle since the Industrial Revolution. But the mixture of market and the grabbing hand of government officials in almost all walks of economic life created unprecedented opportunities for public corruption.

After 30 years, the winners of these reforms have begun to resist further reforms. Xi’s campaign against public corruption threatens to shake up this entrenched establishment.

Building up Xi’s personal authority may be a necessary development to enable him to push his campaign forward. While there is much speculation that this concentration of authority will lower the incentive to reform markets further, the leadership in China understands this danger.

Unless the government’s role in the economy is further reduced and the role of the market expanded, the campaign to root out public corruption will only produce a one-shot effect.

An efficient, competitive, modern market economy requires a level playing field for all. Conceptually, this complements the state’s need to be rid of public corruption in order to uphold the law. It may also be helped by the coming of a new generation that is no longer connected by local kinship ties due to urbanisation and the unintended consequences of the “one-child” policy.

Xi’s campaign could pave the way for long-term economic modernisation, and an enormous political legacy, if it leads to a leaner bureaucracy and a more limited and inclusive state – something that was favoured even in traditional China.

Richard Wong Yue-chim is Philip Wong Kennedy Wong Professor in Political Economy at the University of Hong Kong

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 February 2015, 7:45 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Reveal Shafee’s fees as it’s from public funds

By Mohamed Hanipa Maidin

Malaysiakini

Feb 17, 2015

MP SPEAKS
 When government opted to appoint Muhammad Shafee Abdullah as lead prosecutor in handling Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal, it implied that Anwar’s case was too big and too serious that the Attorney-General and his team was not confident enough to conduct the appeal.

Maybe, in the eyes of the AG, the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu murder was less significant than Anwar’s ‘crime’ so much so that he did not consider fit and proper to engage a private lawyer to secure conviction for political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda (left) so that Razak could have been served with a death warrant.

 Razak was acquitted by the High Court but the AG did not lodge an appeal against such a decision. On the other hand, when Anwar was released by the High Court, the AG proceeded with the appeal and used public funds to engage a lawyer who is well known to charge exorbitant legal fees for his services.

 Both Razak and Anwar are linked to the Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

 Razak was Najib’s close associate and Anwar is his political enemy. His associate is now in London and his political rival landed in Sungai Buloh’s prison.

Double standards

 While it is not wrong to engage a private lawyer to helm the prosecution team, it is definitely not right to practice double standards in any prosecutorial exercise of powers.

 It is also not right for the government to hide from the public the actual fees it has to pay to secure Shafee’s service.

It goes without saying that when public funds are used , the public has every right to know how much the government has paid Shafee.

 Many Pakatan Rakyat members of Parliament including myself, have sought this information in Parliament, but the government has refused to divulge it citing that such information is classified thus protected under the Official Secrets Act .

 Whilst matters dealing with national security ought to be duly protected under the Act, the government must be seriously joking to imply that Shafee’s legal fees would endanger the nation should such information be revealed to the public.

 The government cannot run away from the public perception that Anwar’s trial was politically-motivated.

 To begin with, you do not see in any other criminal cases that a complainant is allowed to make a telephone call to the inspector-general of police on the latter’s direct line. But it happened in the Anwar’s trial. Neither does any ordinary complainant in any criminal trial would have been given a chance to go to the prime minister’s private residence, as was done by sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Adding salt to injury

 When Shafee helmed the prosecution team in Anwar’s appeal, it only enhanced such a perception, and to add salt to injury, Shafee continued his onslaught against Anwar even after the Anwar’s conviction.

Such an unprecedented attack only reaffirms the popular belief that political conspiracy has been deeply embedded in Anwar’s saga. The court of law may reject the defence of political conspiracy but not in the court of public opinion.

 Despite his vast experience handling criminal trials, Shafee is unfortunately infected by unnecessary overzealousnes and committed the gravest mistake by condemning Anwar for his refusal to give evidence under oath.

False logic

 Shafee’s false logic can be easily detected when he compared Anwar with Saiful.

 His logic goes like this: Saiful was brave enough to testify in court and subject to strenuous cross-examination by the defence lawyers, so why did Anwar refuse to undergo the same process?

 This argument is based on the erroneous presumption that both the complainant and the accused person in a criminal trial bear the same responsibility as far as in giving their testimonies in court is concerned. Herein lies Shafee’s Achilles heel.

 Needless to say that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and he is not legally-obligated to say anything in a criminal trial.

 Even when the defence is called, the law allows the accused, like Anwar, to opt for one of the three options available to him. He may choose to remain silent or give evidence without oath or give a sworn evidence and subjected to cross examination.

Nothing to do with bravery

 The ball is completely in the accused’s court to elect one of these available options. In other words, the accused in any criminal trial is not a witness that can be compelled.

The same rule does not apply to Saiful, being the complainant in the Anwar’s trial. There is no question that Saiful was brave enough to testify and ready to be subjected to rigorous cross examination.

 Being the complainant he has no option but to testify in court. He was a witness who could be compelled. Hence his evidence has nothing to do with his bravery as Shafee tried argue.

 Being a senior practitioner, Shafee should have not made any unsolicited remarks against Anwar when Anwar elected to give evidence in the dock. His comment that Anwar was a coward and would have fainted if cross-examined was really unnecessary and uncalled for.

 After all Anwar was not the first accused in this world who gave evidence in the dock. Anwar did nothing unusual by resorting to such an option . What is really unusual is Shafee going crazy by condemning Anwar, outside the courtroom, for resorting to a legal option available to him.

 Truth be told, Anwar had given sworn statements in his last two trials and as before he maintained the defence of political conspiracy. Thus it is incorrect to associate Anwar with cowardice just because Anwar departed from his usual choices.

 In fact, Shafee should have accused Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his beloved wife Rosmah Mansor of cowardice par excellence for blatantly refusing to give evidence when they were summoned by Anwar’s legal team as witnesses for the defence. Both Najib and Rosmah applied to set aside the subpoenas issued against them.

No need for cheap stunts

 As long as Anwar chose a recognised defence, he should not have been subjected to any adverse comments by anybody, let alone the prosecutor like Shafee.

Apart from the defence of political conspiracy, Anwar’s prime defence in this trial was a lack of penetration. Since the penetration stands as an essential ingredient of the charge under Section 377B of the Penal Code which Anwar was charged under, the lack of it should have exonerated him.

 Anwar’s lawyers believed that when the prosecution failed to prove such an essential ingredient, there was no necessity for Anwar to give a sworn statement in order to plug in the loopholes of the prosecution’s case.

 In a criminal trial, the duty of the accused is not to disprove or to unlock the prosecution’s proof. On the contrary, the law only obligates the accused to cast reasonable doubt of the prosecution’s case.

 Casting doubt of the prosecution’s case may be done by various modes and it is never confined to a sworn evidence by the accused in a witness box. To blame Anwar for refusing to testify on oath reflects shallow understanding of the operating mechanism of criminal law.

 Viewed from this perspective , I would submit that Anwar did the right thing by calling his expert witnesses to cast the doubt on the evidence offered by the prosecution on the issue of penetration. Anwar himself has neither expertise nor obligation to give evidence on oath to disprove penetration.

To his credit , the High Court judge was convinced with the evidence of those experts and in turn held there were reasonable doubts and thus unsafe to convict Anwar.

 Shafee is ready to swear in the holy land of Mecca to prove Anwar’s guilty. To be honest, in resorting to this stunt, I must say that I see no difference between Shafee and Saiful. So naive and so desperate!

 Maybe I need to remind Shafee that he need not resort to all these cheap stunts if he is truly convinced that Anwar is guilty.

 Maybe Shafee is unaware that Abu Jahal, the pagan Arab and the strongest opponent of the Prophet Muhammad also used to pray in the holy land asking the Lord to destroy the Prophet Muhammad for he believed the Prophet Muhammad guilty of causing disunity among the Arabs.

 But God operates in mysterious ways. Indeed, Abu Jahal was ultimately destroyed.

 MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a lawyer and PAS MP for Sepang.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 February 2015, 6:25 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sodomy II is not Saiful v Anwar

– Nawawi Mohamad

The Malaysian Insider

18 February 2015

To everyone who thought that Sodomy II is the case of opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim versus his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan – you got it wrong.

Sodomy II is Umno versus Anwar. Saiful is just the pawn who played his part and after the first stage of the plan to jail Anwar was accomplished, the next stage and the rest of the stages were taken care of by Umno.

Everyone in the team against Anwar – the police, doctors, chemist and judges – are government servants appointed by the arms of the Umno-Barisan Nasional (BN) government. Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was also under the government’s payroll. So could they really be fair and independent?

We have witnessed a concerted effort during the trial of the Altantuya murder case that no one asked the duo Sirul Azhar Umar and Azilah Hadri who gave the order to kill and get the motive of the murder despite knowing that they were paid to kill.

Similarly the whole exercise in the Sodomy II trial, everyone wanted to make sure that every event, evidence, person and witness involved, no matter what, must lead to the jailing of Anwar.

Of course 16 points of the DNA were needed to show how tedious and stringent the court in Malaysia was before giving the verdict. But to say the 16 points were detectable is questionable given its source, the condition it was kept and the integrity of the DNA itself.

Of course the Umno-BN has all the resources to find a specialist to support the evidence; but, this advantage is simply unfair.

The source of the DNA could be planted or the police who took the said Anwar’s toothbrush when he was in jail earlier could have lied because we all know that the Royal Malaysian Police Force (PDRM) has lost its integrity! PDRM has made many blunders and there has been political interference within the force.

Besides, who has really seen the sample and really witnessed the analysis? How trustworthy was the chemist?

As a result of corrupt image and bad reputation of the Umno-BN government, the whole team is questionable.

The carpet was found in another room and not at the place when the said sodomy took place could be planted too. The person entrusted to put the carpet could simply have put it at the wrong place – that’s why it was misplaced!

How come when Saiful went to the private hospital (Pusrawi), no evidence was traced and when he went to the government hospital they found conclusive evidence? This is indeed fishy!

Then, if this was just the case between Saiful versus Anwar, why did the Umno-BN government had so much interest in it? They had to bring in Shafee! Why is the Umno-BN government so concerned?

If the Umno-BN government is indeed so caring about the citizen, why not provide similar help for the rest of the citizens. Why so selective?

If this is not the case of Umno versus Anwar, why must there be a need to further clarify and justify the verdict? Why must Umno youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin organise roadshows to explain the issues. Why must Shafee organise a dialog to explain his case?

If it is just Saiful versus Anwar, there is no need for hue and cry. – February 18, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 February 2015, 9:41 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1MDB-PetroSaudi deal includes repaying US$700 million debt, says whistleblower site

The Malaysian Insider

18 February 2015

Online news portal Sarawak Report has published a 26-page document, revealing sovereign fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) had paid US$1 billion of public funds into a shady venture with Petrosaudi International, despite its lack of a tangible track record.

“What the document reveals is that the prime minister and his advisors at 1MDB paid USD1 billion of borrowed public money into a venture that already carried a USD700 million debt in the form of a loan from PetroSaudi’s parent company to the subsidiary that was entering into the joint venture, PetroSaudi Holdings (Caymans) Limited,” it said in its report.

“Crucially, under the terms of the joint venture, agreed to by 1MDB, the Malaysian development fund had committed to pay back this whopping great loan to the parent company, PetroSaudi International, on day one of the joint venture!,” it added.

The document showed that the joint venture agreement was sealed on September 28, 2009 by 1MDB’s then managing director, Shahrol Halmi and his counterpart in Petrosaudi, Tarek Obaid.

“Despite 1MDB’s servers having been wiped before Christmas, the copy was passed to Sarawak Report by a concerned insider just days after opposition leader (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim was controversially jailed last week,” Sarawak Report reported.

It said the debt payment to Petrosaudi’s parent company meant that only US$300 million of the original US$1 billion paid into the venture by 1MDB was left available to be used for activities.

“The joint venture document also makes provision for a whopping further $5 billion in future funding by 1MDB into the dodgy venture on ‘terms to be agreed’.”

It also revealed that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and 1MDB had falsely implied that Petrosaudi had injected cash into the fund.

“Another falsehood promoted by Najib and 1MDB’s publicity machine at the time of the joint venture on 29th September 2009 was the suggestion that PetroSaudi was somehow officially connected to the state of Saudi Arabia.

“Observers, including Sarawak Report, later proved that the company was in fact a private venture set up by a little-known Saudi businessman called Tarek Obaid and his pal, who happened to be one of the many princes of Saudi Arabia,” the portal said.

The investigative website revealed last week that 1MDB’s administration had wiped out all its computer and server records in an attempt to conceal information about its investments.

Sarawak Report also noted that it was revealing the document to fight Putrajaya’s “obsessive secrecy” over 1MDB’s dealings.

“We do so in defiance of the obsessive secrecy of the Malaysian Government, which ought to have made such documents transparent and available in its public accounts,” it added.

Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua, who is a strong critic of the government’s investment vehicle, has also questioned the move.

“It is like you or me buying a house that has a great big loan of two thirds of its market value outstanding on the property. Who in their right mind would buy into such a deal?” he said.

Pua, a member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), has urged that the body be allowed full access to the affairs of 1MDB, which has seen its debt soar to RM42 billion. – February 18, 2015. –

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 February 2015, 7:17 am and is filed under
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Boob job’ posters banned for trivialising cosmetic surgery

By
Dugald Baird

Wednesday 18 February 2015 11.47 GMT

The Guardian

The
advertising watchdog has banned
 a poster campaign for “trivialising” cosmetic surgery.

Posters were placed in toilets in motorway service stations and shopping centres by the Malaysian-based Medical Tourism Association stating “Did you know… ‘Boob job’ is the most popular cosmetic procedure for women”.

They added: “Malaysia is proud to be amongst one of the only countries within the region where medical tourism is promoted by the government. Hence medical tourists can have the assurance of quality care and be guided by the regulation, safety standards and the governing laws within this industry.

“Our private hospitals bagged three out of nine awards at the international Medical Travel Awards 2014.”

The Advertising Standards Authority received a complaint claiming that the ad was socially irresponsible because it trivialised cosmetic surgery by suggesting it could be incorporated into a holiday.

Media space buyer Admedia, which had booked the ad on behalf of the Medical Tourism Association, said the ad “had not advertised a holiday due to the absence of pricing, tourist or accommodation information nor did it include an option to sign up for a cosmetic procedure”. It added that “the ad was informative and promoted safety and high standards, demonstrated by examples of internationally recognised awards”.

However, the ASA ruled that the ad’s main focus was medical tourism for breast augmentation, and this emphasis “was likely to detract from the seriousness of the surgery offered”.

It said that the posters “could be interpreted as suggesting that surgery was a decision that could be undertaken lightly, without serious consideration of the nature of the intervention. We therefore concluded the overall presentation of the ad was likely to be seen as trivialising breast enhancement surgery.”

The watchdog therefore banned the ad.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 February 2015, 8:35 pm and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Najib’s statement on Sirul’s claim that he acted under orders  exculpatory or incriminating?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, has made a most rash and imprudent outburst at the MCA Chinese New Year open house today, when he said that former police commando Sirul Azhar Umar’s claim that he acted under orders to murder Altantuya Shaariibuu was “utter rubbish” and “total rubbish”.

Was the Prime Minister’s outburst exculpatory or incriminating?

It would be exculpatory if he is asserting that Sirul was talking “utter” or “total rubbish” that he murdered the Altantuya in 2006 together with Chief Inspector Azila Hadri under orders as there were no such orders to the two former police commandos to murder Altantuya.

The question that immediately arises is how Najib knows that the two convicted police commandos had not received any such orders from their superior  to kill Altantunya and destroy evidence by blowing up her body using C4 explosives?

He can  say there was no such “order” from him, but how  could he say that there were no such “order” from other people?  How can he be so sure?

Since he is also implicated in the allegations flying around both inside the country and worldwide in the murder of Altantuya, isn’t the best way to resolve the riddle is to have a thorough,  comprehensive and independent (even international)  investigation into the Altantuya’s murder?

That Sirul and Azila had murdered Altantunya and blow up her body by using C4 explosive is virtually admitted by Sirul when he as good as made a confession  from Australia, saying:  “If I die today, I would not find peace. I did what I was told and this is what I get in return.”

So Najib’s outburst this morning cannot be exculpatory, in destroying beyond a shadow of doubt the theory that Sirul and Azila had killed Altantuya and destroy evidence by blowing up her body with C4 explosives “under order”  – especially as this tallied with  Sirul’s first police statement dated 9th November 2006.

But Najib’s outburst could be self-incriminating implying that he knew the circumstances leading to the murder of Altantuya by two police commandos acting “under order”.

Would Najib agree that  it is a gross miscarriage of justice if Sirul and Azila are sent to the gallows while the mastermind of Altantuya’s murder who had the motive to kill her and destroy evidence by blowing up her body with C4 explosives is allowed to get away scot-free.

Is the Prime Minister’s stand dismissing Sirul’s claim that he had acted under order to kill Altantuya the reason why the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar is so obstinate in refusing to re-open investigations in Altantuya’s murder?

I call on Najib to be in the forefront to institute a thorough, comprehensive, independent (even international) investigation into Altantuya’s murder, and to announce a reprieve of the death sentences for Sirul and Azila until the outcome of such investigations.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 February 2015, 3:26 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Law don grills Shafee’s ethics after Anwar attack

By Gurdial Singh Nijar

Malaysiakini

February 16, 2015

COMMENT
 Several interviews in national daily newspapers given by the lawyer engaged as a prosecutor, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, have reignited issues surrounding the conviction of Anwar Ibrahim.

 In a rather brutal attack on Anwar, whom he helped put away for a five-year jail term, Shafee implied that the accused would have been torn to shreds if he had testified, instead of giving his ‘evidence’ from the dock. He labelled Anwar a ‘coward with something to hide’.

 I do not recall any such condemnatory remarks being ever made publicly by the former lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Chambers who conducted the prosecution at the earlier two judicial tiers – the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Such statements seem to be at odds with established ethical standards – as applicable to lawyers appearing as defence counsel or for the prosecution.

 Shafee was enlisted as a prosecutor only for this case – over the strenuous objections of Anwar’s legal team.

 He remains a member of the legal profession and subject to the rules promulgated under the Legal Profession Act 1976. These Practice and Etiquette Rules 1978 have the force of law.

 One particularly relevant rule forbids lawyers from publicising their feats. Rule 13 says that it is contrary to etiquette to solicit reporting of any matter in which a lawyer has been professionally engaged.

 The rationale for this is to prevent lawyers with money, or connections, or both from advertising themselves; and securing an advantage over other lawyers.

 The Bar Council has in the past disciplined lawyers for infraction of this self-publicity rule.

 Secondly, a lawyer acting in his capacity as a prosecutor is a custodian of the public interest, as represented by the Attorney-General’s Chambers. He is there to present the evidence in an even-handed manner.

A lawyer has to act with fairness in a trial

 The rules repeatedly make it clear that a lawyer is to act with fairness during a trial; not to insult or annoy witnesses with his questions. This must, perforce apply as well to situations after a trial.

 It is not his role to overstate the case or seek vengeance, much less to savage an accused after he has been convicted.

 Shafee’s recent declaration that he is ready to swear to the guilt of the accused in a religious place is, with respect, way beyond a prosecutor’s professional brief.

 Judicial history is replete with cases of miscarriages of justice occasioned by a prosecutor’s failure to appreciate the ambit of his role.

 One such United Kingdom case was made famous by the award-winning movie ‘In the Name of the Father’, where convictions of eight accused persons were set aside when it was discovered, quite fortuitously many years after the conviction, that an over- zealous prosecutor had concealed exonerating evidence from the court.

 This is not to suggest, for a moment, that the Anwar Sodom II case is similarly infected – although the defence maintains that it was precluded from presenting the full evidence on ‘conspiracy’.

A prosecutor must at all times be professional

 It is to emphasise that a prosecutor must at all times maintain a professional and equanimous stance in the conduct of a case. And this must be clear at all times – not just before and during a trial – but crucially even after a case is concluded.

 The rather brutal assault of the convicted Anwar goes beyond a self-congratulatory proclamation by Shafee of his forensic brilliance ‘if Anwar took the stand’ – predicated on an entirely hypothetical situation. (The Rules also forbid lawyers from referring to facts that they are unable to prove.)

 It could be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as manifesting an implacable hostility to an accused. It leaves the public guessing as to how much of this could have influenced the conduct of the case – wittingly or otherwise.

 Already leading members of the Bar, including several past presidents, have deprecated such conduct.

 Given the interest that this case has generated worldwide attention, would it not have been more prudent for this prosecutor to refrain from making comments that could needlessly erode the standing of the country and its judicial apparatus?

 GURDIAL SINGH NIJAR is a law professor at Universiti Malaya.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 February 2015, 8:34 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What could Sirul tell us?

 – Nawawi Mohamad

The Malaysian Insider

19 February 2015

The order to kill the Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaariibuu must have been cascaded down the line of command from someone above. Ultimately Sirul Azhar Umar was the one who had to do all the dirty work and take all the blame when things went wrong.

Thus when any person along the line of command is removed, the others will be insulated and will not collapse like a domino.

 Therefore allowing Sirul to slip off to Australia could be part of the plan. Sirul may be allowed some freedom and may also tell his story, but he could only put the blame on his immediate superior.

 Sirul telling his story also acts like a pressure release valve, since the Altantuya murder case has heated up like the pressure in a volcano that increases from time to time.

 In court, Sirul mentioned that it was Azilah Hadri who instructed him to ensure that Altantuya was really dead. Sirul may not know firsthand on who actually gave the order.

The one who gave the order must have been wise enough to insulate himself or herself from the crime through the line of command. Thus whatever Sirul will say, he cannot say for sure say that such and such person instructed them to kill.

 Azilah Hadri on the other hand knew the next person above him who gave the order. Likewise, Azilah could only say for sure that his immediate superior gave the command. Thus, Sirul is let loose in Australia and is spared for doing the real killing and Azilah is the main person who must be removed from the line of command to prevent the domino effect.

 What is happening to Azilah and where is he now?

 The perpetrators have been able to divert our attention away from the murder and maybe they are scheming something. The Sodomy II case is also being kept alive to divert our attention by Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah and Khairy Jamaludin.

 If the perpetrators are kind enough, they could be making special arrangements to ensure Azilah will eventually be living far away comfortably under a different identity. The worst case scenario is that he could be in solitary confinement and rushed up to the gallows.

 Still, unless and until the real perpetrators in the murder of Altantuya are brought to justice, this murder case will not fade away. – February 19, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 February 2015, 7:59 am and is filed under
Court
,
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why have the police, the Attorney-General and the judiciary ignored the “elephant in the room” in Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case – that Sirul and Azilah could not have killed the Mongolian whom they did not know without a motive and a mastermind?

The Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case is the second case in Malaysia to kick up an international storm after the Federal Court’s 5-0 conviction of Anwar Ibrahim on Sodomy II and five-year jail sentence.

Although the Federal Court decision on the Altantuya murder case was made on Jan 13 finding the two former police commandos Sirul Azhar Umar and Azilah Hadri guilty of the murder of the  Mongolian in 2006, the Altantuya case did not become an international storm until after Anwar’s Federal Court decision when Sirul, seeking refuge in Australia, announced that he was thinking of “telling all” about the murder of Altantuya.

Sirul said: “If I die today, I would not find peace. I did what I was told and this is what I get in return.”

I believe the entire Malaysian population can share Sirul’s sense of injustice if he has to pay for the murder of Altantuya, but the mastermind who had the motive and ordered the killing is able to get away scotfree.

DAP MP for Bukit Gelugor Ramkarpal Singh has called on the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar to initiate fresh investigations into Altantuya’s murder after one of the convicted killers claimed that he was ordered to kill her.

The IGP, however, is obstinate that  the police will not re-investigate Altantuya’s murder even though new allegations have surfaced on the ground that Sirul had not divulged information that merited renewed scrutiny into the case.

This is double negligence on the part of the police in its investigations to the Altantuya’s murder.

In fact, the police, the Attorney-General and all the Federal Court judges had been guilty of serious negligence when they ignored the “elephant in the room” in the Altantuya murder case – as it is clear and obvious to all Malaysians and the world that Sirul and Azilah would not have killed the Mongolian whom they did not know without a mastermind  who had the motive to direct  them to do so.

While the Federal Court’s conviction of Sirul and Azilah is not disputed, why had the Federal Court judges failed to raise the question that both Sirul and Azilah had no motive to murder Altantuya, and tha the police should continue investigations to bring to book the “mastermind” who had the motive to  order Sirul and Azilah to murder Altantuya?

The same question applies to the Police and the Attorney-General – whey they had  stopped short of investigating and prosecuting the “mastermind” with the motive to direct Sirul and Azilah to  murder Altantuya?

Retired senior prosecutor in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Datuk Stanley Isaacs, had said that the police can only re-open the Altantuya murder case if Sirul lodges a police report that he had acted under orders to commit the crime.

I do not agree as Sirul had stated as much in his first police statement on 9th November 2006, and I do not think Sirul can say very much beyond what he said in that statement – that he was offered money and carrying out instructions to kill Altantuya.

The further question is why the Police and Attorney-General failed to act on Sirul’s first statement to the police on 9th November 2006, which itself will be proof of gross negligence of the police investigators and the Attorney-General.

If the Attorney-General had knowledge of Sirul’s first police statement admitting to the crime but stating that he was directed to do so, it constituted  a serious dereliction of duty on his part  in not directing the police to carry out a more satisfactory and thorough investigation to find out, not just the “hatchet men” who murdered Altantunya, but the “mastermind” behind it.

Can the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail exonerate himself of such a gross dereliction of duty?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 February 2015, 9:50 am and is filed under
Court
,
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Opinion: Anwar imprisoned, Malaysia rights in free fall

Phil Robertson, Special for CNN

February 16, 2015

(CNN)—Watching from the observers’ gallery last week, I could see Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim moving from hope, to exasperation and then finally to anger as the country’s highest court dismissed his defense team’s arguments against his sodomy conviction.

After his appeal was denied on all counts, the sentencing hearing started — and Anwar took the gloves off, declaring the incident was a “complete fabrication” and a “political conspiracy” and attacking the five Federal Court judges for becoming “partners in the crime for the murder of judicial independence and integrity.”

The judges weren’t having any of that, and abruptly stood up and walked out of the courtroom to deliberate in chambers on Anwar’s fate, leaving a stunned courtroom behind them.

Anwar now faces five years in prison to contemplate the question that is on the minds of many Malaysians, which is how could a government get away with prosecuting a former deputy prime minister and the head of the opposition not once, but twice, for violating an archaic British colonial law against sodomy that has been invoked a total of only seven times since 1938?

Has the Malaysian government so clearly lost the plot that even outside observers would recognize that the trial was blatantly political from day one?

Within minutes of the verdict being issued, the Malaysian government issued a polished statement proclaiming the country’s “judicial independence” and demanding “all parties involved to respect the legal process and the judgment.”

In case anyone didn’t get the memo, there is the rapidly growing crackdown on dissent and free speech in Malaysia led by the top police officer — who patrols the Twittersphere like a shark in open water and tweets orders to the police to arrest lawyers, activists and politicians using the country’s draconian Sedition Act.

A tweet by the cartoonist Zunar referencing “lackeys in black robes” has already landed him in court.

This is supposed to be a big year for Malaysia, serving as chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) when the ASEAN Economic Community is to become a reality, and holding a seat at the UN Security Council.

Malaysia is also a key partner in the US-driven Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade proposal that has gone to the top of the Obama legislative agenda, and it was Prime Minister Najib Razak who President Obama invited for a round of golf in Hawaii during the president’s Christmas holiday.

Whether the political persecution of Anwar was raised on the course has yet to come out.

‘Wielding Sedition Act like a hammer’

But there is huge gap between Malaysia’s international engagements as a so-called “moderate” Muslim-majority nation and its domestic repression of opponents that sadly doesn’t usually garner much attention — except in instances when Malaysia imprisons a figure like Anwar who is widely respected and known internationally.

So few people know Najib’s government has been on a tear against his opponents since the 2013 elections, during which the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition lost the majority vote to the Anwar-lead Pakatan Rakyat coalition but maintained power because of gerrymandered election districts for parliamentary seats.

Since then the government has been wielding the Sedition Act like a hammer, using its undefined terminology barring “any seditious words” or “seditious tendency” that would “bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government.”

In the past two years, more than a dozen senior politicians and activists have been dragged into court for saying or tweeting things the government didn’t like, and a number have fled overseas to seek asylum — and the list is going to keep growing.

Najib affirmed at the 2014 congress of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) party that he leads that he’s planning to strengthen the Sedition Act further when the Parliament reconvenes in March.

Crackdowns on peaceful assemblies, restrictions on the media, censorship of books and films, and targeting of ethnic and religious minorities are also on the rise in Najib’s Malaysia.

Shaffee Abdullah, the same UMNO lawyer brought into as a special prosecutor in Anwar’s case also serves as Malaysia’s representative to the regional human rights body, the ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), and asserts how he has prevented any discussions of LGBT rights there.

Authoritarian and intolerant

Malaysia is brewing a heady concoction of authoritarianism and intolerance that should be setting off alarm bells in world capitals like Washington, London, Berlin, and Brussels.

Anwar’s conviction last week may be a new low for the Malaysia government’s rights record, but it should not be seen in isolation from the growing intolerance for civil and political rights emanating from Putrajaya.

The wider international community — be it Malaysia’s allies, foreign business investors, and the United Nations — should wake up and recognize that the Malaysian government is changing and not for the better.

It’s time to support Malaysia’s human rights defenders, and recognize that if the world wants a democratic, rights-respecting Malaysia, it’s going to have to fight for it.

(Phil Robertson is the deputy director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 20 February 2015, 9:09 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Shafee’s unprecedented and most questionable road-show an admission that although he had won in the Federal Court with 5-0 verdict in his favour on Anwar Sodomy II trial, he has lost out in the court of public opinion

Its really so pathetic – Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah going on a UMNO-sponsored national roadshow to have a second “ bite of the cherry” in his prosecution of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Sodomy II case.

Yes, Shafee has won in the Federal Court on Feb. 10 with a shocking 5-0 unanimous decision to dismiss Anwar’s appeal and to sent him back to jail for five years, Anwar’s fourth incarceration.

Even those who were most pessimistic about Anwar’s chances and had believed before the Federal Court decision  that he would lose in the Federal Court appeal had expected either a 3-2 verdict or at worst a 4-1 decision.

Everybody was floored when there was an unanimous 5-0 decision and there were not only no dissenting judgment, there was no other judgment from the five-member Federal Court quorum, apart from the single judgment by the  Chief Justice, Tun Arifin Zakaria!

Although Anwar had lost in the court of the Malaysian judiciary, he had won in two other courts – the court of public opinion in Malaysia and the court of international opinion, as it  will not be  easy to find another Federal Court judgment in the past two decades which had met with such instant universal condemnation, not only inside the country but  also outside.

The decision for UMNO to go on a national roadshow featuring Shafee, Anwar prosecutor-by-fiat,  is not only unprecedented and questionable, raising grave and vexing ethical questions about Shafee’s role as prosecutor-by-fiat as well as a practising lawyer, but is as good as an admission that although Shafee had won in the Federal Court with 5-0 verdict in his favour, he has lost out in the court public opinion.

Will Shafee next head an international campaign to win back support in the court of international opinion, as foreign governments like United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany,  Switzerland (which declared that it would raise Anwar’s jailing at the next meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva), the European Union; international legal, parliamentary and human rights organisations like the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights, LAWASIA and the Law Council of Australia and international press like Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Economist had all spoken up to condemn the Federal Court decision?

Shafee is also Malaysia’s representative to the regional human rights body, the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).

Will the ambit of his responsibility on the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights  now be expanded to include convincing the other ASEAN governments, if not the people of  other ASEAN nations, about Anwar’s guilt in the Sodomy II case.

Shafee,  UMNO and the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should think deep and hard whether such a nation-wide road show for Shafee to have a second bite of the cherry to win in the court of public opinion on Anwar’s prosecution on Sodomy II should proceed or be halted immediately, as it is setting many deplorable precedents affecting the administration of justice and ensuring clean, honest and healthy politics in Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 20 February 2015, 11:03 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sirul is showing to the whole world the “feet of clay” of the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General, the Judiciary and the Prime Minister in their mishandling of the 2006 Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case

The last thing former police commando Sirul Azhir Umar wanted to do is to show to the world the “feet of clay” of the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General, the Judiciary and the Prime Minister in their mishandling of the 2006  Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case.

In his first telephone interview with Malaysiakini on Tuesday 17th February, Sirul said:

“I was under orders. The important people with motive are still free.

“It is not like I do not love the police (force) or the country, but I acted under orders.”

But this is exactly what Sirul has done, for  in one fell swoop he had exposed the “feet of clay” of the pillars of our country, the Inspector-General of  Police, the Attorney-General, the Judiciary and the Prime Minister.

Many Pakatan Rakyat leaders, including the DAP MP for Bukit Gelugor Ramkarpal Singh, who is also lawyer for the family of the murdered Mongolian, have called on the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar to initiate fresh investigations into Altantuya’s murder after Sirul claimed that he was ordered to kill her.

The IGP, however, is obstinate that  the police will not re-investigate Altantuya’s murder even though new allegations have surfaced on the ground that Sirul had not divulged information that merited renewed scrutiny into the case.

Khalid had been the Inspector-General of Police since May 2013 and was Deputy IGP from April 2011.

Is Khalid seriously suggesting that he had never known that Sirul’s first police statement on 19th November 2006  after his arrest for the murder of Altantuya was to confess  that he was acting under orders and was offered money to kill Altantuya and destroy all evidence by blowing up her body with military explosives?

If Khalid really did not know about the existence of Sirul’s police statement on 19th November, 2006, it raises a serious question about his fitness to continue as  the No. One Policeman in the country.

In the circumstances, what Sirul said in Australia is merely a re-statement of what he told the Police in November 2006, not only that he and  Azila Hadri had murdered Altantuya but were acting under orders and offered money for the killing.

Why did’nt the police act on Sirul’s statement to the police in November 2006?

With Sirul reaffirming what he had told the police in November 2006, isn’t this sufficient evidence for the police to re-open investigations as to the mastermind and the motive for the murder of the Mongolian?

While the Federal Court’s conviction of Sirul and Azilah is not disputed, why had the Attorney-General and Federal Court judges failed to raise the question that both Sirul and Azilah had no motive to murder Altantuya, and that the police should continue investigations to bring to book the “mastermind” who had the motive to  order Sirul and Azilah to murder Altantuya?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had made the same mistake committed by his one-time confidante, Abdul Razak Baginda, who was acquitted of abetting in the murder of Altantuya, when Razak blabbered at the end of last month about the motive of Altantuya’s killing, saying: “Only the two policemen know. Rogue police do kill people, like in so many remand cases.”

Was Sirul a “rogue policeman” on his own accord or was Sirul a “rogue policemen” under orders?

I am surprised that the IGP, who is supposed to defend the image and integrity of the 130,000-strong police force, was so meek and ineffectual when his men and women in blue were maligned by Razak Baginda’s aspersions, as Malaysians as well as the entire police force had expected a more forceful response from the IGP to Razak’s insinuation that all cases of custodial deaths were due to “rogue policemen”.

The outbursts by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak at the MCA Chinese New Year open house yesterday that it was “utter rubbish” and “total rubbish” for  Sirul to claim that he had acted under orders to murder Altantunya was really very rash and imprudent, as it could be self-incriminating as well.

Najib’s outbursts are still ricocheting throughout  the country, for everyone is asking as to how Najib could know that Sirul’s claim was “utter rubbish” and “total rubbish”!

Is Najib prepared to explain what he meant by his outbursts?

It is a very painful and shameful affair for Malaysians to see our pillars of the country, the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General, the Judiciary and the Prime Minister exposing their feet of clay to the world as a result of Sirul’s statement in Australia.

When will this chapter of shame for Malaysia end?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 20 February 2015, 4:13 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Zahid broke OSA in writing FBI letter’

By Zakiah Koya & Kamles Kumar

Malaysiakini

Feb 19, 2015

EXCLUSIVE
 A former top cop has accused Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi of breaking the Official Secrets Act (OSA) by writing the letter to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to clear gambling kingpin Paul Phua Wei Seng.

 This is because the information contained in the police investigation files is classified under the OSA, unless it has been declassified, former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim said.

The Official Secrets Act 1972 (Act 88), or OSA, is a federal law in Malaysia that prohibits the dissemination of information classified as an “official secret”.

 Mat Zain said Zahid disbursed ‘secret’ information to unauthorised parties, such as the FBI and to the lawyers for Phua, Shafee Abdullah in Malaysia and Messrs Chesnoff & Schonfeld in the US.

 In an email to Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail on Jan 19, Mat Zain said  Zahid had broken the law in writing the letter and stating that Phua is not a member of the 14K triad.

 The email, as seen by Malaysiakini, is titled “Detailing the crime of Zahid and Shafee under the Penal Code and OSA”.

 Mat Zain said this finding was based on a case in January 2000, in which Senator Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor was given two years of imprisonment under the OSA for revealing “secret” information on a then Anti-Corruption Agency investigation into former international trade minister Rafidah Aziz.

 He said if the ACA files are considered to be under OSA, what more then the personal records of Phua and his involvement in 14K triad, which are in the keeping of the police.

‘Police reputation tarnished, internationally’

 He said that by etching the letter to FBI, Zahid had also tarnished the reputation of the police, internationally.

 “Zahid and Shafee, in questioning the validity of the Paul Phua record that the police furnished to the FBI in 2008, can cause the FBI and Interpol to doubt the legitimacy of other information that has and will be furnished to the international bodies,” Mat Zain wrote in his email.

 Prior to this, police personnel had revealed that Phua did not assist them in any way, let alone on matters of national security.

The email was also copied to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar (left).

 Mat Zain also alleged that “Zahid and Shafee were conspiring to deceive the FBI by penning the letter at the time that Shafee was being investigated by the police” under the Order to Investigate (OTI).

 The Attorney-General’s Chambers was recently as reported to have “hidden” the OTI on Shafee, while he was appointed to lead the prosecution team in the recent prosecution appeal in the Sodomy II charge against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

 Mat Zain said stern action should be taken against both Zahid and Shafee as this may lead to other officers in the force providing classified information to unauthorised parties in the future.

 “If there is no harsh action taken on Zahid and Shafee under OSA, other police officers might also follow their footsteps in furnishing classified information to unauthorised persons,” he added in his letter.

 Interestingly, Zahid had said that he could not divulge further information on Phua and his assistance to national security because those matters fall under the OSA.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 20 February 2015, 7:46 am and is filed under
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How much is Shafee paid as lead prosecutor in Anwar’s Sodomy II prosecution and is he also paid for leading a nation-wide road show justify the Federal Court’s decision and to humiliate Anwar?

PAS MP for Sepang Mohamed Hanipa Maidin has asked the government to reveal the actual fees it has to pay to Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to be lead prosecutor in Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar’s Sodomy II case at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court levels.

Shafee is now spearheading a nation-wide UMNO roadshow to try to win in the court of public opinion in Anwar’s Sodomy II prosecution, as it is abundantly clear that while Shafee had won in the courts in the judiciary, he had lost in two other courts – the court of public opinion in Malaysia and the international court of public opinion.

As Malaysians taxpayers are paying Shafee for his role as lead prosecutor in Anwar’s Sodomy II case at both the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, they are entitled to know how much Shafee is costing them to put Anwar in jail for the fourth time in his 47-year public career fighting for justice, freedom, human dignity and good governance in Malaysia.

Are the services of Shafee as lead prosecutor on Anwar’s case equivalent to the remuneration of the Attorney-General for a whole year, and if so or it approximates the sum, the question arises as to why the Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail is not conducting the prosecution himself instead of privatizing it to Shafee?

Furthermore, Malaysian taxpayers are also entitled to know whether they are also paying for Shafee’s  nation-wide UMNO roadshow to justify the Federal Court’s decision against  Anwar, as well as to take the opportunity to carry out a vicious and vengeful campaign against Anwar, and if so, the exact full amounts or fees or whether he is rendering his services to UMNO pro bono.

In fact, the unprecedented and questionable nation-wide roadshow by Shafee raises the question whether he was public prosecutor or UMNO prosecutor in the Anwar Sodomy II prosecution.

It is most encouraging to hear sane voices both inside and outside UMNO questioning the logic, rationale and soundness of the decision of the  UMNO Youth leader, Khairy Jamaluddin in organizing the unprecedented and questionable national road-show against Anwar on  the Sodomy II trial featuring Shafee, as if the senior lawyer is Malaysia’s latest discovery on the national circuit for  unusual or even extraordinary performances like contortions and other super-human feats.

I fully agree with UMNO Pusat Bandar Taman Chempaka branch information chief Syed Rosli Syed Harman Jamalullail that the Shafee roadshow would only backfire on UMNO and would alienate even more Malaysians, especially from public reactions to Shafee’s immoral and despicable tactics to humiliate Anwar and his family when Anwar could no reply to him from Sungai Buloh prison.

Would Shafee arrange for Anwar to be present at all his stops in his nation-wide roadshow so that Anwar is afforded the opportunity to reply to all his wild allegations against him?

I fully agree with Syed Rosli that what Khairy, as the Sports Minister, should be more focused about are on problems facing the youth, such as affordable  housing, cost of living, mat rempit, social problems and the country’s poor performance in sports since Khairy became minister, with Malaysia failing to obtain a gold medal in both the Commonwealth and the Asian Games.

I am glad that the de facto Law Minister Nancy Shukri has also expressed objection to the Shafee roadshow.

But when has sane and sound voices prevailed in the higher echeleons of the UMNO/BN leadership?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 February 2015, 7:18 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


ISIS Boasted Of These Christians’ Deaths. Here Are The Lives They Lived.

Sophia Jones

Posted: 02/18/2015 4:56 pm EST Updated: 02/19/2015 4:59 pm EST

The Huffington Post

AL AOUR, Egypt — Death is everywhere in Al Aour. When a video surfaced late Sunday showing Islamic State fighters beheading 21 men in Libya, it seemed no family here was spared. Thirteen of the victims hailed from this dusty Egyptian town, roughly three hours south of Cairo.

The men were laborers, gone for months on end, who sent home hard-earned money to feed entire families. They left their impoverished home in Egypt to work in Libya for a better future, despite the dangers. What they found instead was a militant group hell-bent on humiliating and harming them because they were Christian. While most of the people killed by the Islamic State have been Muslim, the group’s recent propaganda video made a point to threaten Christianity as a religion. The fact that the 21 men were Egyptian made them even more sought-out targets: citizens of a country cracking down on Islamists both within its own borders and inside Libya.

On Jan. 3 at around 2:30 a.m. in the coastal Libyan city of Sirte, masked gunmen began knocking on doors, according to survivors. They were looking for Christians marked with traditional tattoos on their hands that identified them as Copts, an ancient Christian sect in Egypt. Some men were pulled from their beds at gunpoint. Others hid and prayed, only to later see their captured friends and family members decapitated in a widely circulated and highly produced Islamic State video.

But in this tight-knit village, these men will not be remembered for their brutal murders. They are remembered as beloved husbands, sons, brothers, cousins and friends. In death, their lives are celebrated.

Here are the lives they lived, as told by family members.

Hani Abdel Messihah, 32

Magda Aziz, 29, holds the photo of her late husband, killed by ISIS, as she sits in her home in Al Aour, Egypt, on Tuesday.

Hani loved his four children — three girls and a boy, the youngest — more than anything in the world, his family says. He was gentle and kind, always making a joke whenever he could. His wife Magda Aziz, 29, will forever remember his laugh.

“I felt like he was an angel,” Magda said of her deeply devout husband. “There was a prayer in anything he said.”

Hani desperately wanted to come home after eight months laboring in Libya. He was sick and tired of the relentless violence and the constant threat of kidnapping. But leaving was a difficult choice. There was money in Libya, unlike in Al Aour, money that he needed to support Magda and his children. But he finally decided to come home to his family, she said. He was killed before he ever got a chance to leave.

“He took care of all of us,” Magda explains, weakly. The women around her nod in unison, passing around a faded photograph of the smiling father with his little boy.

“He was so kind,” Magda says. “He gave us hugs and kisses.”

Hani Abdel Messihah, 32, killed by ISIS in Libya, smiles with his young son in a worn photograph.

Magda will never forget the last conversation she had with her husband. He called on New Year’s wanting to speak with each of his children. The couple exchanged tender words. He asked if she wanted or needed anything — he would try to get it to her, whatever it was. She remembers saying, “I want you safe.” And he asked her to pray for him. She never heard from Hani again.

When she saw the video of his beheading on Egyptian television, her family cried so hard that she says neighbors called an ambulance. She doesn’t talk much about how she feels now, apart from the fact that she’s still in shock.

“I miss him,” she says with a whisper.

Her three daughters sit around her, clinging to their mother. The oldest girl begins to weep as the younger two stare off, unable to comprehend the grief around them.

“Your dad is in the sky,” a relative says, hoping to console the little girl. “He’s in the heavens.”

Video by May Kamel.

Yousef Shoukry, 24

Shenouda Shoukry holds up a photo of his brother of Yousef Shoukry (pictured right), a 24-year-old Coptic Christian beheaded by the Islamic State.

Yousef was a quiet young man with the heart of a child, his family says. All he wanted to do was find a job and start a family.

But after leaving the army after high school, there were few job prospects. He couldn’t live the life he wanted, his mother, Theresa, recalls, sitting in her home surrounded by family.

But the Libyan border wasn’t too far, and many men before Yousef had gone to work there already. He decided to leave Egypt. His mother begged him not to go, but he wouldn’t listen. She says that his faith gave him the courage to go to Libya in the face of danger. “I have one God, he’s the same here and there,” she remembers Yousef saying.

A mother and son mourn the loss of Yousef Shoukry.

A steady stream of women walk into the room, all dressed in black. They reach out to comfort the grieving mother.

“He’s a martyr,” she says, holding her cross close to her heart. “I know he’s in a better place.”

Everyone in the family looked up to Yousef. His sister says he was curious and always in good spirits, despite the family’s hard circumstances.

His older brother, Shenouda, 27, the middle brother of four, says he was always proud of him.

“He lived according to the book,” he said, holding a photo of Yousef as a young soldier. “I can’t remember something he did wrong.”

Yousef always joked with Shenouda to hurry up and get married so it could be his turn. He was saving up to support a family.

The last time the family spoke with Yousef was when he called on New Year’s. “I told him I’d pray for him,” she remembers. “I said: ‘May God make your life easier.'”

Theresa refused to watch the video showing her son beheaded. But her other son says he made himself watch it.

“I saw that he had strength in his last moments,” the 27-year-old man said, insisting that there was a heavenly light shining on his brother’s face, even after he was decapitated. “And that consoled me.”

Video by May Kamel.

Towadros Yousef, 42

A Coptic Christian man holds up the ID of his brother, Towadros Yousef, who was murdered by the Islamic State.

Long before he was murdered by extremists, Towadros was sacrificing so that his family could live better lives. A year and a half ago, he traveled from his village of Al Aour to Libya. Far from the comfort and safety of home, the 42-year-old father of three — two boys and a girl — labored away to provide for his family.

He was an introvert, the quiet one in the room. “He wasn’t one to make a lot of noise about anything,” his brother remembers, smiling. But he was a fighter, determined to give his children a better life than he had.

“He was a really hard worker,” his older brother, Bebawi Yousef, 34, says, sitting in the pew of a small church in Al Aour. “He loved working.”

Life in Libya was difficult, to say the least, but it was worth it for Towadros to put food on his family’s table. He was a family man, above all else.

“He was happiest being with his family and kids,” Bebawi says fondly. “He was a kind person.”

Bebawi Yousef sits in a pew at the church in Al Aour, Egypt, on Tuesday during a ceremony mourning the loss of 21 Coptic Christians, including his older brother, who were murdered by ISIS.

Bebawi remembers his last conversation with his brother with regret. Towadros called to see how everyone was and he said he wanted to come home, finally. He was ready. The doting father was worried that something bad would happen to him and he wouldn’t be able to support his family anymore.

“We told him to wait,” Bebawi recalls. “Because they were targeting Christians. We said, ‘If you come now at New Year’s, it’s dangerous.'” The family thought he was safer staying put than traveling on the dangerous roads back to Egypt.

Up until the last moment, Bebawi was ready to do anything to help save his brother. He traveled from Al-Aour to Cairo to talk on an Egyptian television show to raise awareness about the case of the kidnapped Copts. Five minutes before going on air, he received the fateful call from his local priest.

“My condolences,” Bebawi remembers him saying. “It’s over. They’ve passed.”

He can’t believe that Towadros is gone. “I was trying to hold onto the last bit of hope,” he says somberly.

Maged Suleiman Shahata, 40

The brother of Maged Suleiman Shahata, a Coptic Christian killed by ISIS, shows a photo of his brother’s ID card at a church in Al Aour, Egypt, on Tuesday.

Maged was born into poverty and so were his children. But the father of three was determined to change their futures.

“My brother, the way they lived,” he said, shaking his head at the family’s poverty. “It was him and his wife and three children in one room together.”

“That’s how hard life is here,” he said, sitting in a Coptic Church surrounded by mourners. “That’s how hard he worked. He was fed up with having no money. There is no work in the south.”

Maged ventured to Libya, like many others from his village, hoping to earn enough money to change his family’s life. Maged was proud that despite their poor financial situation, his oldest daughter was in college. It made the long, hard, dangerous work in Libya worth everything.

Emat Suleiman Shahta mourns the loss of his brother who was beheaded by ISIS.

Emad spoke with his brother just hours before he was kidnapped. He asked Maged about another group of Christians who had just been snatched up by ISIS, worried that it could happen to him, too. Maged’s last words to him, he painfully remembers, were that his phone credit was out. “I didn’t know what that would mean,” he said, upset that he didn’t get a chance to say goodbye or tell him how much he meant to him.

“He was a very sweet man,” Emad said. “Easily embarrassed.”

Video by May Kamel.

Emad mourns his brother’s death, but he isn’t consumed with hatred. Instead, he looks past the senseless killing and finds hope in his belief that Maged and the other 20 men are now in a safe place where no one can hurt them.

“We are proud that they went to the father in the sky,” he said with a warm smile.

A banner showing the faces of Coptic Christians killed by ISIS hangs from the painted ceiling of the Coptic Church in Al Aour, Egypt, on Tuesday.

Here are the names of the rest of the Christian men killed by the Islamic State in Libya, according to a list provided to The WorldPost by a Coptic church representative in Minya.

5. Milad Makeen Zaky

6. Abanub Ayad Atiya

7. Kirollos Shokry Fawzy (Kirollos Bashree Fawzy)

8. Bishoy Astafanus Kamel

9. Malak Ibrahim Sinweet

10. Girgis Milad Sinweet

11. Mina Fayez Aziz

12. Samuel Alham Wilson

13. Samuel Astafanus Kamel

14. Ezat Bishri Naseef

15. Loqa Nagaty Anees

16. Munir Gaber Adly

17. Esam Badir Samir

18. Malak Farag Abram

19. Sameh Salah (Sameh Salah Farug)

20. Girgis Sameer Maglee

21. Unknown (While the Egyptian government has said that all 21 men were Coptic Christians, a document compiled by the church in Minya and provided to The WorldPost lists only 20 names)

May Kamel contributed reporting from Al Aour.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 February 2015, 8:31 am and is filed under
Foreign
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Sirul cannot continue to equivocate about  the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu but  must show genuine remorse for the killing  under orders if he wants Malaysians and the world to be equally outraged at his betrayal by the murder “mastermind”

The latest from former police commando Sirul Azhar, one of the two convicted murderers of the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu who is in Australia challenging the bid of the Malaysian government to extradite him to return to the  death row in Malaysia, is that he had never admitted to the murder of Altantuya.

Sirul has been maintaining in his telephone conversations with Malaysiakini that he had acted under orders and was being made a scapegoat.

He told Malaysiakini on Chinese New Year on Wednesday, 19th February –  the day the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, blurted “utter rubbish”, “total rubbish” to Sirul’s claim of having acted “under orders”:

“There are no witnesses to the murder until today. All this is based on circumstantial evidence linking me (to the murder).

“I understand that circumstantial evidence is not strong as direct evidence.”

Sirul should come clean and admit to the heinous murder of Altantunya under orders.

Sirul cannot continue to equivocate about  the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu but  must show genuine remorse for the killing  under orders if he wants Malaysians and the world to be equally outraged at his betrayal by the murder “mastermind”

It is true that Sirul had never admitted to killing the Mongolian during the prolonged nine-year trial and appeals on the murder of Shaariibuu from 2006 – 2015, but he was very specific in  admitting to the killing of Altantuya by providing explicit and  graphic details of the gruesome murder of Altantunya together with another former police commando Azila Hadri and blowing by her body by military C4 explosives in Sirul’s first statement to the police on November 9, 2006.

On Feb. 3, 2009 a tearful Sirul asked the Kuala Lumpur High Court  not to sentence him to death for Altantuya’s murder, saying he was like “a black sheep that has to be sacrificed” to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or faced questioning.

Sirul said: “I have no reason to cause hurt, what’s more to take the life of the victim in such a cruel manner. I appeal to the court, which has the powers to determine if I live or die, not to sentence me so as to fulfil others’ plans for me.”

Sirul has the support of decent human beings, whether in Malaysia, Australia and anywhere in the world, in feeling outraged that as a pawn in the killing of Altantuya, he had to pay the supreme penalty of “death penalty” while the murder mastermind could get off scot-free.

But Sirul cannot be equivocal, trying to have the best of both worlds, claiming that he had never admitted to the murder of Altantuya and yet want the world to sympathise with his outrage that he was being punished for loyally carrying out orders while the the mastermind who issued the order gets away scotsfree.

Sirul should stop equivocating. The murder trial is fully over with the Federal Court decision on January 13, 2015 finding Sirul and Azila guilty of the murder of Altantuya and sentenced them to death.

Sirul must confront the facts: Was Altantunya murdered in Mukim Bukit Raja, Klang between 10 pm on Oct. 19, 2006 and 1 am on Oct. 20, 2006; was she murdered by him and Azila, both of whom used military explosives to blow up her body to destroy the  evidence; and were they acting “orders” when murdering Altantunya?

If Sirul claims that he is innocent of the murder of Altantunya, then he should not be claiming justice on the ground that he had murdered under “orders”, but that he had been wrongly convicted of  Altantunya’s murder when  he is totally innocent.

Sirul should think through his statements and actions so not to be caught in a web of his own making.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 February 2015, 3:18 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Thanks Martin Jalleh for the Happy Birthday Collage

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 February 2015, 6:58 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


China’s corruption probe bares its teeth

By Jonathan Fenby

BBC

20 February 2015

Every Chinese republican regime and imperial dynasty has inveighed against corruption.

The impact has invariably been limited, with campaigns against graft scraping only the surface and being abandoned after a short period when a few big fish have been held up to public scrutiny and the immediate political aim has been achieved.

This time, it is different.

The anti-corruption campaign launched by China’s leader, Xi Jinping, after he took office at the end of 2012, will go on forever, says its chief implementation officer, Wang Qishan, head of the Communist Party’s Discipline Commission.

After starting in the traditional manner by gunning for some highly placed real or potential political foes, the purge has widened into provincial governments, state-owned enterprises, the military and the regime’s main broadcasting station.

It has brought in associates of the two previous Chinese leaders, Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin. Mr Wang’s commission has sent out inspection teams to delve into local authorities and industries.

Nobody can feel safe from a body that can detain people for recurring six-month periods without charge in a secret location before deciding on their guilt without any public trial – and, only then, hand them over to the civilian courts.

‘Tigers’ brought down

The campaign has coincided with a steady accumulation of top-level authority by Mr Xi, who now holds seven major posts – starting with the most important, the general secretaryship of the Communist Party.

He is also state president and chairs the Central Military Commission, the National Security Council, the National Reform Committee, the cybersecurity committee, and the commission for military reform and modernisation. He also holds other Politburo jobs that are not publicised.

The anti-corruption campaign is his blunt weapon to try to remedy what he sees as inefficiency in the monopoly party and the state it runs.

Officials have been ordered to cut out excessive spending on banquets, luxury goods, motorcades and other extravagances. The salaries of top executives at state companies are to be cut, and their perks and foreign trips restricted.

The scale and duration of the campaign have surprised observers, who expected it to tail off after a while – as happened with similar high-level exercises under Mr Hu and Mr Jiang aimed at specific political enemies.

Mr Xi has brought down two notable “tigers” – the maverick, upwardly-mobile politician Bo Xilai and the former national internal security chief Zhou Yongkang.

‘Widespread fear’

A network of associates – more than 300 in Zhou’s case – has also been targeted. Mr Hu’s former political secretary and Mr Jiang’s favourite general are also in the campaign’s sights.

But the effects are also being felt by scores of thousands of “flies” – lower-level officials who benefited in the past from using their positions to offer favours to those who gave them cash and perks in return.

Anecdotal evidence speaks of widespread fear among such people, not only that they may be brought to book for past misdemeanours but also that their superiors may be attacked and that they will suffer in consequence from guilt by association.

Apart from its scale and duration, what marks out this campaign is how it has reached into industry during the past year. This suggests that Mr Xi and Mr Wang (previously vice-premier for economic affairs) see it as the best way of dealing with the inefficiencies of the big state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which absorb much of China’s resources while making a limited contribution to real growth and employment.

The heads of the big SOEs enjoy high political status and have been able to block reform in the past to protect their baronies, but Mr Xi and Mr Wang have been taking a tougher line, with 70 senior executives of SOEs accused of corruption last year.

The fall of Zhou, who had remained the “godfather” of the oil and gas sector where he began his career, resulted in extensive removal of executives at the biggest group, CNPC.

The power generation industry has been shaken up as well as big conglomerates. The big Shenhua coal group has been publicly accused of accepting bribes in the coal trade and officials of the China Unicom telecoms company have been said to have been “colluding with contractors or suppliers, using their power to seek money or sex”.

Star figures at the main broadcasting network, CCTV, have been held for questioning, mainly for allegedly having given positive coverage in return for cash.

The Discipline Commission last week reported buying and selling of official positions, entertainment at public expense and helping relatives illicitly at a broad range of organisations.

Companies being investigated include the China State Shipbuilding Corporation; China Huadian Corporation; Dongfeng Motor Corporation; Shenhua; the oil group Sinopec; and the mobile telephone company China Unicom, where the commission said executives “collude with contractors or suppliers, using their power to seek money or sex”.

The commission has set itself the target of inspecting all major SOEs this year, making combating corruption in them a priority for 2015.

The official Xinhua news agency said last week that “corruption and abuse of power in SOEs have raised operating costs, impaired the openness of the market, caused huge loss of state assets and hampered development of the firms”.

‘Grim and complicated’

Other state organisations that have been targeted this year include the culture and environment protection ministries, the China Association for Science and Technology, the All-China Federation of Industry & Commerce and China Radio International.

A Politburo meeting last week heard a report from the Discipline Commission that warned that the party should be aware of the “grim and complicated graft situation” that needed to be fought with “the most determined attitude and decisive measures”.

Another meeting chaired by Prime Minister Li Keqiang focused on the need for clean governance, strict management of public assets and combating misuse of power, including the “grey zone” of administrative examinations and approvals.

Corruption still plagued the government in some sectors, largely because a minority of officials had such power to grant approvals and mete out benefits, Mr Li said.

“Every single penny of government expenses should be subject to auditing supervision,” he said.

Xi Jinping  China’s President, Xi Jinping, faces big challenges

“Supervision over state-owned assets and enterprises should be tightened to make sure no national property is pocketed by a small number of corrupt officials.”

There can be no doubt about the seriousness with which Mr Xi and Mr Wang are waging their campaign, and what it says about the condition of China’s party state after three decades of strong growth in a system that gives huge power to those with the ability to disburse favours, requiring payment in return.

The danger is that, as they continue the campaign, they will upset the system they are trying to strengthen. They are playing a very high-stakes game that goes well beyond the political score-settling that has dominated most reports of their approach.

The outcome will be vital for China’s future and, given its global importance, for the rest of the world as well.

Jonathan Fenby is author of eight books on China, including Will China Dominate the World?, The Penguin History of Modern China and Tiger Head, Snake Tails: China Today.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 February 2015, 3:57 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dubai Torch tower fire: Why no one died

By Jessica Mendoza

Christian Science Monitor

February 21, 2015

Dubai Torch tower fire: Witnesses said that the quick actions of the city’s civil defense and police departments led to a safe, orderly evacuation of residents.

A fire that ripped through a luxury residential tower in Dubai’s Marina district early Saturday morning engulfed several stories and displaced hundreds, but caused no casualties, according to multiple news reports.

A number of people were treated for minor injuries by ambulances at the scene, The Associated Press reported.

The blaze, which broke out around 2 a.m. in the 86-story Torch tower building, appeared to have started on the 50th floor, according to CNN. High winds fanned the flames and scattered debris on nearby streets.

First responders evacuated residents before turning their attention on the fire, which took 12 fire engines and several hours to put out, the BBC reported.

James and Ann Saunders, tenants on the 36th floor, said that the evacuation of the building was completed within 20-25 minutes. Al Atawi, a 36-year-old Egyptian, told Gulf News that his concern was the safety of his wife and 11-month-old baby when the building’s security guards began to knock on each apartment door to alert them.

“Security guards knocked on our doors several times after the alarms started ringing so we got dressed to leave,” he said. “I couldn’t think of anything else other than my wife and child’s safety, so I grabbed our passports and just left. I left my phone upstairs and we headed to the exit.

Al Atawi spoke of the several drills and false alarms that take place throughout the year at The Torch which left them doubting the veracity of the fire alarm that, he says, went off at 2am.

“We usually have these false alarms so, when I heard this one, I thought I’ll just carry on sleeping because it was probably nothing,” he said. But for some reason, he says, he decided to check from his balcony to assure himself that everything was all right. “I found police cars and people standing downstairs so that was my signal to exit the building.”

Fire crews, working their way outward to the street from the fire’s origin, used water lines and pumps inside the tower to kill the flames, according to the Khaleej Times, a popular English news outlet in Dubai.

Both on the scene and on social media, local authorities and firefighters were lauded for their quick response.

“I was really surprised they got it under control pretty quickly,” Torch resident RJ Morlock of Houston, Texas told the AP. “It looked like it was going to go up.”

Residents were anxious as they were evacuated, but the fire brigades handled the situation well, Mr. Morlock said.

Mehdi Ansari, another resident, told NBC News that flames covered 10 to 15 stories of the 1,100-foot tower, but that the escape from the burning building was calm and orderly.

“The firefighters did well. They were pretty quick, they organized people, got them out, gave them water and found others,” he said.

On Twitter, the hashtag #TorchTower has been used to report developments and praise the efforts of fire crews.

A local reporter dubbed the Dubai Civil Defense, police department, and ambulance service “heroes” for their work.

One user applauded them for preventing any casualties, while another snapped a photo of one fire warden in action.

Skyscrapers pose unique challenges to fire crews, since the average fire hose can only spray up to about 50 feet – too low for any high-rise building and a fraction of the Torch. To fight fires at great heights, skyscrapers are designed with fire-resistant features, such as doors that shut automatically when a fire is detected or barriers that are built to slow fires.

A rule of thumb for high-rise construction is that “any outbreak should be able to burn itself out without external intervention, and without the building collapsing, allowing for the evacuation of occupants above and below the fire,” according to an article in The Independent.

The cause of the Torch fire is still under investigation, but Dubai police chief Maj. Gen. Khamis Mattar al-Muzeina said in a statement that there is no evidence of foul play.

A cleanup operation is underway, and Kingfield Owner Association Management Services, which manages the Torch, is providing temporary shelter and supplies for displaced residents until they can return home.

Dubai’s fire safety systems and procedures have been tested in recent years – and been relatively successful. In November 2012, all residents were safely evacuated from a 34-story residential tower when fire broke out. And in June of the same year, hundreds of residents were evacuated safely from a 76-story tower after a fire broke out on the 36th floor, reported the Associated Press.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 February 2015, 8:10 am and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Shafee’s nation-wide  roadshow against Anwar no less vile, vengeful and vindictive just because it has become a closed-door event

Tan Sri Mohammad Shafee Abdullah’s nation-wide roadshow against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to try to  win in the court of public opinion on Anwar’s conviction and five-year jail sentence on Sodomy II is not less vile, vengeful and vindictive just because it has become closed-door event not to be reported in the media.

Last night, Shafee was in Permatang Pauh for  the second stop of  his nation-wide roadshow against Anwar, in a talk dubbed “Sejenak bersama TS Shafee Abdullah”, but unlike his first stop of his nation-wide roadshow at an UMNO Youth forum  in Kelana Jaya last Tuesday, the media were told not cover or write about the talk.

But Shafee should know that his roadshow against Anwar is not less vile, vengeful and vindictive just it is now closed-door not to be reported by the media, which actually makes it even more deplorable, despicable and unwarranted, as he would be able to “get away with murder” without fear of being challenged whether in the court of law or the court of public  opinion.

It is in fact a most cowardly act, embarking on a roadshop clearly detrimental to Anwar’s reputation and character without affording Anwar any opportunity to answer his serious and even wild allegations against the Parliamentary Opposition Leader and former Prime Minister.

The gravity of such reckless and irresponsible acts increases manifold when Shafee is not prepared to allow the Malaysian taxpayers to know how much he is being paid from the public coffers for being the lead prosecutor in the Sodomy II trial at both the Court of Appeal and Federal Court stages, and whether, if so how much, taxpayers are paying for his nation-wide roadshow to attack Anwar’s character and integrity  to justify the Federal Court decision and five-year jail sentence.

Are the UMNO leaders going to continue to allow Shafee to continue with his nation-wide roadshow against Anwar?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 February 2015, 6:41 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.