Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 09 Jun 2011 10:31 AM PDT

Apart from a humongous oil and gas reserve of an estimated 17.7 billion tonnes, making it the fourth* largest reserve in the world, the Spratly Islands are strategically located in the pathways of commercial shipping and also fishing.

*Kuwait, as an oil producing country, has an oil and gas reserve of 13 billion tonnes.

Although the six nations had staked claims to the islands, China, Vietnam and the Philippines were the most aggressive, whereby they had physically occupied some of the islands in the archipelago.

All claims to the islands were peaceful exchanges at first, until the China navy sank a Vietnamese armed transport ship over the possession of Johnson Reef in 1988.

Since then, Vietnam and China had been at loggerheads with each other.

Recently, China was also flexing its military muscles at the Philippines, forcefully taking over Mischief Reef several days ago on top of firing warning shots at fishing vessels from the Philippines in February this year.ChinaNavyMissileLaunch

Philippines president Benigno Aquino III condemned China for the use of excessive force and warned that China could possibly start an Asian arms race if hostility continues.

China and the Philippines had first clashed in 1995, and ASEAN stepped in to calm the tension by proposing a peaceful solution to the dispute by having China sign an accord with ASEAN countries in 2002 to exercise restraint and to stop occupying new areas.

READ MORE HERE.

Petronas tires of being piggy bank

Posted: 09 Jun 2011 10:23 AM PDT

Shamsul Azhar Abbas, chief executive, disclosed to local reporters in Kuala Lumpur that Petronas is in talks with ministers over proposals for a dramatic shift in the way it pays dividends to its sole owner.

Up to now, the government has taken a flat M$30bn ($9.9bn) a year in dividends from Petronas, whatever its performance. That is a hefty contribution to federal government revenues, which last year amounted to M$199bn.

However, it is only a fraction of the oil company's total bill. On top of the dividend, Petronas also pays petroleum income tax, corporate income tax, export duties and royalties.

It's not clear how much all that will amount to this year. But Hassan Merican, Shamsul's predecessor, said in mid-2008 that the total for the 12 month to March of that year amounted to a staggering 44 per cent of government revenues.

When you take account of the oil company's additional role in financing prestige projects such as the twin towers building in Kuala Lumpur and the new national administrative capital at Putrajaya, it's not hard to see that the government would be hard pressed to continue without its oil-generated revenues.

Yet, according to Shamsul, ministers are discussing a switch from the flat divident payment to a system under which Petronas would hand over 30 per cent of its net profit.

That would not be a small sum. The company's net profit soared 36 per cent to M$54.9bn for the year to March, which would have prompted a payment of $16.2bn to the government under the proposed system. But the question is, how would the government make up for M$13.bn in lost revenue?

Posted: 09 Jun 2011 01:43 AM PDT

Nobody is surprised by High Court Judge Zabidin Mohamed Diah's ruling refusing to recuse himself from hearing Anwar's case. He was right on the mark, as expected!

The funny thing about Anwar's court trial is that the judgments are predictable. From Day One it was very apparent that the apparatus of the state would be used stringently to put away Anwar for good. A free Anwar, as perceived by many observers, would sound the death-knell for the BN.

Every step and every action taken during the course of his trial – all point to the inevitable conclusion that Anwar will be convicted, come what may.

He had to be arrested even though he had given his word that he would be reporting to the police station as required. He was waylaid and arrested like a common criminal and detained for the night – even though it was indicated earlier that he would be released that evening – because it is very apparent that his fresh DNA was urgently needed to implicate him. They had to create a situation so that the DNA could be obtained. That was exactly what happened.

They extracted his DNA from the water bottle, towel and tooth brush which he had to use as he was detained overnight. Strict orders were given that these items should not be removed. He was tricked to leave behind his DNA.

The pertinent question is: why couldn't they use his earlier DNA obtained in 1998? This clearly exposes the plot. Fresh DNA was required to implicate Anwar. If the 1998 DNA was used, the plot would have been exposed and therefore it could not be planted to implicate him, according to thinking Malaysians.

Apart from the police, many believe that even the court conspired to deny him certain documents that were crucial to his defence. When a man claims that he was a victim of political intrigue in order to convict him, the court should have allowed him access to vital information to defend himself. Contrary to the dictates of justice, the court denied him this information.

It is the duty of the court in any civil society to ensure that the accused is entitled to a fair trial. A fair trial would entail access to information that would help him in his defence. When the court does not assist in this respect, it becomes a sham trial and the court is guilty of contributing to this sham.

According to the medical report in the possession of Malaysiakini, Saiful was never sodomised by anyone, least of all by Anwar Ibrahim. Dr Mohamed Osman Hamid from the Hospital Pusrawi had confirmed this fact after physically examining Saiful on 28 June 2008. Is this the evidence that is being suppressed because it would have helped Anwar to mount a vigorous defence?

Why did the doctor who took the stand refuse to refer to his own notes? After all they are his observations and conclusions and he was there to give evidence based on those notes. But he refused to refer to those notes in spite of Karpal Singh prompting him several times. If he had referred to those notes, then the defence would have had a right to those notes. The doctor was aware of this technicality. He stubbornly refused to refer to his notes because he did not want to hand over his notes to the defence.

How would it have affected the doctor and his profession if his notes were made available to the defence? What was his interest in cooperating with the prosecution to disallow this information to Anwar? Was he scared that his notes could clear Anwar? Was he fearful that the scrutiny of the notes by Anwar's experts would punch holes in his testimony?

There are many other instances and examples to confirm the existence of a plot. All these have been highlighted but to no avail.

Notwithstanding all this, what is puzzling is the judge's refusal to recuse himself from the trial. As long as a bias is perceived by the accused that alone should disqualify him in the interest of justice. You don't even have to prove bias, but the mere perception is reason enough to disqualify himself to ensure a fair trial.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 10 Jun 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan