The coalition for free and fair elections urged the authorities to take stern action against the protesters outside the home of its co-chairperson, S Ambiga.

(Free Malaysia Today) - Bersih 2.0 will not hesitate to take legal action against both Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and the police should any untoward incident occur during the protests in front of the home of Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga.

Bersih today sent two separate letters to the Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar and City Mayor Ahmad Fuad Ismail voicing its concerns over the inaction of the authorities in dealing with these protesters who have been harassing Ambiga for the last two weeks.

“We are fully aware that [you] do not support the activities of Bersih 2.0 and was against Bersih 3.0 gathering…

“However, opposition to these activities cannot lead [you] to silently acknowledge and endorse the harassment and criminal intimidation being perpetrated here,” the letter to Omar stated.

Both letters were signed by its co-chairperson, A Samad Said.

The letter to Omar added that Ambiga, like any other citizens, expects the police to ensure her safety.

Bersih said that it was deeply concerned over the failure of the police to take any “remedial or preventive” action as this may be deemed as endorsing such activities.

The series of protests outside Ambiga’s residence do not show any signs of ceasing. Yesterday, Kuala Lumpur Petty Traders Action Council said that it was going go ahead with its “pasar malam” protest despite not getting permits from DBKL.

Ahmad Fuad said that if he were to give the green light to these 60 petty traders, there will no end to the protest.

He said that although it was all right to protest peacefully outside Ambiga’s residence, he had to draw the line when it came to erecting stalls as it went against local by-laws.

Medical emergency

Earlier, the petty traders had written the words “Bersih 4″ in yellow paint on the road opposite her house in an symbolic attempted to sell that space as a “lot” for their night market.

On May 10, a group of burger sellers staged a protest in front of Ambiga’s house by distributing 200 burgers. Malaysia Small and Medium Entrepreneurs Alliance (Ikhlas), the NGO which organised the protest, said that it was doing so because burger stall owners had suffered losses amounting to RM200,000 as a result of the rally..

Five days later, a group of 15 army veterans carried out butt flexing exercises facing her house.

READ MORE HERE

(The Malaysian Insider) - The federal government is suing the steering committee of Bersih 2.0 for alleged damages amounting to RM122,000 that were incurred during the April 28 rally organised by the electoral reform movement.

The 10 Bersih leaders, spearheaded by Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan (picture), are the first persons to be sued for damages under the Peaceful Assembly Act, less than a month after the new law aimed at allowing public gatherings “in accordance with international norms” was enforced.

“Today, at about 3.25 pm, I was served with a writ and statement of claim whereby the government of Malaysia is claiming damages against me and members of the steering committee for losses purportedly suffered by them in connection with Bersih 3,” Ambiga, the former Bar Council president said.

A copy of the writ of summons sent to The Malaysian Insider said the government was suing Bersih under Section 6(2)(g) of the law which states that organisers must “ensure that the assembly will not endanger health or cause damage to property or the environment.”

“The plaintiff charges that the defendants failed to carry out their statutory responsibility when the assembly went out of control and turned into a riot, causing damage to vehicles owned by the plaintiff,” the writ said.

The statement of claims lists 15 vehicles, mostly belonging to the police, that had to be repaired at a cost of RM122,000.

The government also wants general damages, interest and a declaration that Bersih breached Section 6(2)(g).

The action comes after PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, deputy president Azmin Ali and Rembau chief Badrul Hisham Shaharin were yesterday charged with taking part in the April 28 Bersih 3.0 rally under section 4(2)(c) of the Peaceful Assembly Act.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said when tabling the law in Parliament last year that it would be “revolutionary” and allow Malaysians to participate in public gatherings “in accordance with international norms.”

The case is set for mention on June 13 before Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Justice Prasad Sandosham Abraham.

The April 28 rally that saw tens of thousands gather at six different locations before heading to Dataran Merdeka was peaceful until about 2.30pm when Ambiga asked the crowd to disperse.

But her announcement was not heard by most of the crowd who persisted to linger around the historic square which the court had already barred to the public over the weekend.

Just before 3pm, some protestors breached the barricade surrounding the landmark, leading police to disperse the crowd with tear gas and water cannons.

Police then continued to pursue rally-goers down several streets amid chaotic scenes which saw violence from both sides over the next four hours.

Several dozen demonstrators have claimed that they were assaulted by groups of over 10 policemen at a time and visual evidence appears to back their claim but police also point to violence from rally-goers who also attacked a police car.

The police car then crashed into a building before some protestors flipped it on its side.

IT'S TOFFEE'S TURN

What I suspected since HINDRAF turned itself into a political party now is proven right, HINDRAF and especially Uthayakumar.

This blog   once penned "Uthaya save the Indians go and self immolation," that was in December of 2010,   now we see how right we really were even then, read that and then read this.

If he is real Hindu why has he allowed the Police and the UMNO backed hooligans go and sell beef in front of Ambiga's house without even a word of objection, it is only because he is a Najib stooge, awaiting the big day at the expense of the very people he says he champions.

Yes,  the HINDRAF  was formed so that the likes of Uthaykumar could lobby with UMNO and claim that they had the majority Indian support in the country,  and take over the role that would be vacated by Samy Veloo as at that time his time to vacate was nigh, and replace the MIC in the BN.
 
There was no other way for him to get into the MIC Samy woudl ahve made minced meat out of him so he had to get the Indians to rally behind him and HINDRAF, and now when you look at it his plans become so glaringly apparent.

The best way to do it was to promise the Indians something that no one could ever give them and that was a million ringgit each, just imagine 1 million ringgit each what a windfall, many  of them never held even held ten thousand ringgit in their shand at any one given time and  that was what they were asked to march to the British  High Commission for.

 Now  and for what did not concern this BN government in any way the Government of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi went bersek and attacked the Indians with water cannons, tear gas and all. That angered so many Malaysians that  its aftermath the last elections the government got  a huge bashing to a great extent on the sympathy of the way it treated the Indians at the HINDRAF rally, but if the HINDRAF thinks that was the main reason then they underestimate the intelligence of Malaysians, in the same way the BN did, after all they are partners.

That HINDRAF with its rally and nothing else won so much sympathy of the Malaysians which cannot be denied, but if they are expecting this same sympathy from the government they are in for a bashing this time from the rakyat.

It is very clear now that HINDRAF is out there to reinstate UMNO as the kingpin in the state assembly in Selangor through its political vehicle the Hindu Rights Party (HRP) , their decision to stand in Selangor is a clear indication that all they want to do is to deliver Selangor to UMNO and then Uthaykumar will get what he wants, he will become a minister and the next Samy Veloo a minister through the back door, via the senate although it is very certain that the HRP will not win a single seat at the elections and Uthaya himself knows that and has secretly acknowledged it.

The only thing the Indians in this country have to realise is that these self seeking  individuals  who claim to champion their cause actually use these Indians (the Tamillians in particular)  for their very own purposes and Uthaykumar is no exception, he is almost going to pull out a masterstroke and the Indians are going to receive another MIC like party in the government of the BN who will then dance according to the tune of the BN if they support him.

HINDRAF may not come outright and join the BN that will be very difficult, but they will be what will be known as a BN friendly party just like the independents in the  Perak state assembly today.

READ MORE HERE

Secondly, I am not just obsessed, but very obsessed with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. As a lawyer, I should be very concerned if this political leader who aspires to be the future prime minister of our great nation has no regard whatsoever for the rule of law and the due process of law.

Roger Tan, The Star

I knew this was coming because as I said, it would be painful for some lawyers to read what I wrote in Unswayed by fear or favour' last Sunday in The Sunday Star. I am indeed not wrong with my prognostication.

However, I am surprised that it was even necessary for the eight Loyarburoks to come together to give a 2,700-word response to something they felt were just mere fallacies being spun by me.

In a tweet sent out early Tuesday morning, one of the eight, K. Shanmuga tweeted that their joint statement, Bar's resolution proper', The Star, May 23, 2012, was issued because my aforesaid article had got all of them so annoyed.

Hence, because I emphatise with them, I would oblige them in the best tradition of the Bar with a short reply which should suffice.

Firstly, my concern on the independence of the 80 monitors from the Bar is not totally unfounded. Out of the 80 monitors, I personally know at least one of them whom I follow on the Twitter. On April 28, the day Bersih 3.0 assembly was held, this monitor, albeit not based in Kuala Lumpur, had tweeted, inter alia, the following whilst undertaking monitoring duties:

> Heading to @bersihxxx at Dataran xxx #Bersih. This is it, we love this nation. God save #Malaysia! We want clean & fair elections!

> Bye-bye BN! RT @xxx: Water cannons and tear gas fired. Bye bye BN.

> Don't associate with them. Agent provocateur RT @xxx: #Bersih #Malaysia Unruly mob attacks police patrol car http://....

It follows that the political and social beliefs as well as the prejudices of these monitors are material to ascertain if the integrity and independence of their final report could be described as incontrovertible. Unfortunately, we were not provided with the names of these 80 monitors.

A fortiori, my political affiliation is not relevant compared to the monitors' simply because I did not volunteer to assume such a heavy responsibility of an independent monitor during the assembly.

Further, my MCA membership, albeit dormant, is public knowledge and I have written several articles in that capacity anyway. Neither have I made any attempt to hide it. The fact remains that at least I do not pursue any political agenda under the guise of any organisation, be it political or non-governmental.

Of the many articles I have written, the majority of them are critical of government policies and supportive of the Bar; the last being my support for the continuing professional development proposed by the Bar Council. (See Lawyers must constantly improve skills', March 9, 2012 in The Star.)

The eight are probably oblivious, either deliberately or otherwise, of this fact but hopefully not because they felt that was the natural thing I should do. In fact, I am in the least bothered by their insinuation that the stand I took in my aforesaid article was because of my MCA membership. As the saying goes, truth fears no trial and it is their assertion which is nothing but a fallacy.

Secondly, I am not just obsessed, but very obsessed with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. As a lawyer, I should be very concerned if this political leader who aspires to be the future prime minister of our great nation has no regard whatsoever for the rule of law and the due process of law.

The eight Loyarburoks are clearly very economical with their criticisms of the breach of the barrier which triggered the response from the police. They even argued that there was no compelling evidence on who had removed the barriers. In this respect, I know I am getting old but let me assure them that my eyesight is still good enough to watch the many videos posted on the You Tube which showed otherwise.

Apropos, I am impressed that my eight learned friends were discerning enough to decipher the hidden meaning of my argument that if the Bar Council could rely on their conclusions based only on reports, so could I.

Thirdly and finally, it is not fair to portray that I condone police brutality. I have emphasised in my article as well as during the EGM that there is no excuse if the police had responded disproportionately to the act of breaching the barricade. I made it clear in the EGM that I would support the resolutions against police brutality if the Bar would inveigh in similar language the acts of violence committed by those protesters who had behaved like rioters and anarchists during the assembly.

What I was also interested to find out before forming my judgment is what actually had caused some policemen and protesters to react in the way they did, taking into account various rumours surrounding it. The monitors' report had, in fact, mentioned that protesters had thrown bottles at passing patrol cars as well as taunted policemen with derogatory shouts of anjing' and anjing kurap'. When I raised this at the EGM, the Chairman, Lim Chee Wee did not think these acts were serious enough to warrant condemnation from the Bar prompting me to ask if it was all right from now on for the citizens to call policemen with such derogatory terms.

It is not true that no amendment was proposed to Resolution (12) as regards the conduct of the protesters. I specifically proposed that this should be placed in the same Resolution (1) with regard to police brutality but with respect, the Chairman disagreed with me.

In fact, I would also like an investigation to be done first whether various steps allegedly taken by the police in dispersing crowd are in accordance with standard policing methods. In America, for example, the police there have even used Taser stun gun against contumacious protesters.

All in all, the resolution was initiated by the Bar Council and I obviously had hoped that the Council would have been more circumspect in their approach because the entire Bar looks to them for their guidance on various matters. One would expect that even though the Council had decided at the eleventh hour to amend to include a resolution on the conduct of the protesters, the Council should have reasonably foreseen that merely expressing concern over such violent acts by rioters would be repugnant to many law-abiding citizens in this country.

All in all, the thrust of my aforesaid article is that the Bar must not only be independent and apolitical but seen to be independent and apolitical. In fact, there was clearly no necessity for the eight lawyers to get so annoyed. They should take my criticisms constructively. After all, I was merely stating, whether rightly or wrongly, why I could not vote in favour of the motion. My criticisms were made not to divide but to strengthen the Bar out of my love for the Bar.

As their arguments against me are, in my humble view, both fallacious and mendacious, I shall treat the matter closed and venture no further to respond again.

OK so Nazir Razak will get his money back first. Congrats bro. Banyak cantik. You are the clever one. What was your wife saying the other day about "justice" and stuff like that? By the way, just wondering, does CIMB have any kind of "advisory" role in this RM9.0 billion scheme as well?   

OutSyed The Box

• another quarter of loss to the tune of RM171mil (March 31, 2012).

• the fifth consecutive quarter of loss  

• net loss for the first quarter in 2012 was RM347mil.

• huge RM2.5bil net loss last year 

• RM9bil fund raising to enable MAS to continue uninterrupted

• (MAS) surprised the market place with a massive RM9bil fund raising proposal .

• Government will set up a company that will pay for eight aircraft for RM5.3bil .

• RM9bil financing plan is crafted in three pillars 

• the issuance of up to a RM2.5bil Islamic sukuk, 

• Government setting up a (SPV) to raise RM5.3bil to pay for eight aircraft, 

• and capex of RM1.2bil .. funded by a loan facility 

• draw down the first tranche of the RM1bil sukuk in June to repay the RM1bil bridging loan it had taken from CIMB Bank. 

• second pillar, the Minister of Finance Inc will set up a SPV .. issuing RM5.3bil long-term bonds (guaranteed by the Government) 

• The six A380 were initially ordered by Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd but subsequently MAS took over the order. However, under this new financing plan, MAS will assign the rights to the SPV which will own the aircraft and MAS will pay for the leases over the period of the funding.

• MAS said that should its plans fall short, it would fall back on its parent company Khazanah Nasional Bhd to step in to provide financial support'' Rashdan told StarBiz.

READ MORE HERE

(Malaysian Digest) - Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) enforcement officers were on standby in front of Bersih co-chairman Datuk S Ambiga’s house in Bukit Damansara to ensure no unauthorized activities took place, reported The Star.

On Monday, DBKL officers worked until late at night to paint over the yellow markings drawn by the Kuala Lumpur Petty Traders Action Council to demarcate stall lots on the road along Ambiga’s house in preparation for “Bersih 4.0”.

Ambiga tweeted “DBKL worked late into the night to clear yellow lines. Here now with police checking. Appreciate it @PDRMsia and DBKL. So do neighbours” yesterday morning.

Later in the evening, she tweeted “When officers act fairly and without fear or favour the people will support them. When they don’t we won’t”.

The police tweeted “TQ for comment. All of us need to be safe, hv peace & harmony. Appreciation & Gratitude are virtues of life.

“Best wishes.”

Council chairman Datuk Jamal Md Yunus had earlier said that 60 petty traders would be setting up stalls outside Ambiga’s house tomorrow and on Friday to recoup the losses they suffered during the Bersih 3.0 rally.

He said they were calling their event “Bersih 4.0 – Mencucikan Bersih 1,2,3 (Bersih 4.0 – Cleaning up Bersih 1,2,3)”.

DBKL had on Tuesday denied the council’s application to set up stalls outside Ambiga’s house.

However, Jamal said they would still go ahead and sell household goods, food and drinks from 3:30pm to 8pm on both days even if the permits were denied.

Meanwhile, Kuala Lumpur mayor Tan Sri Ahmad Fuad Ismail was reported to have cited the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974, which does not allow people to intrude into other people’s territory, and thus the group should not proceed with its plan.

He called for the people to stop such gatherings and hoped they would be more productive instead.

At press time, DBKL officers were no longer present at the site.

(Bernama) - The 'muzakarah' or discussion, agreed upon by PAS leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat with Muslim and Malay-based non-governmental organizations (NGO), including Umno, for Malay unity and the ummah to uphold the Malays and Islam should be honest and sincere.

Many Malays and Muslims feel that imposing conditions on the 'muzakarah' would fail the effort, and was political capital for the coming 13th general election.

"I am for the idea of a 'muzakarah' as it is encouraged in Islam and it will make a positive impact on Muslim unity," Young Malaysian Muslim Theologians working committee secretariat chairman Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya told Bernama.

However, he was disappointed with PAS for imposing conditions even before the discussions were held, which was viewed as insincere and only profitable to the party.

"Firstly, I commend Umno for accepting the proposal for a 'muzakarah' and I commend Pas for wanting to have one. Unfortunately, there is a Pas leader who wants to discuss with syiah members, but not members of the Sunnah wal Jamaah for fear of being immoral.
  
"Is it not immoral to think negatively even before the 'muzakarah'? For what? Is it political rhetoric? I am saddened by this," he said.

Fathul Bari did not deny that a 'muzakarah' required conditions, but the conditions should not be one-sided and for the good of any specific party.

"Please remember that a 'muzakarah' is not about winning or finding faults, and one needs to be able to accept reality. Appoint a moderator among academicians so the discussion will result in something beneficial," he added.

Fraction among the Malays and Muslims in Malaysia need to be viewed seriously as others may take advantage of the situation.

Therefore, a large portion of the public feel that it is necessary for PAS to have a 'muzakarah' with Umno for the future, Malay political power and Malay unity, as well as to uphold Islam.

National Defence University of Malaysia (UPNM) senior lecturer Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, in his blog, said there was no need for Muslims to compete to show their strength and power in political matters, which would only create division.
  
"Let us compete in matters which will bring us good, such as a strong economy and education, as well as bring the spirit of 'jihad'.

"PAS and Umno need to get rid of prejudice between one another. It is time to work for Islam. Be matured in politics and ignore revenge to make plans and strategies," he said.

For Oxford University Fellow Associate Professor Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin (pic), dialogues, discussions, negotiations and attempts to understand one another was a sign of the civilized. 

"These two parties represent our people, so it is apt for them to discuss when necessary," he was quoted in his blog, DrMaza.com. 

The former Perlis mufti said basically, discussions towards appeasing conflict between Muslims was part of Islamic teaching and a 'muzakarah' should not be a platform to debate grievances between both parties as it could be done in Parliament.
   
"It is best for both parties to find common ground which will benefit the people and country. In reality, both parties are similar in many ways. 

"Their wishes and goals are the same. They have similar sentiments and similar joys and pains," he said. 

Meanwhile, former PAS vice-president Datuk Mohd Nakhaie Ahmad said he was confident that several Pas leaders were intent on discussing with Umno while others gave conflicting statements aimed at failing the efforts.

He said, besides conflicting statements, imposing conditions such as requiring Umno to change its constitution seemed part of the effort to prevent the 'muzakarah' from materialising.

"Umno does not need to worry about this. Pas has long asked for a 'muzakarah' but it never happened. They are not sincere in this and only use it as they have run out of capital," the Islamic Dakwah Foundation Malaysia chairman told Bernama.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee says the former solicitor-general II followed the 'cab rank rule' with regard to his decision to represent Anwar Ibrahim.

(Free Malaysia Today) - Retired solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden has received the approval of the Malaysian Bar on his joining Anwar Ibrahim’s defence team in the latest Bersih 3.0 trial, despite him being the former lead prosecutor in the opposition leader’s Sodomy II trial.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said Yusof followed the “cab rank rule”, a basic principle in legal practice, and praised the latter for doing so in the “fine tradition of the Bar”.

The “cab rank rule” refers to the obligation of a lawyer to represent any client who seeks his or her services, provided that it is in the lawyer’s area of practice and the client is willing to pay the lawyer’s usual rates. The concept is derived from the idea of a queue of taxis, each taking the first customer who comes along.

“The cab rank rule in essence obliges an advocate to accept a brief which he has the skill or experience for regardless of personal feelings or views, or even the harm to his person or reputation,” said Lim.

The rationale for this rule, he explained, is to ensure that everyone and anyone has access to a counsel of choice.

“In the present case, where the former prosecutor in the Sodomy II trial is now acting on behalf of the leader of the opposition in a separate criminal proceeding, he is doing so in the fine tradition of the Bar of following the cab rank rule,” Lim told FMT when contacted.

He said that what Yusof has done is in line with Rule 2 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978.

It provides that: “An advocate and solicitor shall give advice on or accept any brief in the Courts in which he professes to practice at the proper professional fee dependent on the length and difficulty of the case, but special circumstances may justify his refusal, at his discretion, to accept a particular brief.”

Possibility of conflict

However, Lim said there is an exception to this rule and it arises when there was a possibility of conflict. However, he noted that such a conflict does not appear to be apparent in the current case.

“There is possible exception to the rule is if there was confidential information the lawyer gained from the previous brief which may be useful for the defence in the new brief, thus giving rise to a situation of conflict.

“However, on the face of the two charges, this possibility does not appear to be real, unless the Attorney-General’s Chambers is aware of such circumstances. If so, then there is a cause of complaint for misconduct,” he added.

Lim said that the “most memorable yet tragic example of the cab rank rule” was the first Solicitor General of the English Commonwealth, John Cooke, who in 1649 led for the prosecution in the trial of King of Charles I.

“[Cooke] prosecuted King Charles, on behalf of the State, whilst his fellow barristers fled London to avoid being called upon to do so.

“When the royalists regained power, Cooke himself was tried and he valiantly argued that a barrister has to take up a brief for the appropriate fee regardless of danger to himself or reputation, and that a lawyer must never be identified with those who instructed him,” he said.

[Cooke was found guilty of high treason and was hanged, drawn and quartered in 1660]

READ MORE HERE

Barisan Nasional leaders say they may lose out in the election if internal sabotage is not contained. 

(Free Malaysia Today) - A divided Barisan Nasional may spell the end of Prime Minister’s Najib Tun Razak reign in Putrajaya. And this warning to the Barisan Nasional comes from non-other than Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia.

The paper quoting party leaders says sabotage is a very clear and present danger and could lead to the BN losing more seats than in 2008.

At the Umno’s 66th anniversary two weeks ago, Najib put on a brave face and touched on the gathering as a show of support that the party is not divided and that they are ready to face the elections.

Some 60,000 members had congregated at the Bukit Jalil National Stadium here in the gathering which party sources said was meant as a “loyalty test” apart from propping up the party’s machinery and mobilisation strength.

Najib joked that the display of unity gave him enough confidence to hold elections sooner than expected.

Threat real

But Abdul Aziz Rahman, the president of the former BN Lawmakers Council, said the threat of internal sabotages is real and the ruling coalition could see itself battered if the problem is not contained.

“This election is momentous time for BN. If party members are not united then we will see the black episode (of 2008) repeating itself.

“BN’s victory will depend on the unity of all members and component party members,” he was quoted by Utusan Malaysia today.

READ MORE HERE

You see, I may not be a lawyer, but I do know how the law works. Any statement by a third party that you repeat becomes hearsay and hence is not admissible in court. You cannot make an allegation based on what someone told you. It must be based on what you yourself heard and/or saw. In this case I was NOT at the scene of the crime. Hence, by law, I cannot make any allegation when I was not there and did not see or hear what happened.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Sorry to prick your gloat balloon. I do recall that you once declared Rosmah was there when Altantuya was C4ed. That was a lie and you corrected yourself sometime later. Nevertheless, it was a lie in the first place. So, you don't ALWAYS tell the truth then as you claim. -- Fer

*******************************

That was a comment by ‘Fer’ posted in my article ‘Allow me to gloat today’.

As you can see, from the hundreds of issues that I have raised since the mid-1990s and the countless allegations I have made against politicians, police officers, civil servants, etc., there is only that one issue they keep raising, again and again, against me.

Do you mean to say, ‘Fer’, since the 17 or 18 years that I have been writing political commentaries, this is the one and only ‘lie’ that I am supposed to have made which you can use against me?

Never mind. Let’s then talk about this one ‘lie’ that you have raised. It is actually good that you have raised it because it gives me an opportunity to talk about it. Or else what excuse do I have in raising this matter? In this instance, I am not raising this matter. You have raised it, not me. I am just responding to the allegation that I had lied. And if I do not respond then you will say that the allegation is true.

Now, read my Statutory Declaration below. That is the original signed copy of my Statutory Declaration lodged in the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 18th June 2008. I trust this is the issue you are talking about, ‘Fer’. Can you tell me which part of that Statutory Declaration is my allegation against Rosmah Mansor?

Unless your command of the English language is really bad, you can see that the allegation is not against Rosmah. The allegation is against ‘an informer’. I did not declare, as you said, that Rosmah was there. Instead, I declared that an informer stated that Rosmah was there.

You see, I may not be a lawyer, but I do know how the law works. Any statement by a third party that you repeat becomes hearsay and hence is not admissible in court. You cannot make an allegation based on what someone told you. It must be based on what you yourself heard and/or saw. In this case I was NOT at the scene of the crime. Hence, by law, I cannot make any allegation when I was not there and did not see or hear what happened.

Before I signed this Statutory Declaration I did get advise from my lawyers and I was told as to what I can and cannot say. And I cannot say that Rosmah was there because I was not also there and hence did not see this. But I can say what I have been told by this third party or informer, which I did.

In fact, the law requires that you do this. If you do not, then you will be guilty of the crime of withholding information pertaining to a crime -- and you can get sent to jail for that.

In short, I cannot, and did not, make an allegation against Rosmah. What I can do, and which I did do, is to say that someone else had made this allegation and that I know who this person is. Making an allegation and alleging that someone else had made an allegation are two different things. And as much as I may not have studied law, I do know enough law to understand what is hearsay and to avoid hearsay in my Statutory Declaration.

Thus, the allegation that I lied about Rosmah is itself a lie. In other words, I did not lie. You are lying that I lied. That is the long and short of it.

Now, let’s talk about the second part of your statement, ‘Fer’, where you said I corrected myself later. I do not know where you got this impression from but I suspect it must have been from my TV3 interview more than a year ago.

In my TV3 interview, I was asked about this Statutory Declaration of 18th June 2008 where I had made an allegation against Rosmah. I replied to that person interviewing me exactly like how I have responded above. I explained to TV3 that I DID NOT make any allegation against Rosmah. I never did back in June 2008 and I am not doing so now.

I then went into detail regarding the story of how I came to sign this Statutory Declaration. I also explained that at first I did not believe this allegation because I found it very far fetched. I also thought it unlikely that Rosmah would walk into that jungle and climb those hills.

Then, I explained, I checked with both Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Anwar Ibrahim and both of them confirmed that they are aware of this story. They also personally know my informer and consider him a very reliable/credible person who has been a great help to the Opposition. In fact, he has been feeding the Opposition a lot of very valuable information, especially pre-March 2008.

Based on this ‘endorsement’ by both Ku Li and Anwar, I decided to pursue this matter and sign the Statutory Declaration. Nevertheless, I made sure that I did NOT make any allegation against Rosmah, which will be hearsay, but instead alleged that my informer was the one who said this.

This was exactly what I said in my TV3 interview. What I said in June 2008 has not changed. My story still stands without any amendments, retractions, additions or subtractions.

Hence, ‘Fer’, in what way did I ‘lie’ in June 2008 and in what way did I ‘correct myself later’? Can you see that it is you, instead, who is lying, ‘Fer’? Or is it that your command of English is so bad?

PAS is not corrupted nor power-crazy. It upholds justice, fairness and good governance. 

This issue – unity talks – coming so close to the GE13 is to trap PAS. It is to make the non-Muslims, especially the Chinese, to be fearful of PAS. At the same time if PAS refuses, the rural Malays will view PAS as arrogant, stubborn and having sold out its principles to DAP. Therefore, PAS is caught on a highwire balancing act.

Selena Tay, Free Malaysia Today

The issue of unity talks has again emerged to trouble the Pakatan Rakyat coalition. This issue is immortal. It can never die as it always resurfaces at the opportune or crucial time. This time it comes close to the impending 13th general election.

PAS spiritual adviser Nik Aziz Nik Mat has so far given the following replies to Umno on each occasion when the issue came up in the past:

In 2009 his reply was “Umno is again wooing PAS and the answer is no”. His exact words were: “Nak pinang lagi?!” This is translated into English as “Wooing again?!”

In 2010 when Umno said that they could allocate between three and five ministerial posts to PAS, his reply was: “No need so many ministerial posts lah, only one is enough – the prime minister’s post.”

In 2011, when Umno said that there must be Malay unity, his reply was just as good: “What about Muslim unity? The best thing to do would be to have both Malay unity and also Muslim unity, which is the more important one. Therefore the right thing to do would be for Umno to be dissolved so that all its members can join PAS because PAS is an Islamic party. Thus both forms of unity will be achieved.”

In 2012, his reply was that Umno must also be willing to accept PAS’ coalition partners, PKR and DAP.

This issue – unity talks – coming so close to the GE13 is to trap PAS. It is to make the non-Muslims, especially the Chinese, to be fearful of PAS. At the same time if PAS refuses, the rural Malays will view PAS as arrogant, stubborn and having sold out its principles to DAP. Therefore, PAS is caught on a highwire balancing act.

PAS is Umno’s ‘oxygen’

Truth be told, Umno always seeks out PAS when it is facing difficulties and now is one such time.

PAS vice-president and Pokok Sena MP Mahfuz Omar has once commented that when Umno is having breathing difficulties, it seeks out the oxygen called PAS.

If PAS decides to join Barisan Nasional, Umno will get a million votes as there are a million PAS members. If this happens, then Umno can easily discard MCA, MIC and Gerakan because Umno no longer needs their assistance in pulling in the votes.

With PAS in BN, Umno can easily win the GE13. No sweat! This is the reason why Umno seeks out this short-cut to winning at the polls and it is none other than to recruit PAS.

MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek is raising the issue of whether PKR and DAP know about PAS so-called foray into the unity talks. Of course, Chua is worried and well he should be. If PAS were to join BN, MCA is a dead duck. PKR and DAP will also be dealt a very severe blow but not as severe as MCA.

PAS is the major partner in Pakatan in securing Malay support, especially from the rural folks. There is a saying: “Di mana ada pondok dan padi, di situlah adanya PAS” (Where there is a religious pondok school and a paddy field, there you will find PAS).

PAS is also the main supplier of manpower for events such as the Bersih rallies. The image of Nik Aziz wearing the Bersih 3.0 T-shirt and giving the thumbs-up sign spurred many of its supporters to journey to Kuala Lumpur for the Bersih sit-in on April 28. It is Nik Aziz who is the prime mover for PAS. If Nik Aziz says “Go ahead”, its supporters will be ready and willing.

And thus Nik Aziz is the major stumbling block in Umno’s bid to recruit PAS. No doubt there are elements in PAS who are in favour of the unity talks as had happened when the unity government idea was mooted by BN right after the fall of Selangor in the previous general election. But Nik Aziz put a stop to all that nonsense.

READ MORE HERE

The recent proliferation of international schools in this country and their liberal enrolment of rich Malaysian students also make a mockery of the government’s claim to implement a National Education Policy (specifying Malay as the main medium of instruction) for all Malaysians. Why does the English-language have priority over the mother tongue of Malaysians?

Dr Kua Kia Soong

The Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin maintains that his “hands are tied” over the demand by the community for an independent Chinese school in Kuantan “unless there is a change in the education policy or the Education Act.” (The Star, 23.5.2012:12)

This statement by the Education Minister at least explains why, despite the constant claim by the government that they support mother tongue education, the number of Chinese and Tamil schools has been decreasing. The politics of education policy in Malaysia certainly flies in the face of logic and consistency.

We Had More Chinese and Tamil Schools in 1957

For the uninitiated, at Independence we had 1350 Chinese primary schools, more than 800 Tamil primary schools and 78 Chinese secondary schools. There were at least six Chinese secondary schools in Pahang then. Today, with our population doubled, there are only 1285 Chinese primary schools, 550 or so Tamil primary schools and 60 Malaysian Independent Chinese Secondary Schools (MICSS).

In fact when the Education Act 1961 was legislated, the number of Chinese secondary schools shrunk to just 14 because the rest had to give up their mother tongue education system since they could not survive without government aid. From the seventies, the number of MICSS grew steadily to sixty.

The most obvious question Malaysians might want to ask is, how did the education policy and Education Act 1961 allow the number of MICSS to grow to sixty between 1961 to 1980?

The next obvious question to ask is: how did the policy and the law suddenly insist that there cannot be one more MICSS once the sixtieth school had been built by the end of the seventies?

Obviously, the Education Minister has not thought carefully about the implications of his statement. If he values critical thinking among Malaysian students, these are the questions they would be likely to ask:

Which Education Policy?

When the Education Minister refers to the education policy, we presume he is referring to the 1956 Razak Report which proposed: “the ultimate objective of educational policy…in which the national language is the main medium of instruction…whilst preserving and sustaining the growth of the language and culture of other communities living in the country.”

Clearly, until the Education Act 1961 was legislated, this education policy (embodied in the 1957 Education Ordinance) allowed the 78 Chinese secondary schools to exist.

We all know that the law overrides government policy but the education policy the Education Minister is referring to – embodied in the Razak Report – did allow the state-run Chinese Secondary Schools to exist right up to 1961!

 
Which Education Act?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question. We all know the latest law in question is the 1996 Education Act. However, many Malaysians including lawyers are not aware of the nuances of the education law in this country.

Before the 1996 Education Act, the mother tongue lobby had protested against Section 21(2) of the 1961 Act which stipulated that the Minister of Education “may at any suitable time convert all national-type primary schools to national primary schools.”

When the 1996 Education Act came in, as expected, Section 21(2) of the previous law was no longer there. However, under section 17.11 of the new law, ALL schools in the National Education System have to use Bahasa Malaysia as the main medium of instruction. (Note that under the 1961 Act, only primary schools were affected.)

There were only two exceptions to this provision: (i) schools which are given exemption by the Minister; and (2) the “national-type schools” to be established in future under section 28.

The National Education System covers all educational institutions, viz. government, government-aided as well as private educational institutions. (s.16) It practically comprises all types of schools providing pre-school, primary, secondary, post-secondary and higher education, but not expatriate schools. (s.15)

Double Standards over English-language Schools

The recent proliferation of international schools in this country and their liberal enrolment of rich Malaysian students also make a mockery of the government’s claim to implement a National Education Policy (specifying Malay as the main medium of instruction) for all Malaysians. Why does the English-language have priority over the mother tongue of Malaysians? If the government can allow hundreds of institutions in the country to use the English language, what is the problem with allowing one more MICSS school in which BM and English are compulsory subjects?

What Happened to Reform?

Of late, the government under Prime Minister Najib has been appealing to the people to believe in their determination to reform the country. Now if they are committed to support mother tongue education, why cannot the policy and the law be amended to allow the free development of mother tongue education? If laws relating to national security can be changed, why cannot educational laws be changed?

The Contributions of MICSS to National development

The 60 MICSS have been surviving all these years through the support of the community which subsidizes their tuition fees. Although the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) is recognized round the world, our own government still refuses to recognize it.

Despite being treated like step children, graduates from the MICSS have been contributing to Malaysia’s development and growth. The inventor of the thumb-drive is a product of the MICSS and he has since come back to invest in this country. The Chinese community has been paying double taxation while also nurturing these 60 schools since they have been forced to be self-financing.

Certain states, such as Pahang need at least one MICSS or their students have to travel to other states to study at other MICSS schools.

At this day and age, while the country is talking about educational reform and support for mother tongue education, surely ONE independent school in Kuantan is not too much to ask?

A Far-Sighted and Fair Education Policy

For the 13th general election, let us make this demand on all political parties and candidates:

1. Reform the national education system to promote quality holistic education, equal opportunities, social justice, creativity, critical thinking as well as scientific and technological knowledge required for research & development and vocational skills;

2. Abolish discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, age, gender or creed relating to entry into educational institutions;

3. Uphold the spirit of the Education Ordinance 1957 by supporting mother tongue education, building Chinese and Tamil schools in areas where they are needed, ensuring proportionate financial support and training of adequate teachers for these schools;

4. Recognise the Unified Examination Certificate and provide financial support for the non-profit mother tongue secondary schools so that the students can enjoy free education as in other secondary schools;

5. Promote the preservation and development of the indigenous peoples’ mother tongue language and education.

The protests outside S Ambiga's house seem like a deliberate attempt to undermine the prime minister's good work, says a MIC leader.

RK Anand, Free Malaysia Today

The protests outside Bersih 3.0 chairperson S Ambiga’s residence appear to be an attempt to sabotage Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and Barisan Nasional.

Commenting on the latest proposal to hold a night market outside her house in Bukit Damansara tomorrow and Friday, a MIC leader criticised the organisers for descending to despicable levels.

Party central working committee member S Vell Paari said Najib since coming into power in 2009 had made numerous attempts to win back the confidence of non-Malay voters.

“But these so-called protests are turning the clock back. It seems as if these are deliberate attempts to undermine the prime minister’s good work.

“If this continues, BN can forget about non-Malay votes. Many of my Malay friends are also disgusted with what is happening, so you can forget about their votes as well,” he told FMT.

Vell Paari warned that if left unchecked, then the question of Pakatan Rakyat winning the next general election would not arise as these mindless actions would ensure that BN loses Putrajaya.

‘If you are brave enough…’

Without mincing his words, the MIC leader challenged the traders to set up stalls in front of PAS leaders Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat or Abdul Hadi Awang’s houses instead.

“If you are really brave enough, go and do it in front of their houses or even (Opposition Leader) Anwar Ibrahim’s house since all of them supported the Bersih rally.

“Don’t be cowards and harass a woman. This is distasteful and gutless,” he stressed.

He said the critics of Bersih had always used culture as a basis for their argument to discourage Malaysians from participating in street protests.

“Now I want to ask these traders, is it our culture to intimidate and harass women?” he said.

Vell Paari also said the traders’ action to spray-paint the road outside Ambiga’s house to create lots for the stalls amounted to vandalism of public property whereas auctioning these lots was an illegal transaction.

“Does this mean other groups can draw up similar lots outside the DBKL office and sell them as well?” he asked.

Vell Paari also said if the government could charge PKR leaders over the Bersih rally, then these traders should also be hauled to court for defying a Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) order.

“If they proceed with their plan, then it will be in violation of the law and they must be punished. Unfortunately, there is no legislation which outlaws ignorance,” he added.

Vell Paari said that agreeing or disagreeing with Ambiga’s actions was a separate issue but when the line of civility was breached, the perpetrators must be taken to task.

“We cannot keep quiet just because we are afraid we will upset certain quarters,” he added.

Time to ‘bite the bullet’

The MIC leader also said it was time for BN to “bite the bullet” with regard to the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28, which saw tens of thousands taking to the streets demanding for free and fair polls.

“It is time for the prime minister to engage Ambiga in a civil discussion or this situation is going to spiral out of control and further damage the nation’s image,” he added.

The undeniable fact was, Vell Paari pointed out, Bersih’s clarion call was heeded by more than 100,000 people.

“Aren’t those who participated in the protest Malaysians as well? Doesn’t the government represent them as well? So it’s time to engage Ambiga in the proper manner.

“Our prime minister is a people’s man and he has been constantly engaging people from all walks of life, and now it is time for him to do so with her as well. This is my request to him and I believe Najib can do it,” he added.

Failing which, Vell Paari cautioned, certain forces would ensure that BN self-destructs in the next polls.

Vell Paari also said the opposition cannot be demonised for jumping on the Bersih bandwagon because that was politics.

“They saw a platform so they jumped on it, similar to how BN will jump at an opportunity to raise its profile,” he added.

Following the Bersih rally, traders had set up a burger stall outside Ambiga’s house to protest over the losses incurred on April 28.

After that, a group of ex-servicemen staged a vulgar aerobic exercise and now there was the proposal to set up a night market by a prominent businessman and Umno member.

READ MORE HERE

In choosing to go ahead with its own inquiry, Suhakam is making a significant symbolic gesture. It is standing up to the Government and implying that the Government’s own panel does not inspire public confidence.

Kee Thuan Chye

We have witnessed much madness and asininity displayed in the aftermath of the Bersih 3.0 rally of April 28, especially exemplified in the laughable antics of anti-Bersih groups, such as hawkers’ group Ikhlas, the army veterans who shook their buttocks in front of Bersih chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasen’s home, and the Kuala Lumpur Petty Traders Action Council.

Some of it can also be seen in the comments on the rally made by government leaders, including Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim’s incredulous declaration that only 22,270 people took part in it. But most risible of all is the Government’s appointment of ex-Inspector General of Police Hanif Omar as chairperson of the so-called independent panel to investigate the violence that occurred on April 28.

So it is with considerable relief that we now welcome the decision of the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to conduct its own public inquiry into the violence when earlier it had said it would wait for the Government’s panel. Suhakam decided to go ahead because the panel has yet to come out with its terms of reference, and also because it has received numerous complaints from the public about the police brutality committed during the rally.

This is a show of good sense amidst the show of puerile emotionalism by the anti-Bersih groups and anti-Bersih ministers. It restores faith in the belief that rationality still rules okay in our current tragicomic state.

Critics may aver that a Suhakam inquiry will not amount to much and that it will not result in action. Suhakam’s findings on Bersih 2.0, in which it concluded that the police used excessive force during that rally of July 9, 2011, has apparently not been taken much notice of by the authorities.

After releasing the findings three weeks ago, all Suhakam could say was: “It is now up to the police to act according to the recommendations as Suhakam does not have enforcement power.” It has, however, not elicited a positive response from the police or the Home Ministry. They know Suhakam is a toothless tiger.

Even so, an inquiry into Bersih 3.0 conducted by Suhakam would still not be a futile exercise. First, it will give those who allegedly received brutal treatment by the police the opportunity to be heard. This is important because it gives them hope. It also provides a healing balm.

Second, it will galvanize the voiceless and instill in the Malaysian psyche that in a democracy, the downtrodden can speak up.

Third, as evidence is presented during the inquiry, it will be made known to the public how the police conducted themselves during the rally. The truth, in as far as it can be ascertained, will be made known. People who have been skeptical of Bersih and people who don’t read online news media will get a side of the story different from that spun by the mainstream media. If they are ignorant of what the police did during the rally, the inquiry will help enlighten them.

Above all, in choosing to go ahead with its own inquiry, Suhakam is making a significant symbolic gesture. It is standing up to the Government and implying that the Government’s own panel does not inspire public confidence.

Indeed, one wonders if the Government itself, after having been lambasted for its appointment of Hanif and one or two other members, still has confidence in its own panel. If it did, why is it taking so long to formulate the terms of reference? It has been nearly two weeks since the panel was announced.

Has the Government realized that it did indeed make a mistake in appointing Hanif as the chairperson?

First, how could an ex-policeman be head of a panel that is investigating, presumably among other things, the possibility of police brutality? How neutral could he be?

Second, how could Hanif be the head when prior to his appointment, he had made the biased remarks that there were Communist sympathizers among the Bersih 3.0 rally participants, and that the movement was aimed at toppling the Government?

That he was wrong on the second point and obviously snatching at straws in invoking the long-dead Communist bogey shows thinking reflective of an insensible Malaysian. Can we, therefore, trust an investigative panel headed by such a person?

In any case, inquiry or no, informed members of the public have already delivered their verdict on what happened on April 28.

Many are the photographs and videos circulating in cyberspace of what the police did – beyond the parameters of responsible policing.

Their biggest mistake was attacking media personnel even after the latter had identified who they were.

What they did to reporter Mohd Radzi Abdul Razak of theSun was a severe indictment of their conduct. He was merely sitting down and having a cigarette when a group of seven to eight policemen charged him. He told them he was a reporter and showed them his media accreditation card. But they punched and kicked him, and he landed in hospital with injuries to his ribs, jaw and neck.

Photographer Muhammad Arif Kartono of The Malay Mail also showed his media accreditation card but it didn’t stop the cops from kicking him in the face and on the legs, and stomping him on his back.

Another mistake the police made was confiscating the memory cards of people taking photographs. It reinforced the idea that we are living in a police state.

This was exacerbated by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein’s explanation that confiscating memory cards was part of the police’s standard operating procedures. It had many people laughing till they had tears in their eyes. More comedy followed when the IGP, Ismail Omar, corrected Hishammuddin the next day.

Fortunately, many people escaped with their memory cards intact. Some of their photos show policemen kicking people who were already down on the ground and helpless. In many instances, they attacked in a gang – with several cops pouncing on a lone target.

The videos are even more convincing because they record live action. Apart from those showing policemen behaving like mobsters, there is one of a policeman who pointed a gun at a crowd. Was brandishing a dangerous weapon necessary? Should he not be hauled up?

Running around in our minds are these questions: Why did the police chase after the rally participants when their job should be to merely disperse them? Why did they allegedly enter restaurants and mosques to drag people out? Why did they allegedly beat up people who were not even taking part in the rally?

And why did many of them not wear their badge or identification numbers?

Let’s hope the Suhakam inquiry will help answer these questions.

Meanwhile, the police should prove that they are capable of doing the right thing by arresting anyone who sets up stall outside Ambiga’s house if they don’t have a trading permit from Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. As the mayor of KL, Ahmad Fuad Ismail, has said, it would contravene the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974. That is surely very clear.

So let’s see what the police do about it.

Umno's excitement at Tunku Aziz's exit from DAP is grossly miscalculated and has not triggered the 'expected' exodus of Malays from the opposition party.

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, Free Malaysia Today

Umno’s hope that Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim’s exit from DAP would serve as the catalyst prompting other Malays in DAP to do likewise has crumbled.

Indeed, Tunku Aziz’s action has reinforced the determination of Malays who joined DAP to stay put despite his U-turn.

It has perhaps only now dawned on Umno that people adopt a certain political stand not because of loyalty to a figure. Such loyalty is ephemeral.

You will see that soon – as soon as Umno president Najib Tun Razak performs worse than his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

But the real issue in my mind, is not about Tunku Aziz’s departure from DAP at all. It’s all about Umno seeing this as a chance to revive its own diminishing legitimacy.

How many times have I said that Umno cannot claim it is representing the Malays. In 2008, Umno candidates got only two million of the 5.7 million votes.

That’s a clearer sign that Umno is no longer relevant to Malays than Tunku Aziz’s exit from DAP as suggesting that DAP is not compatible with Malays.

Like Umno’s favorite line when interpreting Tunku Aziz’s exit, the exodus of Malays from the Umno mothership can only mean that Malays are no longer compatible with Umno.

If you are eager to arrive at such a conclusion from Tunku Aziz’s exit, then you must apply the same line of reasoning and accordingly, the conclusion regarding Umno.

Umno’s new media darling

If you can’t, then see Tunku Aziz’s departure as it really is – the departure of one man who realises now that changing something cannot happen within a self-imposed time frame.

Just like Tunku Aziz’s sudden eureka moment that (Prime Minister) Najib Tun Razak’s transformation takes time, that same logic must be applied to whatever Tunku Aziz wishes to happen to DAP.

Except the problem with Tunku Aziz is that the changes that he wants in DAP must take place NOW, but the changes that Najib is touting MUST be given a chance to take place.

Why not the same treatment?

Since leaving DAP, Tunku Aziz has become Umno media’s darling. He has been described as the Malay face that DAP can use to attract more Malays. What rubbish.

Malays who joined DAP did not even include Tunku Aziz in their equation.

With due respect to Tunku Aziz, he was an unknown political entity.

It’s absolutely not true that DAP wanted to use Tunku Aziz as the face that would entice Malays into joining DAP.

I find that offensive. The Malays who joined DAP find some resonance with the values and struggles which DAP espouses.

READ MORE HERE

Jamal says that he wants to make a point; when the law is broken, chaos ensues. He establishes that he does not agree with Bersih 3.0 as it went against the law but is intent on breaking the law to make his point. There is a word for this and it is called hypocrisy. Since when do people go around committing the crime they are against to prove a point?

Mohd Ikhram Merican

What’s the difference between organizing a peaceful sit-down in a public space and intimidating a lady in her personal space?

We were recently witness to some burger hawkers and army veterans creating a fiasco in front of Datuk Ambiga’s house. If that was not enough, now we have a group of 60 petty traders, under the helm of a Datuk Jamal Md. Yunus, who wish to set up stalls in front of Ambiga’s house, apparently to recoup losses made on the day of Bersih 3.0.

Seriously, these petty traders should permanently close shop and seek employment as they seem to lack the business acumen necessary for success in trade. Firstly, the residential part of Damansara Heights does not have the kind of human traffic that one will find in the city center. Commerce thrives in teeming streets. If the petty traders are genuinely concerned about recouping lost business, they should set up stalls in more strategic locations.

Secondly, simple mathematics eludes Jamal and his band of petty traders. According to Jamal (in Bernama), the petty traders can expect to make between RM300 and RM500 per day. That is an average of RM 24,000 per day in total collections. Assuming that each transaction is RM20 (a generous estimate), they are expecting about 1,200 visitors per day … in an exclusive residential street … between 3.30pm – 8.00pm … on a Thursday and Friday. That is assuming all 1,200 visitors buy something and are not just looking around. I am betting the petty traders will make more money if they stay in the vicinity of Dataran Merdeka (I am assuming that is where they ply their goods).

But then again, this is not about money is it? Based on the video interview Jamal gave to reporters, it seems that he and his coalition of petty traders are out to teach Ambiga a lesson. As if she needs one.

If the government is trying to make a martyr out of Ambiga, they are doing a fine job but enough is enough. We are sick of the intimidation of a decent lady in broad daylight under the guise of retarded excuses. Butt exercises? Serving beef burgers to a vegetarian Hindu?

Dear Prime Minister Najib, surely your expensive international education has taught you better. Our Deputy IGP finds nothing wrong with this but don’t you?

Some people say that there is no difference between Bersih 3.0 and the antics of these stooges. There is actually a big difference between what is being inflicted on Ambiga and what happened in Dataran Merdeka.

Firstly, Dataran Merdeka is a public space. Its maintenance is paid for by the public and large gatherings regularly take place here including concerts, sporting events, and national day parades. The road between Dataran Merdeka and Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad is regularly closed to motorists. Most dwellers in the Klang Valley have become accustomed to this fact.

If a peaceful sit-down in Dataran Merdeka offended anyone, by all means, have a peaceful sit-down in this public space, or any other, in a show of protest over Bersih 3.0. Bersih 3.0 was not held in front of Jamal's house. It would do well for him and anyone planning more invasions of Ambiga’s private space to ponder upon what the holy Quran says about this in 24:27; “O ye who believe! Enter not houses other than your own, until ye have asked permission and saluted those in them: that is best for you, in order that ye may heed (what is seemly).” On this basis, I humbly ask the Federal Territory Mufti to condemn acts that violate the sanctity of a citizen’s personal space with the same zeal and speed in which he condemned protests against the government.

Secondly, the fact that many roads in Kuala Lumpur were closed as a result of Bersih 3.0 is not Ambiga's fault. Take this up with the police or the government. The argument that Bersih 3.0 was dangerous and therefore required excessive security does not hold water. On a regular work week, I estimate (very conservatively) that over a million people commute to Kuala Lumpur's city center. Any one of these million people could be a terrorist, a dangerous criminal, or a threat to national security. I do not see FRU trucks and thousands of police personnel lining the streets of Kuala Lumpur on a daily basis to keep an eye over this massive crowd converging in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.

If you argue that Bersih 3.0 required a large police force to establish security, then we need the same number of police officers manning the streets of Kuala Lumpur on a daily basis as more than 1 million people entering Kuala Lumpur everyday can only mean trouble. On this reasoning, we need the same FRU trucks, water cannons, and tear gas on standby at every concert, football match, marathon, and parade. Why trust anyone's intention? It would be better to preempt a security violation by having the full force of the law present all around Kuala Lumpur EVERYDAY.

Thirdly, why stop at Ambiga in the blame game? Why not go all the way to the root cause - the government? Jamal et.al. should blame the government for their loss of revenue. The fact that the government has refused to provide any guarantee that Bersih's 8 demands will be met before the next election has been conveniently forgotten. This was why Bersih 3.0 was held. Bersih's 8 demands are not unreasonable. The government has been playing coy on this. Ambiga and the Bersih movement have been very clear - give the people a guarantee that come the next election, Malaysians will have free and fair elections. Is that unfair? Why does the government appear unwilling to guarantee free and fair elections? 

The Election Commission (EC) is accused of being bipartisan, the EC’s chairman and his deputy are alleged to be UMNO members, there are compelling arguments that the government is giving citizenship for votes, and there is evidence that the electoral roll is dubious. Surely this is reason enough for civil society to demand that the government guarantee free and fair elections. The burger hawkers, army veterans, and petty traders should blame Prime Minister Najib for failing to provide us citizens with satisfactory sureties, and thereby facilitating Bersih 3.0.

Fourthly, in his video interview, Jamal says that he wants to make a point; when the law is broken, chaos ensues. He establishes that he does not agree with Bersih 3.0 as it went against the law but is intent on breaking the law to make his point. There is a word for this and it is called hypocrisy. Since when do people go around committing the crime they are against to prove a point? Jamal lost the moral high ground when he went to Bukit Damansara with his group of merry-men to illegally paint the road with demarcation lines for stalls.

Lastly, when Bersih 3.0 broke the law, it did so in the spirit of civil disobedience. Globally, there is precedence for this; Gandhi’s non-violent resistance, the American Civil rights movement, the South African fight against apartheid, and the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia are but a few examples. Bersih 3.0 may have broken the law, but it was done to institute reforms to an electoral system that is in bad need of it.

The holy Quran says in 9:12, “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained,” and in 4:148, “Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done; for Allah is He who heareth and knoweth all things”, and in 26:151, “Do not obey the order of the transgressors.” 

Saidina Abu Bakr is quoted to have said, "Cooperate with me when I am right but correct me when I commit error; obey me so long as I follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet; but turn away from me when I deviate."

My humble suggestion to Ambiga, whom I hold in high regard, is to take a 1-week holiday from Thursday (the day of the planned protest outside her house). Go with your family and enjoy in a resort of your choosing by the sea. Sip on Pina Coladas and relax while the petty traders try hard to recoup their “losses”. When you come back, refreshed and rejuvenated, sue all these groups to the full extent of the law. I am sure all Malaysians who believe in justice will be more than willing to donate money and assistance for this cause.

If Hindraf goes on to field candidates in the aforementioned seats, the Indian vote will be split and the damage will be for PR. This might even cause the Selangor state to fall back to BN. One would assume the logical action would be to forge ties with Hindraf

By Mr. G

The PKR-DAP-PAS opposition alliance received a vast majority of the Indian votes in the last general election. Historically, more than 70% of the Indian votes have gone to BN but with the backdrop of the watershed Hindraf rally and Bersih protest, BN took a beating in 2008.

Some thought the numbers mobilised by Hindraf were in the region of 100,000 while the ruling government claimed it was far less. Other independent news blogs and online sites put the number in the range of 20,000-50,000 which is still quite a feat considering the rally was mainly attended by one ethnic minority of the country.

The main protest was in the capital KL but other parts of Malaysia saw smaller ones, especially at the Batu Caves. Soon after the event, photos of the protesters being fired on with water cannons and tear gas were circulated on the internet.

It’s safe to state that the damage inflicted to BN by the Indian voters was not due to PR’s ability to garner Indian supporters but largely due to the Indian electorate’s anger at the ruling BN government, primarily towards its coalition partner MIC for not doing enough for the Indian community while being in power for more than 50 years.

Many now believe that this anger has dissipated a little, perhaps partially as a result of MIC leader S Samy Vellu leaving his post, held for more than two decades.

Incidents of Hindu Temples being demolished or being relocated to unsuitable areas, a number of deaths in police custody cases (the case of Kugan for example), lack of business opportunities, lack of funding for Tamil schools poverty and the issue of statelessness have been some of the main problems which are yet to be completely resolved were some of the problems faced by the community.

Is PR truly the rakyat’s party or another version of BN?

The Indian electorate believed that the above issues will be resolved when PR took over Selangor and other states, unfortunately the promised change has been somewhat lacking. Temple demolishments are still taking place in PR controlled states.

There is also the recent controversy of the Midlands Tamil School, where land was allegedly sold to the tune of RM25million and in return a mere RM3million was awarded to the development of the school which was said to cost RM4.7million. On top of that, the school will not enjoy 70% of the possible revenue generated by its 1000 capacity hall.

The Kampong Buah Pala issue in Penang might yet come back to haunt DAP and PR in the coming elections.

The current prime minister has taken some symbolic steps in trying to appease the Indians by apologising to the community and declaring Thaipusam celebration a public holiday. He also included another Indian ministering his Cabinet. However some see this to be offering the position through the backdoor to an already bloated Cabinet. Many see these steps to be not enough.

’300,000 Stateless Malaysian Indians’

While MIC says the recent My Daftar programme which saw a few thousand stateless Indians given MyKad was a great success in proving that the ruling government is sincere in trying to help the community, Hindraf says that this is not enough as the real number of stateless Indians are in the region of hundreds of thousands.

The recent MyKad brawl involving MIC and PKR has now turned in to a blame game between PKR and MIC and sadly we are yet to see a resolution for the people affected. Hindraf has urged that a royal commission be set up to investigate this serious problem.

Is MIC relevant to the Indian community?

The by-election results in Hulu Selangor won by the BN/MIC candidate P Kamalanathan shows that some Indian votes are trickling back to BN however it must be noted that the percentage of votes was 52/48%, a mere 3.6% majority.

The question is can MIC emulate the same feat at other traditional strongholds in Selangor such as the Kota Raja seat which it lost by a whopping 20,000 votes. Can MIC also get back control of the Seri Andalas seat which was lost by 10200 votes?

The long standing Maika Holdings shares issue is another problem that could reflect badly on MIC. Even though some small progress can be seen taking place, many see this as too little to late.

The Hindraf factor certainly contributed to the above and many other results in the past election. However this time, Hindraf’s support will not be there. Hindraf leader Uthayakumar’s publicly questioning of PRs performance in the opposition states will definitely have an effect on the coming elections.

Hindraf might not be able to mobilise vast numbers seen during the 2008 Hindraf rally but the scenes of protesters being fired upon with tear gas in KL and Batu Caves is still fresh in the minds of the community. The scenes of jubilation where Uthayakumar was carried by his supporters in from Klang court to Tengku Kelana Klang will not be forgotten that easily.

Anwar’s no show a wasted opportunity?

On the 22 of April 2012, HRP/Hindraf invited the PR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim to a field in Klang (locally known as Chetty Padang), Selangor which fell to the opposition in the last general election.

An interesting note, the usual entertainment incentive factors that follows typical political gatherings to drum up Indian support were not seen here, there were no giving away of gifts/hampers, no exchange of flower garlands between leaders, no cutting of ribbons, no tents or even seats for the attendees. There were no stages set up, there were no fancy audio systems and local Indian celebrities and yet The HRP gathering saw an estimated 1000 strong crowd.

Anwar Ibrahim however declined to attend.

Hindraf once again invited Anwar Ibrahim and his PKR-DAP-PAS alliance leaders to explain their commitments to the community in the first 100 days in power on the May 20, 2012. Anwar Ibrahim did not show up for the second time. Hindraf went on to announce that Uthayakumar will contest in the next general election for the Kota Raja Parliamentary seat and the State seat of Sri Andalas. Further announcements will be made for the state seat of Ijok, Bukit Melawati, and Seri Setia and parliamentary seats of Kuala Selangor and Kelana Jaya.

Can an Anwar-Uthaya alliance be formed?

If Hindraf goes on to field candidates in the aforementioned seats, the Indian vote will be split and the damage will be for PR. This might even cause the Selangor state to fall back to BN. One would assume the logical action would be to forge ties with Hindraf. It seems like Uthaya and Hindraf are extending their arm towards PR for a handshake but with the conditions that the problems plaguing the Indian community should be addressed.

However, Anwar is hesitant. The stance he takes in this issue might very well decide which party will control Selangor. Will Anwar come forward? Will we see Hindraf standing along with Pakatan Rakyat? Only time will tell ….

Former solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden's decision to join the opposition leader's defence team is a boost for Anwar Ibrahim. 

(Free Malaysia Today) - In an unexpected twist, the opposition has scored a major victory by securing the services of former solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden.

Yusof was the lead prosecutor in Anwar’s Sodomy II trial, which the opposition leader had claimed was a political conspiracy against him.

Now Yusof’s decision to join the defence team representing Anwar and two other PKR leaders on charges pertaining to the Bersih 3.0 rally would further strengthen the perception that the sodomy accusation was crafted with political motives.

His presence at the Sessions Court here this morning sent murmurs of excitement throughout the packed courtoom.

Speaking to reporters later, Yusof said Anwar had contacted him and the former had no qualms taking up the case.

“He (Anwar) called me last night and I had no hesitation. I’m just a counsel, everyone is entitled to one. I have no political affiliations. I’m a working professional… a free agent,” he said.

Asked if he was doing this to go against Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail, with whom he was rumoured to have strained relations with, Yusof said he had nothing personal against the latter.

‘Soon even the AG would join me’

Earlier, Anwar said Yusof’s decision to be part of the defence team should not come as a surprise and quipped that soon even the AG might join him.

“What’s the issue? He understands the law… I thank Yusof for his readiness to be part of the defence team. I contacted him after receiving information that he was ‘ready’ to join us. This is a great development and means a lot.

READ MORE HERE

The Kapar MP threatens to reveal details, including names, of monetary offers he has allegedly received from BN.

(Free Malaysia Today) - Kapar MP S Manikavasagam today threatened to reveal names and other details of all the monetary offers he has received from Barisan Nasional leaders over the last four years.

Manikavasagam, popularly known as Mike, said he was warning all Barisan Nasional leaders not to force his hand, not to “challenge” him.

He said he was considering suing former Selangor Menteri Besar Dr Khir Toyo over allegations that he had sought RM10 million from the latter as inducement to leave PKR.

He also said that he would file a police report tomorrow against blogger M Zakrul Adam for posting a “false article” on the allegation on the blog www.sel13.com last Wednesday.

In the article, entitled “MP Kapar minta RM10 juta dari Dr Khir Toyo untuk keluar PKR” (Kapar MP asks for RM10 million from Dr Khir Toyo to leave PKR), Zakrul claimed that Manikavasagam had made this demand of Khir during a meeting in the Grand Blue Wave hotel in Shah Alam.

Manikavasagam issued a denial soon after the article was posted. He said it was Khir who had “jokingly” made the offer. Khir responded by warning Manikavasagam not to “twist the facts”, saying it was the PKR man who made the approach.

At a press conference this morning, Manikavasagam acknowledged that the meeting did take place, but he said it was a chance meeting and not an arranged one as Khir had claimed.

“I had sent my client to the Umno building next to the hotel and had gone to the hotel’s coffee house to wait when Khir walked in,” he explained.

“He came to my table and joked that there was RM5 to 10 million waiting for me if I left PKR for BN. The conversation lasted less than five minutes.”

Manikavasagam said he did not take Khir’s remarks seriously, having been inundated with similar offers before. He said the offers had continued coming, even as late as 24 hours ago.

According to him, the offers came from BN’s top leadership, who sent their “runners and brokers” to wait outside his private residence and office for hours. He also claimed that there was a failed kidnap attempt on his family in a move to force him to leave PKR.

“Even Malaysia’s number one men have tried but failed,” he said. “I have evidence of this, which I will reveal in time if anyone of them challenges me further. But I won’t mention any names for now.

“I am very clear that I am with Pakatan. So don’t waste your time trying to buy me. The people have voted for me and I will not betray them.”

READ MORE HERE

A think tank suggests that the PSC be turned into a permanent institution.

(Free Malaysia Today) - The Election Commission (EC) has said it is ready to face the 13th general election, but one of the questions observers are asking is: What about the 32 recommendations of the parliamentary select committee (PSC) on electoral reform?

“What are the updates on the PSC suggestions? Exactly who is monitoring the implementation of these reforms?” asked K Shan, acting chairman of the National Institute for Democracy and Electoral Integrity (NIEI).

Last February, the government gazetted the use of indelible ink to ensure that no one votes more than once. In late April, the EC announced that it had managed to reduce the number of dubious voters on its roll to 40,803 from the January figure of 42,000.

However, there are many other issues to address before anyone can say that the electoral system has undergone meaningful reform.

Even the clean-up of the electoral has not gone far enough to satisfy critics. There are, for instance, still many cases of multiple voters registered under a single address. The PSC has suggested that Mimos Berhad, a government agency, be assigned to monitor the problem and continue with the clean-up. However, there has been no significant update on this.

PSC, in the report it released in early April, suggested that the EC display the names of dubious voters within 45 days for a quick clean-up of the roll. It has now been seven weeks since that report and the deadline is drawing close. We have yet to hear anything from the EC with regard to this suggestion.

Shan suggested that the PSC be re-appointed to oversee the progress of reforms. While acknowledging that the PSC was not the final voice of authority on electoral matters, he said its familiarity with the issues involved should not be wasted.

He even suggested that the PSC be turned into a permanent body.

“Of course, we are concerned over the short-term reforms, but we are suggesting that the PSC be made permanent to look into long-term reforms as well,” he said.

“Since the nine members of the panel are familiar with the issue, why don’t they just continue to oversee the implementation of the reforms? At least that will be better than the EC itself overseeing the reforms.”

Lack of political will

PSC member Anthony Loke said this was in fact one of the suggestions made in the April report. However, he added, the government lacked the political will to act on the recommendations.

“We suggested for a permanent committee to be established,” he said, “but there is a lack of political will to implement these suggestions. There is no mechanism to push for these reforms and there is no pressure whatsoever for the EC to act.”

Indeed, now that the PSC’s term of service has ended, Parliament is deprived of a means to request progress reports from the EC.

PSC chairman Maximus Ongkili said it was entirely up to the government to take up or reject any of the suggestions in the report.

“The committee that was suggested was to monitor the implementation of PSC’s 32 recommendations, to provide checks and balances,” he said.

READ MORE HERE

A group of petty traders are adamant on holding their night market protest outside S Ambiga's house.

(Free Malaysia Today) - Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s (DBKL) rejection will not deter a group of 60 petty traders from staging their protest outside Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga’s house on Thursday and Friday.

Kuala Lumpur Petty Traders Association chairman Jamal Md Yunos said the association would hold their protest until they could re-claim their losses.

“We want the organisers of Bersih 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 to be responsible and compensate us,” he told FMT.

Last week, Jamal announced the association’s intention to hold a night market protest in front of Ambiga’s house.

This would be the third protest in front of Ambiga’s residence in Bukit Damansara.

On May 10, Malaysia Small and Medium Entrepreneurs Alliance (Ikhlas) set up burger stalls in front of her house. This was followed by a group of 15 army veterans who performed a vulgar butt exercise on May 15.

Not political or racial

Meanwhile, Jamal, who is also an Umno member, said that the latest protest was not politically or racially motivated.

He explained that they were targetting Ambiga as “she is the face of Bersih 3.0 and issues the most statements.”

Earlier this morning, Kuala Lumpur Mayor Ahmad Fuad Ismail rejected permits for the 60 petty traders.

“If this goes on, we will never hear the end of it. To gather in a peaceful assembly in front of her (Ambiga’s) house, it’s all right… But to erect stalls, DBKL will not allow it in accordance with the Streets, Drainage and Buildings Act 1974.

“This is because Ambiga’s house is not the only house there. So my advice is that if they want to continue, (they) should look for a more suitable spot, one that is approved.” he had said.

To force Nurul Izzah to abandon Lembah Pantai and go contest another seat, Raja Nong Chik is blackmailing her. He is threatening to expose photographs and videos of Nurul Izzah’s ‘sexual misconduct’. And Nurul Izzah’s ‘sex partner’ is supposed to be Tian Chua. Sheesh! Tian Chua? What an ugly bugger. If you want to fix up Nurul Izzah at least choose a better-looking man lah! What, you think Nurul Izzah got such bad taste or what?

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I am not sure if I am the only Malaysian Blogger who gets whacked by both sides of the political divide. This morning I noticed one Blog, which is neither pro-government nor pro-opposition, that whacked me regarding the Bursa Malaysia revelation I ran a couple of weeks ago.

So now it appears even the middle ground, atas pagar or fence sitters are whacking me as well. That is an added honour. Now even the ‘third force’ is whacking me, for sure something no other Malaysian Blogger has ever been honoured with in the entire history of Blogging.

But have you noticed one thing? The so-called whacking they give me is merely to call me a lair. They do not rebut my story. They only whack ME, a personal attack. I normally write three to five pages, sometimes even seven pages, running into thousands of words. If you compile all the articles I have written over the last four years alone since 2008, it can fill a book of 600-700 pages easily.

And what do they do with the tons of information that I generate? They totally ignore what I have written and just scream, “Liar! Liar! Liar!”

I remember back in the early days of Malaysia Today when I wrote that I would consider myself as having ‘arrived’ when everyone in Malaysia hates me. To get one side to hate you and the other side to love you is easy. To get both sides to hate you is not that easy. And now I have the middle ground hating me as well.

Man! Have I more than arrived! So allow me to gloat today. Finally, I have arrived, even beyond what I thought was possible.

Hey, we are talking about Malaysia. In Malaysia, we have something called Malaysia Boleh. The concept of Malaysia Boleh is that ‘anything can’ in Malaysia mah! What others can’t do, Malaysia can do one. That is Malaysia Boleh.

Under the concept of Malaysia Boleh, when one is accused of something, the accused is considered guilty and hence that person must prove his or her innocence. That is how things are done in Malaysia Boleh.

Let me repeat that for the birdbrains reading this. Under the concept of Malaysia Boleh, you are considered guilty and you must prove you are innocent if you are accused of something.

Now, I did not make these rules. His Majesty’s Government of Malaysia has laid down these rules. And these are the rules that are being applied since the last few decades.

Do you remember Anwar Ibrahim’s trial 14 years ago in 1998? Anwar was found guilty and sentenced to a total of 15 years jail (and served 6 years before he was released) because he failed to prove his innocence.

Yes, that’s right. The judge said that since Anwar failed to prove his innocence he thus finds Anwar guilty and sentenced him to jail.

I too was detained without trial on two occasions. And why did they detain me without trial instead of charging me in court? Because, according to the government, they do no have enough evidence to charge me so they need to detain me without trial.

Okay, what happens when you are sent to the Kamunting Detention Centre?  Well, then you are brought before the Lembaga, which acts as a sort of tribunal, and then you need to prove to the Lembaga that you should not have been detained and should instead be set free.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, which will also appear in the Lembaga hearing as the sort of ‘Prosecution’, will argue that you cannot be set free because “the government believes you are a threat to national security”.

The government merely believes you are a threat to national security. Yes, BELIEVES, that is all.

Some people believe that God exists. Some people believe that Satan exists. Some people believe that praying to trees and rocks will guarantee you heaven. Some people believe if you blow yourself up with dynamite and scream ‘Allah Akbar’ as you die you will be rewarded with 72 virgins. Some people believe if you put your tooth under your pillow you will receive money. Some people believe if you eat a certain Arabian desert lizard you will become sexually very strong and can go three rounds a night, seven nights a week.

Just because you believe this does not make it true. Most times none of these beliefs can be proven. But that is all the government needs to do to detain you without trial, a mere belief. And then you need to prove that you are NOT a threat to national security. You need to prove your innocence.

That is Malaysia Boleh. That is the way the game is played in Malaysia.

So I too make an allegation, in fact, many allegations. And how do they respond? They don’t rebut what I say. They do not address the allegation. They do not tell their side of the story to counter what I say. They just scream, “Liar! Liar! Liar!”

Come on! Counter what I say. If what I said is wrong then tell us what the truth is. Don’t just scream, “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Which part of that article is a lie? Point it out. A blanket “Liar! Liar! Liar!” is not good enough. Which part is the lie? Tell us.

Hey, Anwar Ibrahim was sentenced to jail terms of 15 years because he failed to prove his innocence. So prove your innocence. Don’t just scream, “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Where is that lie in my article? Show us!

When I revealed that the Honorary Mongolian Consul to Malaysia, Syed Abdul Rahman Alhabshi, personally told me that he has evidence very damaging to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Syed Rahman screamed “Liar! Liar! Liar!”

Which part is the lie -- the part about that he had met me, or the part about what he had personally told me? Which part is the lie? Tell us! He did not meet me alone. When he met me there were many other people around. And all these people also heard what he told me.

Syed Rahman never denied meeting me. He never denied what he told me. He never denied that there were many other people there that day. He just screamed, “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Which part is the lie?

I wrote a story about the problems in the Attorney-General’s Chambers. I related the story regarding the conflict between Solicitor-General II Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden and Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail. The AG wanted to fix me up on fabricated charges while his boys did not agree.

And the response? Again, “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Then what happens? Today, Yusof Zainal Abiden is representing Anwar Ibrahim as one of his lawyers. So, am I still lying? Or has my ‘lie’ now been proven true?

A few years back, I wrote about the links between IGP Musa Hassan and the Chinese underworld and crime syndicate. Again, “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Then what happens? A few senior police officers have now come out into the open to confirm the allegation and some have even joined the Opposition.

So, is it still a lie?

I wrote about the RM8 billion MAS scandal and how Tajuddin Ramli was instructed to do the deal to cover the RM30-billion foreign exchange fiasco of the mid-1990s.

And the response? Again, “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Then what happens? Today, Affidavits are being filed in court that confirms what I had written. So which part is the lie then? Thus far it appears like what I said is being confirmed in court. So which part is the lie? Tell us!

Man, I can go on and on. I can give you tons of examples where my so-called ‘lies’ eventually get confirmed as the truth. Do you really need me to go on or can I stop here and take some time to gloat?

I do not care how history remembers me as long as I am remembered as the person whose ‘lies’ all get proven as the truth in the end. I just want to be remembered for that and for nothing else. Put this on my epitaph when I die: ‘The liar who told the truth’.

The Opposition is no less guilty of this crime. It is not only those in the government who scream “Liar! Liar! Liar!” when an allegation is made against them. Don’t lah just scream “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Point out which part of the allegation is the lie. Even the Opposition likes to just deny, deny, deny without telling us where the so-called lie is. Both sides are the same.

Never mind. Today they deny. Today they scream “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Tomorrow, the so-called lie is proven true. It happens every time without fail. I can afford to wait because I know that in the end what I say gets proven as fact. They can’t run away from that. The truth always prevails in the end. And then I can gloat and say, “I told you so!”

As I said, allow me to gloat. I have earned the right to gloat. What I say is always proven true in the end. So scream “Liar! Liar! Liar!” all you want. Today’s ‘lies’ are going to be tomorrow’s fact. Trust me on this.

Okay, today let me make another allegation. Yes, today you are again going to scream “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Tomorrow, this ‘lie’ is going to be proven. Trust me. I will eat my beret if I am wrong.

Raja Nong Chik Zainal Abidin wants to contest the Parliament seat of Lembah Pantai. However, he is worried that the incumbent, Nurul Izzah Anwar, is going to beat him flat. So he does not want to face Nurul Izzah. He wants Nurul Izzah to back off and contest another seat.

To force Nurul Izzah to abandon Lembah Pantai and go contest another seat, Raja Nong Chik is blackmailing her. He is threatening to expose photographs and videos of Nurul Izzah’s ‘sexual misconduct’. And Nurul Izzah’s ‘sex partner’ is supposed to be Tian Chua.

Sheesh! Tian Chua? What an ugly bugger. If you want to fix up Nurul Izzah at least choose a better-looking man lah! What, you think Nurul Izzah got such bad taste or what?

I was with Nurul Izzah in Canberra, Australia, to meet the Australian Members of Parliament. Her husband and my wife were in another city at that time. At least if you allege that Raja Petra Kamarudin is Nurul Izzah’s sex partner it is more believable. I am better looking than Tian Chua by far, even if I do say so myself.

Then you can spin the story that this is why RPK and Anwar Ibrahim have had a falling out -- it is related to the Nurul Izzah and Raja Petra sex scandal.

Aiyoh! These Umno buggers! Want to spin but don’t know how to spin. And when we expose them they only know how to scream “Liar! Liar! Liar!” They are not able to rebut what we say.

Okay, let’s see those photos and videos that Raja Nong Chik has threatened to expose if Nurul Izzah does not abandon Lembah Pantai. I can assure you of one thing. If they come out with Nurul Izzah’s ‘sex’ photos and videos, Raja Nong Chik is not only going to lose the election but he is going to lose his deposit as well. Try and see what will happen.

Kalau kata ‘Melayu bodoh’ marah. If not Melayu bodoh then Melayu what? Melayu pandai? Hah, Melayu bodoh macam lembu! Just know how to scream “Liar! Liar! Liar!” Lain tak tahu. Pergi mampus lah. Semua bodoh macam lembu. Buat malu Raja je. Raja apa macam ni?

(The Star) - Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has dismissed claims that the newly-amended Evidence Act was unfair to Internet users.

“Freedom of speech comes with greater responsibility, so all it means is that you have to be careful.

“When you use online media Facebook or Twitter it comes out and everyone gets to know about it. Users must be more responsible as your actions may affect others,” Nazri said.

The Padang Rengas MP said that freedom of speech did not mean that slander was acceptable.

“Sometimes with slanderous or libellous statements online, it is difficult to enforce the law against them because it isn't easy to find the person who first put the information on the Internet, which results in no action being taken but a person has been aggrieved.

“Under the amended Act, we shift the burden to the owner of the laptop or account so that we can get to the source,” he said.

The Malaysian Bar, however, said they were concerned with the presumption of guilt in the Act.

Bar Council chairman Lim Chee Wee said they intend to engage Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail about it.

“When the Bar considered at first glance the various amendments to criminal law, most of which dealt with security laws, we were concentrating on that aspect of it.

“The A-G has indicated that he is open to further discussion, and this engagement policy is positive. We are preparing our comments for the A-G,” he said in an e-mail.

Internet users have criticised the amendment, saying it was unfair as websites and social networking accounts could be easily hacked to post defamatory statements.

Recruitment executive Geraldine David, 27, said it was “very dangerous” to penalise people for posts on personal networking accounts, such as Facebook, as it was easy to hack into such accounts.

“It is so easy to hack into e-mail or Facebook accounts these days. Some people may forget to log off their accounts after using public computers, making them easy targets,” she said.

However, some users agreed with the amendment, saying it was logical that the person whose name was associated with the account be held responsible for statements made on the account.

“Your account is linked to you. Do not share passwords with your friends. If it was not you, then you need to prove it,” said a user.

Fallacies Spun by Critics of the Bar

This response is jointly endorsed by Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga,Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, and Sharmila Sekaran.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan's article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.

The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar (“the Bar”) have been criticised recently as being pro-Opposition. This is because of the Bar's press statements and its Extraordinary General Meeting resolution regarding the police brutality shown at the Bersih 3.0 sit-down rally.

The common theme adopted by critics of the Bar is that the Bar was not fair, or even-handed, as the Bar were more critical of the police than it was of the other parties involved.

Some of the more popular criticisms were summarised in Roger Tan's article “Unswayed by fear or favour” which was also published in The Sunday Star on 20 May 2012. In summary, he says the following:

1. The Bar in condemning the police brutality must be equally aggressive in its condemnation against the protestors who “behaved like rioters and anarchists”.

2. The Bar had prejudged the issues by passing the resolution because by doing so “the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police”.

3. The Bar should have demanded an apology from Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim because “it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier” which was “the trigger point”.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan's article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.

The Bar did not prejudge the issues

In his second criticism, Roger says that the Bar should only pass the resolution condemning police brutality after a finding has been made by an independent body such as SUHAKAM.

However, SUHAKAM relies on the evidence of witnesses, and often conducts a hearing several months after the event.

The Bar based its stance and resolution on the observations of 80 lawyers who formed a team of observers of events during Bersih 3.0. The purpose of assembling and mobilising this monitoring team was precisely so that the Bar would be able to rely on their eyewitness accounts, and not those of friends, media, the police, or post-event photos or videos.

The observations of the monitoring team were recorded and compiled within hours on the day itself, and thereafter fine-tuned and completed. We have no reason to doubt the credibility and observations of the team, and neither have we heard of substantiated allegations about them.

Aside from the Bar monitoring team and its report, since that day many other eyewitness accounts have emerged, including photos and videos that speak for themselves.

Significantly, on this occasion, even media members were not spared.

We even had the embarrassing incident where Al-Jazeera's reporter Harry Fawcett had to report via Skype from his iPad as his team's video camera was smashed by police while they were recording police brutality against protestors.

Most importantly, many previous SUHAKAM inquiries the 5 November 2001 Kesas Highway Incident, the 17 June 2003 Kundasang Incident, the 28 May 2006 KLCC Incident, the 27 May 2008 Persiaran Bandar Mahkota Cheras 1 Incident, the 9 July 2011 Bersih 2.0 Incident found that there was excessive use of force by the police, and evidence of police brutality.

Numerous complaints by victims led to the said inquiries, the findings of which thereafter vindicated the complaints leading to damning conclusions about police conduct.

These many reports do not just show isolated instances of police brutality: Bersih 3.0 was not a one-off. There is a pattern of regular use of excessive force and brutality in violation of human rights by the Royal Malaysian Police Force.

Despite these many reports by SUHAKAM, and despite the findings of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, the police have not made any serious attempts to school themselves in the prevention of human rights violations.

Regrettably, Roger is sceptical of the 80 monitors appointed by the Bar Council because they are not named, as he “would certainly like to know their political inclinations” to satisfy himself that they “were independent-minded in their conclusions”.

Firstly, five widely-respected senior members of the Bar, who were a part of a “roving” team of monitors, were named and had their observations separately documented: Christopher Leong (Vice President of the Malaysian Bar), Steven Thiru (Treasurer of the Bar Council), Dato' Ramachelvam Manimuthu, Ramdas Tikamdas, and Roger Chan Weng Keng.

Apparently it is not enough that lawyers of this calibre verify and endorse the report.

More importantly, what does one's political inclination have to do with stating a fact about whether Malaysian citizens were assaulted and battered by the police, and whether there was excessive use of force in accordance with international human rights standards?

Whilst Roger Tan has left the Bar Council, it is unfair to assume that the Bar Council would not have trained these monitors properly bearing in mind this is not the first assembly monitoring mission dispatched by the Council.

His flippant remarks greatly disparage those members of the Bar who volunteered to serve on the monitoring team, implying as it does that they would allow their personal prejudice to influence their professional duties.

It is part of our job as lawyers to put aside our personal prejudice in order to advance the cause of justice.

Rather conveniently, whilst casting these aspersions on others, Roger himself does not reveal his strong affiliations to a particular political party.

Employing Roger's logic, one wonders, perhaps, whether commentators in The Star for example should also be required to divulge their political affiliations and leanings before their opinion pieces are published.

But we will not venture into the realm of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem to discredit the views of others, as Roger disappointingly has.

Roger's comments suggest that we should not immediately make conclusions even if we see a group of uniformed policemen beating up an unarmed citizen who lies helpless on the ground because there were extenuating circumstances.

And even if numerous members of the Bar, members of the public and journalists documented such incidents of brutality. The fact is, the police are supposed to treat each person they arrest as if they are innocent until proven guilty.

The police should only use reasonable force in arresting someone. If they have to resort to force, they should only use force that is proportionate to the threat faced, and only enough to ensure the person's arrest.

Roger cites the example of the Bar postponing its EGM with regards to the VK Lingam video clip scandal while it waited for the Royal Commission of Inquiry to complete its task.

Roger, however, seems to overlook the fact that the video clip sparked the groundbreaking Walk for Justice in September 2007 which saw about 2,000 lawyers marching to the PM's office.

The other difference with that example is that with Bersih 3.0, the Bar monitoring team saw police brutality with their own eyes, and not through a video clip. It is obvious that this is not a comparable precedent.

What is this obsession with Anwar Ibrahim?

In his third criticism, Roger insists that the Bar should similarly demand an apology from Dato' Seri Anwar because he was reported to have instigated the removal of the barrier.

But Roger must understand that one must distinguish between credible first-hand reports by Bar monitors, and accusations by obviously partisan members of Barisan Nasional and its media.

This is where Roger shows an obvious inconsistency whilst saying that the eyewitness accounts of the Bar's monitoring team is insufficient to be relied upon, he says that the Bar should demand an apology from Dato' Seri Anwar for an incident that no one on the Bar's monitoring team witnessed.

Despite the many eye witness blog entries, photos and videos, there has been no compelling evidence either way to show who removed the barriers, or whether their removal was facilitated by the police, public, or Opposition members. On what basis is Roger suggesting that the Bar demand an apology from Dato' Seri Anwar?

Let us for one moment set aside the question whether the Court order prohibiting entry into Dataran Merdeka was unnecessary, wrong in law and unconstitutional. Let us also assume the barriers in question were covered by the Court order.

Even assuming that the order was validly executed by the police, did it necessitate the extreme use of non-lethal force to arrest and disperse the small group of people who breached the barrier? Bearing in mind that the Bar's resolution was on police misconduct, and not about who removed the barrier, it is even more disconcerting that Roger implies that the police may excessively and disproportionally tear-gas and beat the innocent just to get at those who did breach the barrier.

The Bar need not have condemned the protestors

Finally, Roger develops the basis of the criticism that the Bar is not “independent” by stating the Bar failed to condemn with equal vigour lay members of the public who he says acted “like rioters and anarchists”.

Many labour under the misapprehension that to be “independent” an organisation must always be even handed and restrained in one's remarks. But that is a fallacy. And it is an even greater fallacy when it concerns injustice.

Police brutality is a violation of a human right. A violation of any human right is manifest injustice.

Police brutality per se is an injustice. The presence of police brutality has tainted the Royal Malaysian Police as surely as a drop of blood stains a uniform.

An injustice perpetrated by even one from an institution set up to serve the cause of justice deserves the harshest condemnation. There cannot be any restraint in condemning abuse of power.

As a police force meant to be independent and professional, the Royal Malaysian Police are kept to higher standards than lay members of the public. So the Bar cannot be swayed by fear or favour; it cannot be hesitant or even handed in condemning an injustice that is police brutality.

Here is an Executive institution that is well-funded and well-staffed with wide powers taking action against unarmed people. It is State against the individual person, and the Bar stands muststand for the latter.

What Roger and many who adopt this line of criticism fail to explain is how the condemnation of police brutality amounts to an endorsement of the Opposition.

This criticism reveals more of their own political prejudice than that of the Bar.

Their criticism strongly suggests a belief that criticism of the police is the equivalent of criticism against the political party in government.

Their criticism also reveals that they are the sort who think that perception is reality.

It is only those who are so immersed and drenched in politics that adopt such a worldview. The Bar's criticism and the facts it relies on are an inconvenience to their perception.

Ultimately these popular criticisms against the Bar are not borne of logic or facts, but a need to feel good.

There is one further reason why we would not have voted for a resolution that condemned those members of the public who turned violent.

The fact is that most thinking Malaysians who have access to the alternative media and therefore do not rely solely on the bare faced propaganda of our mainstream print and broadcast media are not convinced that these so called “rioters” are as blameworthy as the police.

The police put razor wire across our City roads turning Kuala Lumpur into a war zone before any violence had ensued.

The police obtained a totally unnecessary Court order prohibiting entry for four days into Dataran Merdeka, without any notice or opportunity to the organisers of Bersih 3.0 to present their case despite ample time for them to do this.

Then, when the disturbance started, it was the police who shot tear gas behind and in front of retreating protestors so that they were boxed in rather than allowed to disperse.

Who ordered the closure of the nearby LRT stations so as to prevent people from dispersing? Who ordered the destruction of cameras belonging to journalists, and the reported censorship of Al Jazeera and the BBC?

What justified the four hours of continued attacks on people who were already dispersing or having dinner? All this done against fellow Malaysians, who until the very end had taken part in an almost perfect rally.

As pointed out by Roger, the Bar's resolution did expressly state that the Bar is concerned with and does not countenance acts of violence by rally participants, and are concerned by reports that police barriers were breached.

In our view, that says enough. We did not hear any suggestions made at the EGM to amend the resolution.

All the dissenters at the EGM agreed in principle that they were against police brutality. What more needs to be said really, seeing as the police were already actively identifying and hunting down those whom they say committed offences during the rally? The police had even stated that they would conduct a house-to-house search for these individuals.

Compare this with the lack of action in identifying, let alone condemning and punishing, the police officers who committed violations of duty and human rights.

The Bar's resolution was proper

The Bar was entitled and correct to issue the statements it did, and to pass the resolution it did. The resolution is fair in all the circumstances and was carefully worded throughout.

The facts that it had gathered itself through the Bar's own members were set forth frankly and properly, and the urgent action that was needed due to the unprecedented police brutality seen on that day was set out in an appropriate and immediate manner.

We are proud to have supported the Bar's resolution and have no qualms about the Bar's continued independence.

We believe the vast majority of the Bar are totally in support of the resolution, and the comments against the resolution are the isolated voices of a few in the wilderness given undue prominence by propaganda organisations posing as the mass media.

It is telling that Roger states that “removing the barrier was the trigger point” and adds that it is “common sense” that “whoever first raises his hand against the other is the most blameworthy”.

Words do not suffice to describe the disingenuous nature of the suggestion that the removal of the barrier is even remotely comparable to the brutal actions of the police.

In any case, there have been no reports of barriers being “breached” in front of the Bar Council, on Leboh Pasar Besar yet even then, water cannons and tear gas were fired there.

Roger fails to acknowledge the clear reality that police reaction was not localised to Dataran Merdeka or to the participants there, and that other than at the Jalan Raja / Tun Perak junction, it was the police who struck first.

The actions of some members of the police force on that day were incidences of injustice that were so blatant that it should be impossible for anyone who purports to stand up for justice to remain silent.

We have already seen concerted efforts by the ruling coalition, the police, and those who are too politically-partisan to distinguish clear acts of injustice from their political posturing to distract from the injustice highlighted by the Bar's resolution by attacking the Bar and casting aspersions on those who are doing no more than reporting what they saw with their own eyes.

The Bar must continue to fight for those who cannot speak up for themselves, and whose rights are oppressed by the might of the State. That is our duty, and one that we hope members of the Bar will continue to discharge without fear or favour.

Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga, Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, and Sharmila Sekaran.

Party secretary-general S Murugesan says there is no need to drag S Ambiga's race and religion into the dispute.

(Free Malaysia Today) - There is no need to drag race or religion into the debate over the Bersih 3.0 rally, said MIC secretary-general S Murugesan.

Expressing his personal view on the matter, he criticised those who resorted to such demeaning actions against Bersih co-chairperson S Ambiga to put their points across.

“We don’t have to agree with Ambiga or her method of doing things. However, there is no need to drag her race or religion into the disagreement.

“There is also no need for name calling or to resort to methods that encroach into her personal space,” he told FMT.

Murugesan said it also did not make sense to hold a demonstration to condemn demonstrations as two wrongs do not make a right.

“As Malaysians, we should must aspire for the nobler aspects of politics,” he added.

On the same note, Murugesan said he understood the feelings of the aggrieved stall owners who suffered losses as a result of the April 28 rally.

“But there are better ways of doing things,” he added.

Furthermore, the MIC leader said their actions were being attributed to Barisan Nasional, therefore tainting the image of the ruling coalition.

“This is clearly not the case and is doing more harm to BN then good,” he added.

A group of traders have planned to set up a night market outside S Ambiga’s house in Bukit Damansara on Thursday and Friday to protest the losses incurred during the rally.

Previously, vexed traders staged a burger protest while a group of ex-servicemen held a vulgar aerobic exercise outside her residence, which drew much flak from various quarters.

However, when an Indian-based NGO proposed to set up a thosai stall outside Deputy Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar’s house, Ambiga had asked them to reconsider, saying that private spaces must be respected.

The NGO agreed and called off its plan.

All eyes on the mayor

Meanwhile, Malaysian Indian Business Association (Miba) president P Sivakumar said all eyes were now on Kuala Lumpur Mayor Ahmad Fuad Ismail.

He said Ambiga’s right to a peaceful living and her constitutional right to equal protection under the law were at threat.

Sivakumar said if the night market took place, then another group might set up a similar thing outside Fuad’s residence.

“I am sure the mayor will not like it,” he told FMT.

READ MORE HERE

It's just a matter of time before their frustration boils over and Najib is made to feel the backlash at the 13th general election

While all this shadow play is progressing, the silent majority of voters are watching events unfold. They are the ones who would ultimately decide on the outcome of the next general election. They are the ones who go to work, come back in time for dinner, watch TV or surf the web and retire to bed.

S Retnanathan, Free Malaysia Today

The guessing game is in full swing. Winning the game is not going to land anyone prize money or loads of goodies for home use. Instead this puzzle is only to identify the date of the country’s 13th general election.

The game began just after the 12th general election in March 2008. That election saw the long dominant Barisan Nasional lose its two-thirds majority in the 222 seat Dewan Rakyat to a newly-formed loose coalition called Pakatan Rakyat, consisting PAS, DAP and PKR.

The BN, a coalition of at least 13 component parties with Umno as its backbone, also lost its grip on four states – Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. Kelantan was already in the hands of Pakatan, namely PAS, and it was well insulated in the election.

Although Pakatan won four new states, Perak was retained by BN after four Pakatan assemblymen quit the opposition coalition to become independent state assemblymen, in favour of BN.

Over the last four years, the nation had been abuzz with what else than politics. The 2008 election results received mixed reactions from voters. Some argued that it was the end of the BN while others said Pakatan’s “big win” was not due to BN’s policies but anger towards then Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Since then the debate had not stopped. Every issue from then till now had been politicised to the core. Even small and petty issues had some political connotations to it.

And as if the country did not have enough political parties, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) joined in the fray taking sides. Some issued vocal statements wanting to champion the plight of the rakyat, while others were more interested in staging protests and demonstrations.

It is an open secret that three quarters of these NGOs are under the thumbs of politicians, may it be from Pakatan or BN. They are only activated when necessary.

The silent majority

While all this shadow play is progressing, the silent majority of voters are watching events unfold. They are the ones who would ultimately decide on the outcome of the next general election. They are the ones who go to work, come back in time for dinner, watch TV or surf the web and retire to bed.

They form their own opinions and are not politically inclined to any party. They have little interest in politics. All they want is peace of mind, a decent income to sustain the escalating cost of living and a safe environment for their children to live in.

These are the people who are not bothered if Anwar Ibrahim becomes Prime Minister or Najib Tun Razak continues to govern the nation. They are the people who marked Pakatan on the ballot papers at the last election. But now they seem irritated. Irritated not because of scandals, financial fiascoes or anything like that.

The silent majority are simmering and it’s just a matter of time their frustration boils over. They want Najib to dissolve Parliament ASAP (as soon as possible) and call for elections. They want this political theatre played by politicians over the last four years to end.

They want the country to get on with its development programmes. They want certainty as opposed to uncertainty.

Najib in the past months has been playing the guessing game. Speculation after speculation is made on the date of the election but he is keeping his cards close to chest. When asked by newsmen on numerous occasions, the Prime Minister gives puzzling answers instead of being straight forward.

At the same time he is also whipping up sentiments of BN election workers, going on nationwide trips (which is by Malaysian standards a sign of pending general election), dishing out money to groups among other goodies.

The only thing Najib has not done is come clean on the date of the all important polls. Speculation started at tail end of last year that parliament would be dissolved with polls in December. But this did not transpire. Then it was March, then June and now September, this year.

Each time a fresh speculation arises, it brings along with it hope. If you are let down more than once you grow angry. You start shifting your support and this is exactly what Najib seems to be doing. He is irking the silent majority who are eager to get this political play out of the way.

Every time he meets the rakyat in states and other major functions, he drums into the audience on the importance of the BN to remain in power. This raises expectation that polls are just around the corner. But sadly it does not materialise.

READ MORE HERE

Contesting as independents, not aligned to BN or Pakatan, may prove costly to both P Uthayakumar and HRP.

The other key leaders of Hindraf who were held under ISA together with Uthayakumar, are not following his path either. M Manogaran and Ganabatirau are actively involved in DAP while Vasanthakumar has joined PKR. Lawyer R Kenghadaran has not officially joined any political parties yet but he is not with Uthayakumar either.

RJ Rajah, Free Malaysia Today

At the second gathering convened in Klang on Sunday, inviting Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to declare Pakatan Rakyat’s plans to uplift the fate of Indians in this country in the event Pakatan captures Putrajaya, Human Rights Party (HRP) leader and Hindraf activist P Uthayakumar reiterated the party’s stand to contest the Kota Raja parliament and Sri Andalas state seats in Selangor.

The HRP’s website also declared that Uthayakumar would be the candidate for both the Kota Raja and Sri Andalas seats.

Uthayakumar also declared that HRP, which claims to be the political wing of Hindraf, is also eyeing to contest the parliament seats of Kuala Selangor and Kelana Jaya and the state seats of Seri Setia, Ijok and Bukit Melawati.

All these seats are in Selangor with a sizable presence of Indian voters. HRP has also announced its intention of contesting in at least seven parliament and 14 state seats across peninsular Malaysia.

With this announcement, a question arises whether HRP, which is yet to be approved as a political party by the authorities, would be able to make an impact in the forthcoming general elections among Indian voters and if so which of the political groups, Barisan Nasional or Pakatan would suffer damage as a result?

Uthayakumar’s dilemma?

Uthayakumar was one of the key leaders instrumental in leading the infamous Hindraf rally in 2007 with a clear vision and aim. However, having formed HRP since his release from detention under the Internal Security Act, he seems to be distracted with his political moves.

First he declared that HRP has requested some seats from Pakatan to contest in GE-13. Later he called on Anwar to declare what he would do for Indians during the first 100 days in power, should Pakatan form the next government.

When there was no response from Anwar, Uthayakumar held a second gathering in Klang on Sunday again inviting Anwar for the same purpose.

One former Hindraf supporter, not willing to identify himself said: “Uthayakumar should be politically sensible. Pakatan is facing the GE-13 on a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ platform and it would be difficult for Anwar or any other party leaders in Pakatan to declare particularly what they would do for Indians. We all know there is DAP and PAS in Pakatan, and these parties enjoy much more support among the Chinese and Malays respectively than the support enjoyed by HRP among the Indians.”

“So there cannot be a separate announcement on what Pakatan leaders would do for the Indians just because Uthayakumar is asking. Similarly, Uthayakumar should also ask the same question to BN and Umno but he is not doing that. Since GE-13 is not announced yet and with uncertainties as to who would be forming the next government, it would be suicidal for any national leader to announce what they would do particularly for Indians on the presumption of forming the next government.”

Uthayakumar also declared that they would reject Umno and BN. Furthermore, even if HRP candidates were to contest in GE-13 they can only do so as independents as their party is yet to be registered and it is unlikely that the party would be registered before GE-13.

A disintegrated Hindraf….

Meanwhile, Uthayakumar’s own brother Waythamoorthy, another Hindraf leader now residing in London, also announced that Hindraf would not field any candidates for GE-13 and that HRP’s decision to contest in GE-13 is not supported by Hindraf.

With Hindraf itself declared as unlawful by the Home Ministry, who are the persons in actual control of Hindraf is also not known.

The other key leaders of Hindraf who were held under ISA together with Uthayakumar, are not following his path either. M Manogaran and Ganabatirau are actively involved in DAP while Vasanthakumar has joined PKR. Lawyer R Kenghadaran has not officially joined any political parties yet but he is not with Uthayakumar either.

READ MORE HERE

He only just has time to get rid of an upstart once and for all, and hope that it will be enough to save PKR from certain demise.

Not for PKR. All its problems are now being played out on the public domain. For Anwar there is no room for error, no room for friendship, no room for special consideration. Anwar only has time to do a surgical cut and rid PKR of Azmin once and for all, and then let PKR lick its wound and hope that he has done enough to save PKR from certain demise.

CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today

Our nation bleeds copiously from the wounds inflicted upon it by those who think themselves fit to be leaders of this country of ours. Wounds inflicted upon our nation by pretenders to the thrones and who are at best, suffering from delusions of grandeur as a result of their inability to comprehend their own self worth.

Many walk the corridors of powers in Putrajaya where Barisan Nasional rules and some walk the alleyways in Penang, Kedah, Kelantan and Selangor – states that Pakatan Rakyat now rule. Some have the audacity to think themselves crown prince of the realm they are now in, Menteri Besar- designate of the state their party now controls and some imagine themselves future ministers in a Pakatan Rakyat government.

One of these upstarts that I speak of is Azmin Ali from PKR. The same Azmin that seems to have an almost magical hold over Anwar Ibrahim. The same Azmin who today is the target of gutter politics directed yet again at PKR.

And in all of this, Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim choses to stand clear as his nemesis inches towards his own end. “Ahhhh” said Khalid, “retribution has finally comes to those that had seek my demise earlier – God is truly great”!

I have never been one for gutter politics because there is a bit of that ‘gutter’ factor in everyone of us – lest the same is directed towards our ownselves as all it takes is for someone to dig deep enough and all will be revealed. But what if ‘gutter politics’ reveals the unsuitability of Azmin to be a leader within PKR and of Selangor?

Rahim Thambi Chik was never convicted of being a paedophile but he was ousted as Chief Minister of Malacca because the evidence against him overwhelmingly convicted him in the eyes of the public so much so that even Umno had to bow down to the inevitable and agreed that he had to go.

And now Azmin is confronted with the same situation with the allegations of sexual impropriety with a woman who is not his wife.

The YouTube re Anwar and Azmin’s antics at Bersih 3.0 had 600,000 hits within a few days of it being uploaded. Today it has over two million.

These are numbers Anwar cannot ignore and I would hazard an educated guess that by now Anwar is also faced with the same pressure on the video re Azmin situation. You can line up all the usual suspect to back up Azmin position within PKR but there is no denying that if public opinion is to be considered, this is the time for Anwar to decide how PKR can be rid of Azmin.

No room for error

Obviously there is Nurul to be considered but what other ‘considerations’ would Anwar still has to consider in trying to prop up Azmin’s position within PKR?

It will be for Anwar to decide. PKR is almost at death’s door. Terminal is too kind a word to use. When someone is terminally ill, there are still ways and means to make him or her comfortable while waiting for their final hours to release them from their pain and suffering.

Not for PKR. All its problems are now being played out on the public domain. For Anwar there is no room for error, no room for friendship, no room for special consideration. Anwar only has time to do a surgical cut and rid PKR of Azmin once and for all, and then let PKR lick its wound and hope that he has done enough to save PKR from certain demise.

DAP is silent on matters unfolding within PKR for it knows better then to allow itself to be pulled into the vortex of a sex scandal that would obliterate all that lies within its path and its wake. Kit Siang and Karpal are wise enough to understand that DAP must stay clear of an imploding PKR.

PAS is facing its own internal struggle with the momentum for the removal of Tok Guru Nik Aziz and Husam musa gaining ground even as I write this. So faced with its own internal conflict PAS will be quiet unless Abdul Hadi Awang finds himself irresistibly drawn to the possibility of being complicit in the ousting of Azmin and possibly Anwar but methinks Hadi already has his hands full with what is happening within PAS today.

Now is all this drama Najib’s doing? Anwar is shown to have done the dishonourable thing during Bersih 3.0. Azmin finds himself compromised with a member of the opposite sex who happens to not be his wife.

PAS finds itself embroiled in an internal power struggle that seeks to oust Tok Guru – and in all this DAP keeps silent because to do otherwise will surely damm DAP to take sides in the faction within PAS and PKR – surely a damm if you do and damm if you don’t situation for DAP. What part has Najib played in all this?

Najib’s game

Is not this just what the doctor would have ordered for Najib to make Umno and BN well again?

And a few weeks back Najib decided that September was the month for him to call for the 13th GE because the time was right. Right because Pakatan Rakyat is about to peak in terms of its descend towards a swirling vortex of negativity that will surely see itself unable to be ready to do battle with the Umno-led BN within the time frame left to September.

For Najib, all is in readiness for his joust with destiny.

And the pity of it all is that Pakatan and the components within Pakatan have no one to blame but themselves for the situation they now find themselves in.

What should have been the catalyst for Pakatan’s revival after Anwar was acquitted of Sodomy II became instead its own death knell. The acquittal took from Pakatan Rakyat that baseball bat that they could have used to beat the hell out of Barisan Nasional for sending Anwar to jail on trumped up charges of sodomy – so was the script supposed to pan out? Instead Anwar was acquitted!

Without that baseball bat to beat the hell out of Umno, all Pakatan Rakyat had left to fall back upon is the reservoir of goodwill, which they thought was still with the people of Malaysia for them.

They were wrong again. The people have had enough of the antics of those within PKR who saw the party to be their own. These first-tier leaders within PKR proceeded to diminish whatever credibility the party still had by the manner they abused PKR for their own gains – with no regards to what would befall PKR once we say enough is enough. We have said enough is enough!

PKR now stands abandoned by many and lurches from day to day while its leaders do what they want with a PKR that is really their own in fact and substance.

And that is all that PKR now has – itself. No credibility, no substance and certainly no support from the people. Its coalition partners within Pakatan Rakyat are without the courage to administer the coup de grace that would end PKR’s misery and allow Pakatan Rakyat to move forward.

And if any of you think that Nurul will be PKR’s saviour – what is there left for her to be saviour of? She may even loses her Lembah Pantai seat. Would Anwar have a right to consider himself leader of Pakatan Rakyat if PKR is the weakest link in the opposition?

And if Anwar is no longer leader who then would be? Kit Siang by default? And would we the see the Malays desert Pakatan in droves for Umno when that happens?

I am sure Pakatan leaders had foreseen all these and yet do not have the ability to not allow it to happen because as I have said before, tainted leaders taint the party they lead and corrupt leaders corrupt the party they lead.

READ MORE HERE

Ignoring the French court's subpoena over the Scorpene deal investigations will be to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's peril, says Suaram. 

When we looked into the evidence we found out so many payments have been made and this corruption case is much bigger than what we have thought.

Joseph Tawie, Free Malaysia Today

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak will be subpoenaed to appear before the French court to give evidence in a corruption case involved in the purchase of Scorpene submarine.

According to Suaram lawyer, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, who recently returned from France where they met the judge who is going to preside the hearing of the corruption case in which RM500 million was allegedly paid as commission to Perimekar, the French court has the power to supoena Najib to testify.

A subpoena will be also issued to Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Abdul Razak Baginda to appear before the French court, she said.

Perimekar was at the time wholly owned by Razak and his wife Mazalinda.

“When we met the judge on March 16, 2012 we supplied the list of witnesses who are to be subpoenaed to give evidence before the court.

“We gave him the names of Najib Tun Razak, Zahid Hamidi and Razak Baginda,” Fadiah said to the applause of more than 2,000 at a ‘ceramah’ at the Third Mile Bazaar, Kuching on Sunday night.

When the case was filed in court in France two years ago, Zahid said that he could go to France to give statement and would give his cooperation.

But lately he said that he did not want to go due to lack of funds and asked who would pay for his flight and his stay in France.

According to Fadiah, Malaysians are prepared to pay for his flight and stay in France as long as he is prepared to give evidence.

“Why should you be afraid if you have nothing to hide?” she asked.

‘Najib can be arrested’

Fadiah said that in this corruption case the French court has the power to handover subpoena to the witnesses and to ask them to be present at the court to give evidence.

“If they fail to attend the subpoena that has been issued by the French court, they will be given notice again to be present to give statement.

“Again if they fail to be present, the French court will issue a warrant of arrest to force them to be present and give statements and to prove the truth that we are seeking for.

“And if they fail again, Interpol (International Police) can issue alert and they can be arrested and dragged to the French court,” she said.

The delegation also met their French lawyers who showed them 153 documents which the French police had complied after two years of investigations.

“Those documents shown to us are enough evidence to show the government of Malaysia was involved in the payment of illegal commission that was received by Perimekar,” she alleged.

“When we looked into the evidence we found out so many payments have been made and this corruption case is much bigger than what we have thought,” she said, including the USD1 billion (RM3 billion) to be paid as conditions before the discussions on the purchase of the submarines could take place.

Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/05/22/najib-must-appear-in-french-court-or-else/

Hari ini kumpulan gay dan lesbian ini tidak segan silu menunjukkan identiti mereka. Seolah-olah mereka tidak melakukan apa-apa kesalahan.

Khir Toyo

1. Gejala Lesbian, Gay, Biseksual dan Transgender  (LGBT) semakin mendapat perhatian masyarakat dunia. Perilaku luar tabie kumpulan ini bukan sahaja jelas dilarang oleh Islam dan juga agama-agama lain tetapi bertentangan sama sekali dengan kemanusiaan.

2. Namun kumpulan ini semakin berkembang di seluruh dunia termasuk di Malaysia. Sungguhpun Malaysia mempunyai undang-undang khusus mengambil tindakan terhadap kumpulan ini, namun lobi mereka kian lama kian membesar termasuk menarik simpati dari kalangan ahli politik. Ada juga dakwaan ahli politik tertentu turut terbabit dengan gejala ini. Malahan kedatangan agen pelobi golongan LGBT di kalangan masyarakat Islam, Irshad Manji, juga khabarnya dinaungi ahli politik tertentu yang telah terpalit dengan dakwaan perilaku serupa.

3. Hari ini kumpulan gay dan lesbian ini tidak segan silu menunjukkan identiti mereka. Seolah-olah mereka tidak melakukan apa-apa kesalahan. Ada antara mereka menyalahkan takdir yang menyebabkan mereka menjadi sedemikian. Mereka juga berselindung di sebalik pandangan-pandangan saintis (yang sebahagiannya juga merupakan pengamal seks sejenis ini)  bahawa apa yang terjadi kepada mereka ialah keadaan semula jadi. Mereka sememangnya dilahirkan sebagai gay dan lesbian maka tidak sewajarnya mereka disalahkan atas keadaan ini.

4. Kumpulan ini juga sering kali menggunakan isu hak asasi manusia sebagai pelindung utama mereka. Sekiranya kita berbicara atau melontarkan pandangan yang anti kepada perbuatan mereka maka kita akan dicop sebagai homophobia. Negara-negara yang menghukum pengamal seks songsang ini akan dianggap ketinggalan zaman dan melanggar hak asasi manusia.

5. Kumpulan juga semakin kuat dari segi kewangan. Mereka menaja ramai pelobi dan pekerja hak asasi manusia agar menyokong ajaran sesat mereka.  Banyak juga ahli akademik Islam dan Kristian yang menjadi alat mereka sehingga sanggup menafikan firman-firman Allah yang jelas sekali melaknati perbuatan seperti ini.

6. Sekiranya kita membiarkan gejala ini berterusan dan berleluasa tanpa tindakan sewajarnya, maka tidak mustahil suatu ketika nanti Malaysia akan menghalalkan kumpulan LGBT ini. Dengan pengikut kumpulan ini semakin membesar dan kemungkinan ahli-ahli politik yang pro mereka makin bertambah, maka suatu hari nanti Malaysia mungkin akan menjadi seperti beberapa negeri di Amerika Syarikat yang meluluskan Undang-undang perkahwinan sejenis.

7. Namun menghalang kumpulan ini melalui undang-undang yang ketat tidak menyelesaikan masalah. Mencerca dan menghina mereka secara berterusan juga tidak akan mengurangkan kumpulan ini jika tidak disusuli dengan usaha alternatif memulihkan mereka yang mahu pulih.

8. Justeru kerajaan perlu mewujudkan mekanisme dan pelan perancangan yang rapi dalam memulihkan kumpulan ini. Bantuan kaunseling, psikologi dan perubatan  perlu ditawarkan secara percuma kepada mereka yang terbabit dalam gejala ini dan mahu pulang ke pangkal jalan. Kumpulan saintis, ahli sosiologi dan agamawan perlu duduk bersama mencari kaedah terbaik bagi mengatasi perilaku dan sikap anti - kemanusiaan ini.

Read more crap at: http://www.drkhir.com/2012/05/perlu-makanisme-khusus-atasi-gejala.html

(The Malaysian Insider) - Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim claimed a symbolic victory today in having the man who unsuccessfully prosecuted him for sodomy join his legal team to defend an illegal assembly charge, pointing out that someone who was in government did not want to be a part of what he called the “dirtiness”.

Anwar has repeated his charge that the latest charge against him is politically-motivated, and said that former Solicior-General II Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden’s entry into his legal team was “meaningful” to him and a “positive development”.

“I received information that he was willing to join my legal defence team, so I as the accused contacted him for help,” Anwar (picture) told reporters.

“This is a positive development... I think more lawyers are biding their time to join me as well,” he said.

“Yusof’s presence is very meaningful to me. It shows that someone inside the government is aware of the ‘dirtiness’ and does not want to be a part of it,” he added.

Anwar pointed out that if Yusof truly thought he was guilty, then the former solicitor-general would not have agreed to join his legal team.

“Yusof came here with full commitment and his performance today is proof that he only wants justice to be served,” he said.

Yusof joined Anwar’s legal team as the opposition leader was today charged with taking part in an illegal street demonstration on April 28.

It was a startling turn of events as Yusof had led the Sodomy II prosecution against Anwar, which saw the latter being acquitted earlier this year.

He has since retired from the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/anwar-claims-symbolic-win-after-former-prosecutor-joins-legal-team/

Yusof was the Solicitor-General II in the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

The Malaysian Insider understands that Yusof’s ties with Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail have been cool for some time and he had disagreed with the way some of the high-profile cases had been handled.

Former Solicitor-General II Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden has joined Datuk Anwar Ibrahim’s legal team as the opposition leader is charged with taking part in an illegal street demonstration today.

It was a startling turn of events as Yusof had led the Sodomy II prosecution against Anwar, which saw the latter being acquitted earlier this year.

He has since retired from the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

“I got a call from Anwar last night. I did not hesitate. Nothing personal against the A-G’s Chambers,” Yusof told The Malaysian Insider when approached.

The Malaysian Insider understands that Yusof’s ties with Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail have been cool for some time and he had disagreed with the way some of the high-profile cases had been handled.

PKR leader and lawyer Sivarasa Rasiah confirmed with The Malaysian Insider in a text message when asked if the former government lawyer was on the PKR de facto head’s legal team.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/sodomy-ii-prosecutor-now-in-anwars-legal-team-for-illegal-assembly-charge/

It’s all a matter of endurance. Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose.

Will the upcoming polls see this becoming the new normal or will we return to the status quo ante? I will try my best to cover these dilemmas. But then again, if we refer to Tun Daim’s tennis analogy and the doubts raised by Bersih, another major question surrounds the “rules of the game” – who determines the players, especially the millions of new voters?

Karim Raslan, The Star

WE are entering the final straight. Whether the date of the actual polling day is in June, July, September or even next year, the finishing line is fast approaching.

It’s all a matter of endurance. Who can best manage their own resources and minimise their weaknesses? Whose “messaging” is the most focused and sustained?

Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose.

As Tun Daim Zainuddin said a few months ago, the contest between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional is much like an extended game of tennis – with victory going to the side that commits the least unforced errors.

In this respect Barisan would appear to be gaining the lead. Pakatan’s lack of access to the mainstream media further undermines the challenger’s chances.

Last week’s resignation of DAP Senator and vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim and PAS’ continued call for the introduction of the syariah have raised doubts about Pakatan’s ability to hold the middle-ground.

But there are also real dangers in trying to “read” the election outcome from the mainstream media. Official controls will always tend to magnify Pakatan’s mistakes whilst minimising Barisan’s missteps and only a fool would ignore the Internet’s ubiquitous presence.

At the same time, the vast numbers of new voters have injected an enormous degree of uncertainty into the game.

It is as if Tun Daim’s tennis game had been crossed with a Sony Wii as well as a Pentagon battle-ground simulator: permutations are the new “norm”.

No one knows for certain where these young people will cast their ballots. As Ben Suffian of Merdeka Centre explains: “They lack the loyalty of their parents. They are better informed and more sceptical: arbitraging on news and events.”

But when all is said and done, the voters are faced with four fundamental decisions when they’re dealing with Barisan, which are as follows:

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak: Should the Malaysians reward or punish him? Have his reforms satisfied the voting public? Conversely, has he been too weak in the face of non-Malay demands? Does Bersih 3.0 accurately reflect popular sentiment? Does he deserve to better Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s 2008 result? Will we reward him with the constitutional majority? Can his personal popularity (much like Abdullah’s at the same stage of the 2008 scenario) strengthen his hold on power?

> Umno: For over five decades – the United Malays National Organisation has been the parti kerajaan – the party of Government with its supreme council meetings surpassing Cabinet in terms of “real” authority? Is the automatic identification of party and government (along with all the attendant patronage) coming to an end? Or is it merely a case of the parti kerajaan becoming a parti politik no different from PAS and PKR? Is Umno’s supremacy finished?

> Barisan Nasional: Can the alliance remain intact if the country’s second largest community, the Chinese, remove their support? Is an Umno-dominated coalition sustainable? Are we witnessing the end of the so-called unwritten consensus that has brought us thus far? What will be the substitute?

> Malaysia: Will the 13th General Election see the firming up of the two-coalition system or its demise? Are we Malaysians comfortable with the level of checks and balances that have entered our political lexicon since 2008 or do we wish to return to the past – entrusting the Barisan, unreservedly with our future?

March 8, 2008 was a surprise result. It upset our (and especially my) lazy assumptions.

Will the upcoming polls see this becoming the new normal or will we return to the status quo ante? I will try my best to cover these dilemmas. But then again, if we refer to Tun Daim’s tennis analogy and the doubts raised by Bersih, another major question surrounds the “rules of the game” – who determines the players, especially the millions of new voters?

Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim (C) talks to his supporters after the verdict of his sodomy trial was announced in Kuala Lumpur on January 9, 2012.

The Malaysian authorities appear to be using what happened at the Bersih demonstration as a pretext to prosecute political opposition leaders. These charges, and the actions by police at the Bersih rally, don’t inspire confidence that the Malaysian government is committed to protecting basic free expression rights.  - Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director (Human Rights Watch)

(Bangkok) – The Malaysian government should withdraw charges against opposition leaders for their participation in the “Bersih 3.0” demonstration in Kuala Lumpur on April 28, 2012. A criminal charge sheet obtained by Malaysian media indicates that authorities will charge former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, president of the opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR); Azmin Ali, PKR deputy president; and Badrul Hisham Shaharin, a PKR activist, with disobeying judicial orders and taking part in a prohibited street protest.

The Bersih movement, a coalition of some 150 organizations promoting reform of election laws and procedures, held a mass rally on April 28 at Dataran Merkeda (Independence Square). Days earlier, the authorities had obtained a judicial order to stop the protest, but Bersih proceeded with a demonstration in the area surrounding the square. The protest proceeded mostly without incident but ended with police using excessive force, including teargas and water cannons, and beating and arresting as many as 1,700 protesters.

“The Malaysian authorities appear to be using what happened at the Bersih demonstration as a pretext to prosecute political opposition leaders,” said  Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These charges, and the actions by police at the Bersih rally, don’t inspire confidence that the Malaysian government is committed to protecting basic free expression rights.” 

The PKR leaders are being charged under Malaysia’s new Peaceful Assembly Act, which went into effect mere days before the protest. The Malaysian parliament enacted the law in late 2011 as part of a billed legislative “reform” package, revoking an earlier law that prohibited all protests without permits and had been used to outlaw virtually all political protests. 

The Peaceful Assembly Act  bans so-called street protests and contains an overly broad list of areas in which all assemblies are banned ­– a list that makes it virtually impossible for protesters to hold demonstrations in urban areas, Human Rights Watch said. Anwar, Azmin, and Badrul are specifically charged under the act for engaging in a “street protest.”

Human Rights Watch called on the government to rewrite the Peaceful Assembly Act so that it conforms with international human rights standards.

Read more at: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/05/21/malaysia-drop-charges-against-protest-participants

This response is jointly endorsed by Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga, Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, and Sharmila Sekaran.

The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar (“the Bar”) have been criticised recently as being pro-Opposition. This is because of the Bar’s press statements and its Extraordinary General Meeting resolution regarding the police brutality shown at the Bersih 3.0 sit-down rally. The common theme adopted by critics of the Bar is that the Bar was not fair, or even-handed, as the Bar were more critical of the police than it was of the other parties involved.

Some of the more popular criticisms were summarised in Roger Tan’s article “Unswayed by fear or favour” which was also published in The Sunday Star on 20 May 2012. In summary, he says the following:

1. The Bar in condemning the police brutality must be equally aggressive in its condemnation against the protestors who “behaved like rioters and anarchists”.
2. The Bar had prejudged the issues by passing the resolution because by doing so “the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police”.
3. The Bar should have demanded an apology from Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim because “it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier” which was “the trigger point”.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan’s article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.

The Bar did not prejudge the issues

In his second criticism, Roger says that the Bar should only pass the resolution condemning police brutality after a finding has been made by an independent body such as SUHAKAM. However, SUHAKAM relies on the evidence of witnesses, and often conducts a hearing several months after the event. The Bar based its stance and resolution on the observations of 80 lawyers who formed a team of observers of events during Bersih 3.0. The purpose of assembling and mobilising this monitoring team was precisely so that the Bar would be able to rely on their eyewitness accounts, and not those of friends, media, the police, or post-event photos or videos. The observations of the monitoring team were recorded and compiled within hours on the day itself, and thereafter fine-tuned and completed. We have no reason to doubt the credibility and observations of the team, and neither have we heard of substantiated allegations about them.

Aside from the Bar monitoring team and its report, since that day many other eyewitness accounts have emerged, including photos and videos that speak for themselves. Significantly, on this occasion, even media members were not spared. We even had the embarrassing incident where Al-Jazeera’s reporter Harry Fawcett had to report via Skype from his iPad as his team’s video camera was smashed by police while they were recording police brutality against protestors.

Most importantly, many previous SUHAKAM inquiries – the 5 November 2001 Kesas Highway Incident, the 17 June 2003 Kundasang Incident, the 28 May 2006 KLCC Incident, the 27 May 2008 Persiaran Bandar Mahkota Cheras 1 Incident, the 9 July 2011 Bersih 2.0 Incident – found that there was excessive use of force by the police, and evidence of police brutality. Numerous complaints by victims led to the said inquiries, the findings of which thereafter vindicated the complaints leading to damning conclusions about police conduct. These many reports do not just show isolated instances of police brutality: Bersih 3.0 was not a one-off. There is a pattern of regular use of excessive force and brutality in violation of human rights by the Royal Malaysian Police Force. Despite these many reports by SUHAKAM, and despite the findings of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, the police have not made any serious attempts to school themselves in the prevention of human rights violations.

Regrettably, Roger is sceptical of the 80 monitors appointed by the Bar Council because they are not named, as he “would certainly like to know their political inclinations” to satisfy himself that they “were independent-minded in their conclusions”. Firstly, five widely-respected senior members of the Bar, who were a part of a “roving” team of monitors, were named and had their observations separately documented: Christopher Leong (Vice President of the Malaysian Bar), Steven Thiru (Treasurer of the Bar Council), Dato’ Ramachelvam Manimuthu, Ramdas Tikamdas, and Roger Chan Weng Keng. Apparently it is not enough that lawyers of this calibre verify and endorse the report.

More importantly, what does one’s political inclination have to do with stating a fact about whether Malaysian citizens were assaulted and battered by the police, and whether there was excessive use of force in accordance with international human rights standards?

Whilst Roger Tan has left the Bar Council, it is unfair to assume that the Bar Council would not have trained these monitors properly bearing in mind this is not the first assembly monitoring mission dispatched by the Council. His flippant remarks greatly disparage those members of the Bar who volunteered to serve on the monitoring team, implying as it does that they would allow their personal prejudice to influence their professional duties. It is part of our job as lawyers to put aside our personal prejudice in order to advance the cause of justice.

Rather conveniently, whilst casting these aspersions on others, Roger himself does not reveal his strong affiliations to a particular political party. Employing Roger’s logic, one wonders, perhaps, whether commentators in The Star for example should also be required to divulge their political affiliations and leanings before their opinion pieces are published. But we will not venture into the realm of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem to discredit the views of others, as Roger disappointingly has.

Roger’s comments suggest that we should not immediately make conclusions even if we see a group of uniformed policemen beating up an unarmed citizen who lies helpless on the ground because there were extenuating circumstances. And even if numerous members of the Bar, members of the public and journalists documented such incidents of brutality. The fact is, the police are supposed to treat each person they arrest as if they are innocent until proven guilty. The police should only use reasonable force in arresting someone. If they have to resort to force, they should only use force that is proportionate to the threat faced, and only enough to ensure the person’s arrest.

Roger cites the example of the Bar postponing its EGM with regards to the VK Lingam video clip scandal while it waited for the Royal Commission of Inquiry to complete its task. Roger however seems to overlook the fact that the video clip sparked the groundbreaking Walk for Justice in September 2007 which saw about 2,000 lawyers marching to the PM’s office. The other difference with that example is that with Bersih 3.0, the Bar monitoring team saw police brutality with their own eyes, and not through a video clip. It is obvious that this is not a comparable precedent.

What is this obsession with Anwar Ibrahim?

In his third criticism, Roger insists that the Bar should similarly demand an apology from Dato’ Seri Anwar because he was reported to have instigated the removal of the barrier. But Roger must understand that one must distinguish between credible first-hand reports by Bar monitors, and accusations by obviously partisan members of Barisan Nasional and its media.

This is where Roger shows an obvious inconsistency – whilst saying that the eyewitness accounts of the Bar’s monitoring team is insufficient to be relied upon, he says that the Bar should demand an apology from Dato’ Seri Anwar for an incident that no one on the Bar’s monitoring team witnessed. Despite the many eye witness blog entries, photos and videos, there has been no compelling evidence either way to show who removed the barriers, or whether their removal was facilitated by the police, public, or Opposition members. On what basis is Roger suggesting that the Bar demand an apology from Dato’ Seri Anwar?

Let us for one moment set aside the question whether the Court order prohibiting entry into Dataran Merdeka was unnecessary, wrong in law and unconstitutional. Let us also assume the barriers in question were covered by the Court order. Even assuming that the order was validly executed by the police, did it necessitate the extreme use of non-lethal force to arrest and disperse the small group of people who breached the barrier? Bearing in mind that the Bar’s resolution was on police misconduct, and not about who removed the barrier, it is even more disconcerting that Roger implies that the police may excessively and disproportionally tear-gas and beat the innocent just to get at those who did breach the barrier.

The Bar need not have condemned the protestors

Finally, Roger develops the basis of the criticism that the Bar is not “independent” by stating the Bar failed to condemn with equal vigour lay members of the public who he says acted “like rioters and anarchists”. Many labour under the misapprehension that to be “independent” an organisation must always be even handed and restrained in one’s remarks. But that is a fallacy. And it is an even greater fallacy when it concerns injustice.

Police brutality is a violation of a human right. A violation of any human right is manifest injustice. Police brutality per se is an injustice. The presence of police brutality has tainted the Royal Malaysian Police as surely as a drop of blood stains a uniform. An injustice perpetrated by even one from an institution set up to serve the cause of justice deserves the harshest condemnation. There cannot be any restraint in condemning abuse of power. As a police force meant to be independent and professional, the Royal Malaysian Police are kept to higher standards than lay members of the public. So the Bar cannot be swayed by fear or favour; it cannot be hesitant or even handed in condemning an injustice that is police brutality. Here is an Executive institution that is well-funded and well-staffed with wide powers taking action against unarmed people. It is State against the individual person, and the Bar stands – must stand – for the latter.

What Roger and many who adopt this line of criticism fail to explain is how the condemnation of police brutality amounts to an endorsement of the Opposition. This criticism reveals more of their own political prejudice than that of the Bar. Their criticism strongly suggests a belief that criticism of the police is the equivalent of criticism against the political party in government. Their criticism also reveals that they are the sort who think that perception is reality.

It is only those who are so immersed and drenched in politics that adopt such a worldview. The Bar’s criticism and the facts it relies on are an inconvenience to their perception. Ultimately these popular criticisms against the Bar are not borne of logic or facts, but a need to feel good.

There is one further reason why we would not have voted for a resolution that condemned those members of the public who turned violent. The fact is that most thinking Malaysians who have access to the alternative media – and therefore do not rely solely on the bare faced propaganda of our mainstream print and broadcast media – are not convinced that these so called “rioters” are as blameworthy as the police.

Read more at: http://www.loyarburok.com/2012/05/22/fallacies-bar/

(Bernama) - Perhimpunan di ibunegara bulan lepas disertai oleh 22,270 orang dan bukan ratusan ribu seperti yang didakwa pembangkang, kata Menteri Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim hari ini.

Beliau berkata rumusan tentang jumlah mereka yang menyertai  perhimpunan pada 28 April itu dibuat oleh Pertubuhan Berita Nasional (Bernama) dengan menggunakan sistem blok fotografi.

"Jumlahnya 22,270, agak hampir dengan konfigurasi British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (25,000), tetapi, yang pasti ia jauh daripada (jumlah) yang diumumkan (penasihat PKR dan Ketua Pembangkang) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ke seluruh dunia.
    
"Sehubungan itu, kami ingin berkata begini: "Bersikap jujurlah tentang jumlah orang yang menghadiri sebarang majlis.
    
"Dan idea untuk menjadikannya gah hingga mencapai beratus ribu bukan saja sesuatu yang agak nakal, tetapi juga menyatakan sesuatu yang begitu tidak benar kepada rakyat Malaysia dan kepada seluruh dunia," katanya selepas merasmikan kursus asas mengenai media baharu untuk anggota Mubarak (Majlis Bekas-bekas Wakil Rakyat) dan veteran Umno di ibunegara.

Rais mempelawa mereka yang begitu berminat untuk mengetahui bagaimana jumlah itu dikira, melihat cara Bernama melakukannya.
    
"Kami sebenarnya boleh mengira jumlah kepala bagi setiap sentimeter
graf pada sesuatu gambar.
    
"Kami lebih cenderung menerima cara anggaran itu dibuat daripada cara mencari gah yang kami dapat daripada puak PKR," katanya.
    
Ditanya adakah jumlah itu merupakan angka rasmi kerajaan, beliau berkata junmlah yang dicapai Bernama adalah lebih logik dan hampir dengan anggaran BBC.
    
Rais berkata beliau tidak keberatan sekiranya sebuah badan bebas diwujudkan untuk mengesahkan jumlah itu jika ada pihak yang mahukan demikian agar ia boleh dijadikan ukuran pada masa akan datang.

 "Saya ingin mengesyorkan agar setiap kali ada perhimpunan besar, kaedah ini digunakan agar orang ramai boleh mendapat maklumat secara adil tentang jumlah hadirin," katanya.

(Bernama) - Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) will not allow the group calling itself "Bersih 4.0" to open a night market in front electoral reform group Bersih 3.0 co-chairman Datuk S. Ambiga's house in Bukit Damansara, said Kuala Lumpur Mayor Tan Sri Ahmad Fuad Ismail.

He said the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 does not allow people to intrude into other people's territory, and therefore the group should not proceed with its plan.

"They (Bersih 4.0 organisers) must ask for our permission, but we will not allow. People make mistakes and we know they (Bersih 3.0) made mistakes...we should not follow. If everybody follows (the mistakes) and ignore the law, what will happen to our country?" he told reporters after opening the Impiana KLCC Hotel new wing here, today.

Yesterday, 60 petty traders told a news conference that they planned to open up stalls in front Ambiga's house in Bukit Damansara here on Thursday and Friday, with the hope of recouping the losses they suffered during the Bersih 3.0 rally in the city on April 28.

Kuala Lumpur Petty Traders Action Council chairman Datuk Jamal Md Yunus said that they would be applying for the needed permits from the authorities to do business there but would would still go ahead if denied.

Ahmad Fuad said that Malaysians should stop doing such gatherings one after another and hoped that they would do productive activities instead. "Most importantly, respect others. Don't create all these things. If you create one, people will create another. When is this going to end?" he said.

He said that addressing this kind of events would cause DBKL a lot of money and would divert their focus from doing the necessary things.

"It costs money as our people have to monitor roads  and so on. What is important is that others don't want to be disturbed. "The majority of people in Kuala Lumpur, they don't want to be disturbed. It's disturbing. We are known for being a peaceful country. Why must we create such negative things?" he added.

They have been served court summons earlier today seeking their presence at the Jalan Duta courts tomorrow over their participation in the Bersih rally on April 28.

(Free Malaysia Today) - PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim and his deputy Azmin Ali have been summoned to the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex at Jalan Duta tomorrow morning where they are expected to be charged over their participation at the Bersih rally on April 28.

Azmin’s special officer Hilman Idhan said that police have handed over to him a writ of summons asking his boss to attend court over two criminal charges.

According to documents, Azmin has been informed that he would be facing one charge under the newly gazetted Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 for participating in a “street protest” and another for going against an order by a public servant.

In the first document, Azmin is alleged to have participated in a street protest, between 2.30pm to 3pm along Jalan Tun Perak, on April 28, 2012 that went against a court order given out by the magistrate court under Section 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The court order, which was given out on April 27 by magistrate Zaki Asyraf Zubir, prohibited any gathering at Dataran Merdeka– including the land bordered by Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin, Jalan Raja, and Jalan Kelab any time between April 28 to May 1.

The charge falls under Section 4(2)(c) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 which prohibits organising or participation in a street protests. If convicted under this section, Azmin could be fined up to RM10,000.

The second document stated that Azmin, together with five others still at large, have abetted with R Tangam, G Rajesh Kumar, Farhan Ibrahim @ Alias to breach the court order.

The second charge comes under Section 188 of the Penal Code, for “disabodience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant” and is read together with Section 109 and Section 34 of the Penal Code for abetting.

If convicted under this charge, Azmin could face up to six months prison or fined RM2,000 or both.

A PKR source said that Anwar would face similar charges with Azmin.

Chegubard summoned as well

Meanwhile, Rembau PKR division chief Badrul Hisham Shaharin, or better known as Chegubard, also confirmed that he has received papers asking him to turn up in court tomorrow.

“The first charge is under the Peaceful Assembly Act and the second is Section 188 of the Penal Code,” he told FMT.

Commenting on the matter, Chegubard said he would attend court and follow due process of the law, but said this would not divert him to fight for Bersih’s cause, which is for electoral reforms.

READ MORE HERE

His intention to contest in Sri Andalas state seat and Kota Raja parliamentary seat is likely to split the Indian votes in favour of BN. 

(Free Malaysia Today) - Human Rights Party’s pro-tem secretary general P Uthayakumar had always professed that his heart was with Pakatan Rakyat. But now he could play the spoiler’s role in the Sri Andalas state seat and Kota Raja parliamentary seat.

His entry is likely to split the Indian votes in favour of Barisan Nasional.

Uthayakumar will be contesting as an independent as the Human Rights Party is not registered as a political party.

The Hindraf de facto leader announced yesterday that he would contest both seats in the coming general election and for the Sri Andalas seat, his entry is expected to make the fight five-cornered.

Sri Andalas state representative Dr Xavier Jayakumar, from PKR, said that he was expecting at least a five way contest.

“There are rumours that a Malay candidate would be fielded as an independent.

“Kita is also eyeing this seat,” said Jayakumar when asked to comment on Uthayakumar decision.

Jayakumar however is confident of retaining his seat. In 2008 he defeated MIC’s A Kamalam with a majority of 10,203 votes.

“I have served my constituency well. My record speaks for itself. The people are matured and will make wise decisions,” said Jayakumar who is also Selangor exco for health, plantation workers, poverty and caring government.

PAS’ Kota Raja MP Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud feels that Uthayakumar’s plan to contest in Kota Raja would only split the votes in favour of BN.

In the last election she defeated SA Vigneswaran (MIC) by a majority of 20,751 votes.

“Uthayakumar and Hindraf would only get votes from the Indians. He would split the votes in favour of BN,” said Siti Mariah.

READ MORE HERE

Chinese and Indian business associations comment on the Bumiputera Manufacturers and Service Industry Association's request for RM25 million.

(Free Malaysia Today) - Chinese and Indian businessmen are wagging their tongues over a Malay business organisation’s offer of votes to Barisan Nasional in return for capital grants.

They wonder how the government would react if a non-bumiputera organisation were audacious enough to offer a similar deal. They note that there has been no report of the government accepting or rejecting the offer from the Bumiputera Manufacturers and Service Industry Association, made in a speech last Thursday by its president, Abdul Rahim Abu Bakar.

“Of course we wish that the government would provide support to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and Small and Medium Industries (SMIs) without regarding issues like race,” said Leong Kai Hin, who sits in the national council of the Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia (ACCCIM), which represents close to 30,000 businessmen.

He told FMT that ACCCIM was not objecting to the Bumiputera association’s offer and refused to pass judgment on whether it was appropriate.

“As businessmen, we try not to get into all these debates,” he said. “We can’t make things turn racial, but we (Chinese businesses) simply ask that we are also given this opportunity to dialogue with the state and federal governments. Regardless of race, we all need funds for growth.”

The Malaysian Indian Business Association (MIBA) said it would be a “waste of time” for Indian businesses to seek financial support from the government.

“MIBA doesn’t want to provoke or offend certain quarters, but we feel that the culture of pleading for government aid is just wrong,” MIBA president P Sivakumar said. “Businesses should not be given short cuts, but we should have in place policies to really address matters.”

MIBA’s membership consists of 700 small and medium businesses.

Sivakumar said the government should not spoon feed businesses with handouts or provide them with shortcuts, but should provide opportunities to entrepreneurs willing to work hard and take risks.

“Those who want to take risks should be given ample chances,” he said, adding that he disapproved of demands for money “just because an election is coming”.

Real policy needed

He said Malay businesses should have little to complain because “most of the time, they get things on a silver platter”.

“We Indians have always been pleading. We ask and ask and we’re not given. They (Malays) are given even if they don’t ask.”

Sivakumar said government aid for Indian businessmen would require political intervention most of the time and would often be poorly channelled.

“Usually it is through agencies that are originally for Bumiputera needs, but are forced to open up a little for Indian businesses after political parties get involved. And, usually, it is channelled to sources that are not even really involved in business,” he said.

If Indian businessmen were successful, Sivakumar said, it would be through their own efforts.

He called for a “real policy” to help the Indians.

READ MORE HERE

Menurut Presiden PAS, muzakarah dengan Umno adalah satu agenda politik, kerana (Umno) bukannya ikhlas. 

(Free Malaysia Today) - Walaupun Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat setuju mengadakan muzakarah dengan Umno, Presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang menafikan sebaliknya.

Menurut Abdul Hadi, muzakarah dengan Umno adalah satu agenda politik, kerana (Umno) bukannya ikhlas.

“PAS tidak akan bermuzakarah dengan Umno kerana ia mainan politik apabila menjelangnya pilihan raya umum sejak tahun 80-an,” katanya.
Abdul Hadi menegaskan demikian dalam sidang media di Pejabat Agung PAS di ibu negara hari ini.

Kenyataan itu bertentangan dengan Nik Aziz yang juga Mursyidul Am PAS yang menyatakan kesediaan bermuzakarah dengan Umno.

Sebaliknya, menurut menurut Presiden PAS itu, ia hanya untuk NGO bagi menjelaskan dakwaan sebelum ini yang menuduh PAS sudah tersasar daripada matlamat perjuangan Islam sebenar.

Perbincangan dengan NGO

“Masa tu saya nyatakan PAS sedia mengadakan perbincangan dengan NGO yang menuduh PAS dengan tuduhan itu tetapi telah disalah tafsir.
“Muzakarah dengan Umno itu tidak timbul,” katanya lagi.

Namun katanya gagal dilaksanakan selepas tamatnya pilihan raya kerana keengganan Umno untuk meneruskannya walaupun beberapa NGO Islam termasuk ABIM dan Arqam pernah menawarkan diri untuk menganjurkannya.

“Ini cerita lama kita tak mahu ulang balik,” katanya yang hanya mahu PAS tumpukan perhatian melawan Umno sahaja dalam pilihan raya nanti.

Menurut Hadi, beliau lebih senang jika perbincangan dengan Umno tertumpu kepada isu pilihan raya yang bersih mengikut etika demokrasi sebenar.

Sementara itu, Setiausaha Agung Umno Datuk Mustafa Ali berkata PAS akan mengadakan program seminar kepada semua NGO dan parti termasuk yang bukan Islam tentang persepsi sebenar parti itu.

Katanya, seperti yang diputuskan mesyuarat biro politik tadi PAS akan menjelaskan tentang Islam dan perananya dalam membangunkan masyarakat dan negara dalam masa yang akan ditentukan nanti.

READ MORE HERE

As I said, this is not about personalities. It is about the cause. Today, by chance, we have Anwar as the Opposition Leader. And that happened only because Dr Mahathir’s speech in the 2nd September 1998 Umno Supreme Council meeting was more convincing than Anwar’s. The majority of the Supreme Council members, although on Anwar’s side, accepted Dr Mahathir’s version of the story more than Anwar’s.

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar: PR parties share common goal

(Borneo Post) - BINTULU: Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said all coalition partners of Pakatan Rakyat (PR) may have different ideologies, but they are united because of policy.

“We have different backgrounds and races, but we fight for mutual objectives. We want to change our current system,” he said at a PKR Bintulu pre-Gawai dinner here on Saturday.

The de facto leader of PKR said PR was confident of altering the political landscape of Malaysia in the coming 13th general election because BN had gone too arrogant.

“First major fundamental difference between PR and BN is there is time for Malaysia to accept that we are a great Malaysian family of all races, religion and culture.”

“The sooner Umno understands this the better it is for Malaysia.”

“Currently Umno is not able to understand this, and BN component parties are also weak to say anything. It’s time we defeat BN in the next general election.”

Also present at the function were Selangor exco member Elizabeth Wong, state PKR chief Baru Bian, PKR Bintulu chief Paul Raja, Kapar MP S Manikavasagam, Krian assemblyman Ali Biju, and Kemena PKR chief Ribi Rayang.

***************************************

Before I talk about the news item above, I would like to first close the debate on Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim. I think we have argued about this man long enough -- a man who did not and will not cause too much impact on DAP either way.

For all intents and purposes, the whole matter has been overrated. When Tunku Aziz joined DAP back in 2008, I did not sing his praises or hail him as the Malay version of Gandhi, like many of you did. Hence, when he decided to leave, I took it as cool as when he joined more than three years ago. I did not get my panties all twisted into knots, like many of you did.

Anyway, I enjoyed tickling all of you over the last few weeks and see you foam at the mouth. Most of you who were suffering from diarrhoea of the mouth when Tunku left, and then he endorsed Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, were the same people who suffered from diarrhoea of the mouth when Tunku joined. If you had been cool when Tunku joined then you could probably remain cool now that he has left.

I suppose this is your guilt working on you. You went overboard when Tunku joined. So now you go overboard when he leaves.

Two Umno Bloggers have resigned from Umno to join DAP. Then, a couple of retired senior police officers are joining PAS. One retired Special Branch officer has joined the opposition in Sarawak. And, again, you are all excited about it, as excited as when Zaid Ibrahim first joined PKR and Tunku Aziz joined DAP.

Cool lah brader and sista! Don’t get too excited. It is good, no doubt, that the opposition is attracting ex-Umno people or retired police and army officers. That is a good endorsement of what the opposition stands for. But if you start getting too excited about it then, if anything happens, you will, again, start foaming at the mouth and start cursing them, the Malays, Islam, Raja Petra and Malaysia Today all in the same breath.

People come, people go. People even die. But life goes on. It is what lies ahead of us and whether we are able to face these challenges that matter. You talk about focus. You keep telling me to focus. But are you yourself focused? Do you understand what our perjuangan is all about? Is it about personalities or is it about the cause? And what is that cause?

Okay, I admit that I have been very naughty. But I did say some time ago that my ‘job’ is to throw the cat amongst the pigeons and watch the feathers fly. And, boy, have the feathers been flying over the last couple of weeks!

Hell, it is so easy to manipulate you people. All I need to do is to throw cats all over the place and you pigeons will fly in all directions. I suppose pigeon brains will always act like pigeons. Now you know why Barisan Nasional is able to play you for suckers. It is because many of you are suckers.

Okay, enough of my gloating for one day -- although it is nice to be able to gloat. Let’s get to the business of the day, which is the news report above and what Anwar Ibrahim said: all coalition partners of Pakatan Rakyat may have different ideologies, but they are united because of policy.

Now, what does this mean? For those of you who have a poor command of English, look at the definition of those various words below.

PKR, DAP and PAS have different ideologies, like what Anwar said. Nevertheless, they are united because of their common policy.

I want you all to note this point and remember it well. This is so that we can avoid further arguments, which are mainly the result of not being able to understand this point and not sharing the same view on what these various words mean.

Allow me to illustrate this point by referring to the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST). No, this is not a discussion on religion but just an example I have plucked from the top of my head.

The MCCBCHST members have different ideologies. I mean: the Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Taoists do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God or accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Nevertheless, the members of the MCCBCHST are united because of a common policy. And that was why the MCCBCHST was formed, because they share the same policy although they differ on ideology.

Is this not the same argument that Anwar raised: all coalition partners of Pakatan Rakyat may have different ideologies, but they are united because of policy?

If we can understand this then we can avoid unnecessary quarrels that are mainly the result of not understanding the concept of how we unite and how to disagree even though we may be united.

PKR, DAP and PAS are united by common purpose. And this unity is based on wanting to kick out Barisan Nasional and take over the federal government. But just because they are united by purpose it does not mean they are also united by ideology. And this we must accept. If we can’t then we will end up quarrelling, as we always do.

Notwithstanding that, although PKR, DAP and PAS are united by purpose, meaning that they all want to kick out Barisan Nasional and take over the federal government, it does not mean that they are also united in the reason for wanting this.

For example, the reason why PAS wants a change of federal government is to be able to see the adeen of Islam implemented, which Umno is resisting. If Umno no longer resists the adeen of Islam but instead embraces it, is there any longer any reason for PAS to oppose Umno? I really don’t know but maybe the top PAS leadership can answer this question. However, if Malaysia implements the adeen of Islam, then I suppose there is no longer any reason for PAS to oppose Umno.

Now, what is the reason why DAP wants a change of federal government? I suppose it would be to see an end to racism, discrimination, corruption, etc. But the adeen of Islam is not on the list of DAP’s wants. That does mean, however, that DAP cannot unite with PKR and PAS under the umbrella of Pakatan Rakyat.

PKR, on the other hand, wants to see Anwar as the new Prime Minister. DAP and PAS have no objections to that although they treat it more as a bonus than the main perjuangan like PKR does.

The bottom line is: we can still be friends and unite under a common cause. But note that we may not share the same ideology, only the same purpose. And if I express an ideology that differs from yours, this does not mean we are enemies.

The US is opposed to Communism. Russia, during WWII, was Communist. The US and Russia were, in fact, enemies who never trusted each other. But they shared a common purpose, and that was to defeat Nazi Germany. So they worked together to defeat Nazi Germany although they opposed each other’s ideology. Of course, once Germany lost the war, the US and Russia reverted to becoming enemies and took the world to the brink of a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This is the concept of an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence we need Barisan Nasional to be in power for Pakatan Rakyat to exist. If Barisan Nasional did not exist would Pakatan Rakyat exist? I am not gungho about Pakatan Rakyat. I just want Barisan Nasional ousted. Hence Pakatan Rakyat presents itself as the platform in achieving this. That is all.

In fact, PKR exists only because Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad defeated Anwar in the 2nd September 1998 Umno Supreme Council meeting. Say, the opposite happened. Say, Anwar defeated Dr Mahathir instead and Anwar had taken over as the new Umno President on that historic day of 2nd September 1998.

Then Anwar would also have taken over as the new Prime Minister of Malaysia. Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi would have never become the Prime Minister with Najib as his Deputy Prime Minister. And, today, Anwar would be the Fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia, and 14 years in office this September.

And what would you and I be doing today? Today, you will all be cursing Anwar and I will be writing articles whacking the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim. There would be no Altantuya, Rosmah, Khairy, submarine, NFC, etc., issues. Instead, there would be other issues we will be talking about involving the Umno and Barisan Nasional administration of Anwar Ibrahim.

I would probably still have been detained many times because I would still be vocal like I used to be when Anwar was the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. Only that, this time, it would be Anwar’s government that detained me.

So, can you see what has happened here? One meeting, the Umno Supreme Council meeting of 2nd September 1998, changed all that.

2nd September 1998 was the day the Umno Supreme Council met to sack Anwar Ibrahim from Umno, a day after being removed as the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Malaysia. Before the meeting started, the majority of the Supreme Council members were on Anwar’s side -- except for just five members, Ibrahim Ali included. However, when Dr Mahathir delivered his “friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears…yada, yada, yada…it is not that I love Anwar less, but I love Umno more” speech, the tables turned. Dr Mahathir brilliantly went into the meeting as the hunted and emerged the hunter -- and Anwar’s fate was sealed.

Now, if all that had not happened, today, you and I would all be talking about different things and will be aiming our bullets at different people. Even Karpal Singh, who initially was supposed to represent ‘the other side’ in the Sodomy 1 case, ended up representing Anwar instead, against ‘the other side’. Hence, even Karpal ‘changed sides’ after 2nd September 1998, so to speak. Even Mat Sabu, who used to go round the country to whack Anwar and call him a sodomist, ‘changed sides’ and defended Anwar after 2nd September 1998.

As I said, this is not about personalities. It is about the cause. Today, by chance, we have Anwar as the Opposition Leader. And that happened only because Dr Mahathir’s speech in the 2nd September 1998 Umno Supreme Council meeting was more convincing than Anwar’s. The majority of the Supreme Council members, although on Anwar’s side, accepted Dr Mahathir’s version of the story more than Anwar’s.

In short, we are saying what we are all saying today mainly because both Dr Mahathir and Anwar played ‘last man standing’ and Dr Mahathir won. If not, we will all be saying about Anwar exactly what we are saying today about Najib. Hence, do we want to get emotional about personalities who are what they are mainly because of an accident of history?

I, too, would not be doing what I am doing if not because of an accident of history that fateful day, 2nd September 1998. Because of 2nd September 1998, my whole life changed as well. And, because of 2nd September 1998, I now live in exile in Manchester and have lost everything that I own, my home included, which the government ‘seized’.

Yes, I bet you did not know that, those of you who say I have sold out while the government takes away the only home I own in Malaysia.

***************************************

Policy: rules, procedure, guidelines, guiding principle, course of action, plan, strategy.

Aspiration: ambition, goal, objective, aim, target, hope, desire, want, wish.

Ideology: philosophy, dogma, doctrine, beliefs, principles, thought, ideas, creed.

Objective: purpose, aim, point, intention, reason.

Anwar Ibrahim wants a PAS-Umno dialogue so that 'we can tell Umno that in Islam we cannot cheat in election.' 

(Free Malaysia Today) - KUCHING: Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim is all for a PAS-Umno dialogue (muzakarah) before the 13th general election.

“I agree to the dialogue between PAS and Umno. I encourage PAS to go ahead.

“In fact I agree that there should be muzakarah so that we can tell Umno that in Islam we cannot cheat in election.

“Cheating in election is the number one issue PAS must discuss with Umno, and this is against Islam,” he added.

“The number two issue is ‘jangan zalim’ (don’t be cruel), and number three is corruption. That is muzakarah, so don’t worry.

“So I agree that muzakarah should be held with Umno,” Anwar, said alluding to the issue of muzakarah raised by Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, who is also the spiritual leader of PAS.

Nik Aziz had reportedly said that Umno would have to meet with several conditions that would be determined by PAS if the two parties wanted to engage in consensus building towards achieving unity.

“If Umno wants to unite with PAS it must change its policy whereby Islam must come first.

“Umno must accept PAS together with Pakatan partners. When Umno has changed it must join Pakatan,” he reportedly said.

Anwar was in Third Mile Bazaar here last night in a ceramah which was attended by more than 2,000 people.

Anwar, who is on the last leg of his Sarawak tour, said that he had been told by many that a dialogue between PAS and Umno “is bad”.

“(But) I told them not to worry. We will provide proof to them that Umno is cheating (in the election).

“For instance, there are 47,000 foreigners who are not listed in the National Registration but are allowed to vote.

READ MORE HERE

(The Star) - Thousands of people, mostly clad in red T-shirts, turned up at a rally in the city to push for the setting up of a Chinese independent school here.

Despite the slight drizzle, the 520 (May 20) rally saw 163 Chinese associations, guilds and non-governmental organisations nationwide sending their representatives to the MPK4 field near here to pen down their signatures.

A total of 4,374 signatures were collected.

Organising chairman Lim Chin Chee, Federation of Chinese Associations of Malaysia president Tan Sri Pheng Yin Huah and Dong Zong chairman Dr Yap Sin Tian addressed the crowd.

Also present were MCA leaders such as Semambu assemblyman Datuk Pang Tsu Ming, Teruntum assemblyman Chang Hong Seong and Kuantan MCA division chief Datuk Ti Lian Ker as well as Pahang Gerakan chief Datuk Dr Ng Keong Chye and Tanah Rata assemblyman Ho Yip Kap.

Several Opposition leaders led by Kuantan MP Fuziah Salleh also joined the rally.

Fuziah said she would raise the request for the school in Parliament if there was an opportunity and that Pakatan Rakyat supported the setting up of a Chinese independent school in Kuantan.

She added that Pakatan was all for mother tongue education and it was outlined in their Orange Book manifesto.

Meanwhile, Ti said MCA’s stand was consistent and that the party had been working tirelessly all these years to highlight education issues.

He said education should never be politicised and as such, all Barisan Nasional component parties were present to lend their support.

”Besides, the rights to mother tongue education is enshrined in the Federal Constitution,” he said.

Ti questioned the absence of Pakatan national leaders, saying it showed that they were not interested in standing together in the cause of the Chinese educationist groups.

He said only several local Opposition leaders were present in a move to shore up their support before the general election.

In his speech earlier, Dr Yap said he wanted answers from the Education Ministry as to why the permit was not approved despite favourable response from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

”If the ministry can approve the setting up of international school, why not a Chinese independent school?

”The rights of the people have been denied and this left us with no choice but to stage a rally today,” he said, adding that Dong Zong would continue to organise rallies until the request was met.

(The Star) - Human Rights Party (HRP) secretary-general P. Uthayakumar will contest as an independent candidate in the Kota Raja parliamentary and Seri Andalas state seats in the coming elections.

Uthayakumar, who is also leader of Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), said the decision was made by the Hindraf supreme council members after Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim failed to meet them to discuss issues faced by the Indians.

“We have asked for a meeting with Anwar but never got one. It shows Pakatan Rakyat only wants the votes from the Indians, not their problems.

“Without the Indian voters, Pakatan would not have won the (four) state seats,” he said after addressing a crowd of more than 200 at Padang Chetty yesterday.

Uthayakumar said the purpose of contesting in both the state and parliamentary seats was to fight for the Indian community.

The Kota Raja parliamentary seat is currently held by PAS’ Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud while PKR’s Dr Xavier Jayakumar holds the Seri Andalas state seat.

On what was HRP’s stand on Barisan Nasional and Pakatan, Uthayakumar said: “We won’t support Barisan. As for Pakatan, it is up to the people. You have a choice not to vote.”

He added that the party would field more candidates in two more parliamentary seats and three more state seats in Selangor.

The parliamentary seats that HRP intends to field its candidates are Kuala Selangor and Kelana Jaya while the state seats are Ijok, Bukit Melawati and Seri Setia.

“We have yet to finalise the candidates for these seats. All HRP members contesting in the elections will be independent candidates.

“We hope Pakatan will give way to our candidates as we want to contest directly with Barisan,” Uthayakumar said.

On whether he was expecting the Malays and Chinese to vote for HRP’s candidates, Uthayakumar said he was sure the candidates would get the people’s support.

Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa and Ahmad Fuad Rahmat, Islamic Renaissance Front

The riot at Merlimau, Melaka by anti-Bersih, UMNO inspired youths is evidence of the increasing degree to which intimidation and violence is becoming a frequent strategy by certain players in the ruling power structure.

It was clear that the threat and intimidation were aimed against  those who were merely exercising their democratic right to voice their opinions on the policies of the current government.

Reports indicate the presence of police officers at the location and yet why did they not stop the riot from happening? Is it not their duty to ensure the safety and security of all citizens, regardless of their party affiliations?

Will Malaysia's Muftis who so willingly spoke out against Bersih also speak out against the Merlimau riot? Why do we not hear these Muftis now nagging about the limits of freedom and the importance of law and order in Islam?

Or, are the Merlimau rioters somehow exempted from the standards of good conduct simply by virtue of their racist-fascist beliefs and ethno-nationalist party affiliation?

Will we hear condemnation and obsession of what happened in Merlimau by the mainstream media? Or will their pages and airtime be channeled entirely towards demoinizing the hard work of Malaysians from all races who are demanding genuine democratic reforms?

Those who are more alert to the real workings of Malaysian politics will rightly read those questions with cynicism. The point that cannot be denied is that we are witnessing is systematic terrorization to quell democratic dissent.

Bersih was a clear set of demands for electoral reforms that have yet to be met. What happened in Merlimau - preceded by butt exercises, sexist and racist intimidations and harassments against innocent Malaysian citizens - is fascist inspired catharsis from unruly insecure thugs.

It does not require anyone the slightest minute of education to be racist and anti-democratic, and yet racism and anti-democracy have been the central values that have been constantly espoused by the ruling party.

It is also clear that the goal is not so much the enlightenment of Malaysian citizens but their subjugation in ignorance so that the elite of that party can continue to govern and enrich themselves with impunity.

Racism was even legitimised by a scholar of Ulama’ Muda UMNO recently who said that Prophet Muhammad was racist. It is not surprising then to see the escalation of prejudiced attitudes and policies that favour a certain race over others since that is now endorsed by UMNO religious scholars themselves.

As an Islamic organization we are deeply saddened and outraged at the complicity of certain religious figures in tolerating UMNO's constant recourse to thug violence and intimidation. Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. In Malaysia, we can now see who the dealers are.

(AFP) - LONDON: Robin Gibb, whose soaring vocals formed part of the unique Bee Gees sound, has died at the age of 62, leaving Barry as the sole surviving member from the band of brothers.

The high-pitched close harmonies, sharp songwriting and disco-defining sound of elder brother Barry, Robin and his twin brother Maurice made them one of the biggest-selling groups of all time.

Robin lost his battle against cancer of the colon and the liver yesterday, a month after confounding doctors by emerging from a coma after suffering pneumonia.

He underwent surgery in August 2010 for a blocked intestine – the same condition that killed Maurice in 2003 – but a tumour was found and he was diagnosed with cancer.

The singer looked gaunt in his last few months as he struggled against the relentless disease.

Andy Gibb, their younger brother who was not in the Bee Gees, died in 1988 from cocaine addiction.

“I sometimes wonder if all the tragedies my family has suffered – like Andy and Maurice dying so young and everything that’s happened to me recently – is a kind of karmic price we are paying for all the fame and fortune we’ve had,” he told The Sun newspaper in March.

Robin enjoyed a musical career spanning six decades, from humble beginnings in the 1950s singing with his brothers in cinemas, to his recent first classical venture, “The Titanic Requiem”, penned with his son Robin-John.

Gibb was too ill to attend the April 10 premiere, where he had been due to perform the song “Don’t Cry Alone”.

“It’s not about how complicated music is; it’s about how simple and relative to the human spirit it is,” Gibb said on his new composition.

The singer and his wife-to-be Molly Hullis survived the 1967 Hither Green rail crash in southeast London that killed 49 people.

“I do think it is easier for me to walk in the shoes of the people who were on the Titanic,” he wrote in The Mail on Sunday newspaper in January.

“I know what it is to live through a mass disaster… it haunts me to this day.”

Child stars

Robin Hugh Gibb was born on Dec 22, 1949 on the Isle of Man, the British crown dependency, about half an hour before Maurice.

Soon after the twins were born, the Gibb family moved to Manchester, northwest England, and then to Brisbane in Australia in 1958.

The Bee Gees soon became child stars and had their first hit in 1963, “The Battle of the Blue and Grey”, performed on national television.

“We used to say that we were one soul in three bodies. We worked with such spirit between us, able to read each other’s thoughts when we wrote together,” Robin said.

The trio returned to Britain in 1967 where they soon had several more successes, including the UK number one “Massachusetts”.

“How Can You Mend a Broken Heart”, the group’s first US number one, along with “Jive Talkin’”, “Nights on Broadway” and “You Should be Dancing” established them as big stars.

But the disco soundtrack “Saturday Night Fever” (1977), which sold more than 40 million copies, was their biggest success. One of the best-selling albums of all time, its songs included perennial favourites “Stayin’ Alive”, “Night Fever” and “How Deep Is Your Love”.

They wrote hit songs for others including Diana Ross (“Chain Reaction”), Barbra Streisand (“Woman In Love”), Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton (“Islands In The Stream”) Dione Warwick (“Heartbreaker”) and Frankie Valli (“Grease”).

Their last studio album was the 2001 record “This Is Where I Came In” and the group has notched up more than 200 million record sales.

Robin mostly sang lead in the 1960s, while Barry’s falsetto took the foreground in their 1970s disco period.

The Bee Gees were made Commanders in the Order of the British Empire – one step below a knighthood -  in 2004.

Robin Gibb was a friend of former British prime minister Tony Blair, who was criticised for taking “freebie” breaks with celebrity pals after holidaying at the singer’s Miami mansion in 2006.

He appeared on a charity version of “Islands In The Stream” which topped the British charts in 2009, making the Gibbs the first songwriters to pen number UK ones in five successive decades.

Gibb was president of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers, which works towards increased protection of creators’ rights.

He is survived by his wife Dwina and three children.

Gibb married Hullis in 1968 and the couple had two children: Spencer, born in 1972, and Melissa in 1974. They divorced in 1980. Robin-John was born to second wife Dwina in 1983.

Party is all geared up to spar with Barisan Nasional in coming 13th general election.

(Free Malaysia Today) - GEORGE TOWN: DAP’s top brass to grassroots leaders and campaigners are all set to do battle with Barisan Nasional for state supremacy in the 13th general election.

They are firmly united to help Pakatan Rakyat retain Penang and capture other states, and win the ultimate prize, the Putrajaya holy grail.

The Penang DAP election machinery was launched to much fanfare yesterday at the Komtar Dome by the DAP top brass.

National chairman Karpal Singh, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, Penang DAP chairman Chow Kon Yeow, elected representatives and grassroots leaders were all pumped up.

“We are ready for the election. The DAP and Pakatan are ready for the battle with BN,” proclaimed Karpal.

He called on his party comrades to work hard to hammer the final nails in the coffins of MCA, MIC and Gerakan in the next polls.

Referring to the 2008 general election, in which the three parties were all wiped out from Penang, he said MCA, MIC and Gerakan were now virtually dead and buried.

“Make sure that they don’t come out from their graves anymore,” said the senior parliamentarian as he rallied his troops.

He also threw a challenge to recently appointed state BN chief Teng Chang Yeow to prove his mettle by taking on either Chief Minister Guan Eng or Chow in the coming polls.

“Teng can also contest Bukit Gelugor … I’m ready to face him,” said Karpal. Teng was formerly Padang Kota assemblyman between 1995 and 2008.

He won the seat on his election debut by defeating Karpal but lost to Chow in the last election.

In the last general election, DAP won all its seven parliamentary and 19 state seats in Penang to helm the Pakatan state government.

Although many expect DAP-led Pakatan to retain Chinese-majority Penang, some observers predicted the victory would not as big as 2008.

Pakatan now has 29 seats against BN 11 in the state assembly.

Beware of BN’s tricks

Even Lim in his speech indicated that the next general election would be tougher than the previous one.

He called party members not to underestimate their opponent, reminding them that BN was capable of coming up with ‘magical tricks’ to regain Penang.

At least one-third of the state’s 40 state constituencies are considered “hot spots.”

Lim predicted the next election to be held at least by July as the country would be affected badly by the expected European economic downturn in six months’ time.

READ MORE HERE