Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- ANNOUNCEMENT: Comments in Malaysia Today
- Amending the Constitution
- KERAJAAN SAHKAN GANI PATAIL PALSU KETERANGAN
- Air Asia
- Invitation to the MCLM forums on Rakyat Reform Agenda (RARA)
- Malaysian Scorpene Submarine Corruption Case Legal Briefing
| ANNOUNCEMENT: Comments in Malaysia Today Posted: 19 Sep 2011 07:26 PM PDT
Readers can now post comments without needing to register first. However, the comments will need to be moderated and approved (or rejected) before they appear in the comments section. This is to avoid spamming and cyber-attacks. Please forgive whatever delays we might face because all the moderators are volunteers who have other functions to perform as well. |
| Posted: 19 Sep 2011 07:20 PM PDT By Hakim Joe Amending the Constitution is an extremely complicated undertaking as it is within the Constitution that is written the fundamental principles in which laws are enacted to govern a country. Amend a single paragraph of the Constitution and any legislation that is either directly or indirectly influenced by it will subsequently necessitate amendment(s) as well. When a country achieves independence in a democratic environment, the primary document that is prepared is the Constitution, not the laws, and from this Constitution rests the very foundation in which how legislations are enacted and how the country shall be ultimately governed. It is the definitive framework in which the winning political party utilizes to establish the government. It is the structural fabric in the determination of how the citizenry will be administered and it institutes the relationship between the Federal, State and Local Governments. The Constitution additionally separates the power of the As with our Constitution that is both a codified and an entrenched document, amending it will mean adherence to the procedures that are both complicated and onerous. It is also subjected to four categorization, as provided by Article 159 and Article 161[e], in which the Constitution can be amended by Federal Law. One, certain provisions may be amended only by a two-thirds (Article 159[3]) absolute majority in each House of Parliament (Dewan Rakyat & Senate) but only if the Conference of Rulers consents. Two, certain provisions of special interest to East Malaysia, may be amended by a two- thirds absolute majority in each House of Parliament but only if the Governor of the East Malaysian state concurs. Three, all other provisions may be amended by a two-thirds absolute majority in each House of Parliament (subject to the exception described in item four below), these amendments do not require the consent of anybody outside Parliament. Four, certain types of consequential amendments and amendments to schedules may be made by a simple majority (more than half) in Parliament. To amend an article within the Constitution, the determination of whether it is a technical amendment or fundamental amendment is of utmost importance. A technical amendment is made to further enforce and/or empower a law that has already been enacted whereas a fundamental amendment either changes the interpretation of a law or to repeal it completely. Repealing the Internal Security Act cannot be categorized as a fundamental amendment to the Constitution as Article 149 and Article 150 remains intact. However, an amendment to the two Articles above whereby preventive detention is disallowed would entail the automatic repealing of the ISA as the existence of this ordinance will contradict the Constitution, which is the supreme law. Also automatically repealed legislations include the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention Crime) Ordinance 1969, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the Restricted Residence Act 1933, all four laws that legally permit Detention Without Trial or what we call Preventive Detention (Exclusion of Judicial Review). Basically, to amend the Constitution whereby preventive detention becomes illegal, four laws are affected. Either the lawmakers vote to repeal these legislations altogether or amend it accordingly to remove the allowance of detention without trial. Similarly, to amend the Constitution whereby no special preferences or privileges are accorded any single race (Article 153) will entail the scrapping of any Affirmative Action plans and budgets allocated for it. MARA will have to open its gates to all Malaysians; public listed companies are not required to allocate 30 percent of their shares specifically to any one race; the Malay quota system will have to be abolished and anybody can rise to become a MB or PM. In conclusion, amendments to the Constitution are not simple affairs as compared to any amendments made to existing laws. When RPK decided to promote the Bill of Rights, shouldn't we at least look at the restrictions enshrined within the Malaysian Constitution that are preventing such a legislation to be implemented in this country? |
| KERAJAAN SAHKAN GANI PATAIL PALSU KETERANGAN Posted: 19 Sep 2011 04:27 PM PDT
Dakwaan Musa Hassan telah memberi keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan kes korupsi terhadap Anwar pada tahun 1998 hanya terkesan pada pertengahan tahun 2009. Ini berlaku apabila keterangan beliau berikan dalam perbicaraan kes Pendakwa Raya vs Ramli Yusuff di-Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu dikatakan bertentangan dengan keterangan yang beliau berikan dalam kes korupsi Anwar tahun 1998. -- Mat Zain Ibrahim
Kepada; YDH Tan Sri Ismail bin Haji Omar,IG, Ketua Polis Negara, Polis Di-Raja Malaysia.
Assalamualaikum wbt. KERAJAAN SAHKAN GANI PATAIL PALSU KETERANGAN 1. Surat ini merupakan lanjutan dan sebahagian daripada surat terbuka saya bertarikh 12.09.2011 bertajuk, "Kenyataan Tertuduh-Benarkah Anwar Dianiaya." 2. Musa Hassan telah mengeluarkan kenyataan balas menerusi akhbar Berita Harian pada 14.09.2011. Beliau telah menafikan semua dakwaan terhadap diri beliau dan Gani Patail. Beliau bukan setakat menyatakan dakwaan tersebut semuanya dusta, malah turut mengalihkan isu ini sebagai satu konspirasi jahat yang dipelopori olih Anwar. 2.1. Saya menyatakan bahawa sepertimana juga orang lain, Musa Hassan adalah berhak keatas pendapat sendiri dan juga kepada perbicaraan yang adil. 3. Walaupun begitu, beliau tidak sepatutnya tanpa usul periksa memperkecil kredibiliti blog-blog. Beliau sepatutnya sedar bahawa fakta-fakta yang tersiar berkaitan isu ini, adalah petikan keterangan saksi-saksi dalam laporan RCI Mata-lebam, nota prosiding Mahkamah, keterangan dalam kertas siasatan kes berkenaan dan termasuk keterangan beliau berikan sendiri serta Pernyataan Tuntutan yang beliau telah failkan dalam Mahkamah. Saya mengambil tanggung jawab sepenuhnya keatas kebenaran pendedahan yang saya buat. Mengapa isu ditimbulkan sekarang. 4. Soalan mengapa isu ini ditimbulkan sekarang sedangkan kes ini berlaku 12 tahun yang lalu,sepatutnya Musa Hassan tujukan kepada Tun Mahathir. Mengapa selepas 13 tahun baru Tun merakamkan memoirs beliau dalam A Doctor In The House. 4.1. Antara lainnya Tun Mahathir mendedahkan pula Musa Hassan yang memberikan taklimat yang meyakinkan beliau mengenai penglibatan Anwar dalam aktiviti homoseksual. Padahal beberapa tahun sebelum itu, Y.A.Bhg.Tun Mohammed Hanif Omar pernah mentaklimatkan beliau mengenai perkara serupa, tetapi beliau tidak mengambil berat maklumat tersebut. 4.2. Tentu ada sesuatu maklumat yang sangat istimewa yang Musa Hassan bentangkan hingga meyakinkan Tun.Diharap beliau tidak menuduh pula pendedahan dalam memoirs Tun ini juga adalah sebahagian daripada konspirasi yang dirancang olih Anwar. Isu dalam persoalan. 5. Saya wajar menekankan kepada beliau bahawa isu yang dibincangkan sekarang tidak ada kena mengena dengan isu politik. Malahan tidak ada langsung orang politik yang terlibat dalam dakwaan ini. Pendedahan yang dibuat adalah semata-mata berkaitan penjenayahan, keadilan awam (public justice) dan system keadilan jenayah itu sendiri. 5.1. Dakwaan terhadap Gani Patail dan beliau adalah kerana memberi atau mereka keterangan palsu terhadap Anwar. Serta persoalan sama ada Hakim Mahkamah telah mensabitkan kesalahan berdasarkan keterangan palsu yang diberi atau direka olih mana-mana saksi ketika perbicaraan,atau sebaliknya. 5.2. Kita tidak bolih membiarkan sebarang penganiayaan dilakukan terhadap mana-mana orang atau diatas apa sebab sekalipun.Bukan sahaja ia salah disisi undang-undang Negara, malah suatu dosa besar mengikut hukum Agama. Contoh kes lampau. 6. Kejadian dimana Mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati terhadap seorang tertuduh berdasarkan satu sahaja keterangan palsu yang diberikan olih seorang saksi, pernah berlaku dalam sejarah kehakiman Negara ini. 6.1. Dalam kes bunuh Jean Perera Sinnappa dalam bulan April 1979, tertuduh S.Kartigesu, ketika itu seorang Pensyarah disebuah Maktab Perguruan di-Ceras KL, telah didapati bersalah membunuh bekas ratu cantik tersebut dan dijatuhkan hukuman gantung sampai mati. 6.2. Setelah lebih dua tahun S.Kartigesu merengkok dalam penjara menunggu masa untuk digantung,beliau telah dibebaskan olih Mahkamah Rayuan apabila seorang saksi, Jayatilake didapati memberi keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan kes bunuh itu. 6.3. Sebaliknya Jayatilake pula dipenjarakan 10 tahun kerana memberi keterangan palsu, tetapi beliau telah meninggal dunia dalam penjara 2 tahun kemudian, ketika sedang menjalani hukuman. 6.4. Saya sarankan Musa Hassan membaca journal kes bunuh tersebut. Atau lebih pantas jika beliau mendapatkan butir sepenuhnya daripada Pegawai Penyiasat kes ini yang beliau kenal sangat. 7. Jika peristiwa seperti diatas bolih berlaku sebelum ini,maka kita harus menerima hakikat perkara serupa bolih berulang. Malah mungkin telah berlaku tetapi telah disembunyikan atau tidak dikesan olih sesiapa. Keterangan palsu terkesan. 8. Dakwaan Musa Hassan telah memberi keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan kes korupsi terhadap Anwar pada tahun 1998 hanya terkesan pada pertengahan tahun 2009. Ini berlaku apabila keterangan beliau berikan dalam perbicaraan kes Pendakwa Raya vs Ramli Yusuff di-Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu dikatakan bertentangan dengan keterangan yang beliau berikan dalam kes korupsi Anwar tahun 1998. 8.1. Undang-Undang telah menetapkan bahawa perbezaan diantara "Ya" dengan "Tidak" atau antara "Tahu" dengan "Tidak Tahu" atau antara "Ada" dengan "Tidak Ada" adalah cukup untuk mensabitkan sesaorang itu dengan kesalahan memberi keterangan palsu. Kredibiliti Musa Hassan lebih dicurigai apabila Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu mendapati beliau sebagai seorang saksi yang diragui dan kesaksiannya ditolak. 8.2. Terbit daripada perbezaan dalam keterangan Musa Hassan yang dikesan itu, seorang Wakil Rakyat,Sivarasa Rasiah telah membuat laporan polis dalam bulan Mac 2010 terhadap beliau kerana kesalahan memberi keterangan palsu (perjury) dalam tahun 1998. 8.3. Memoir Tun Mahathir yang dikeluarkan mulai Mac 2011 pula secara kebetulan, menimbulkan beberapa persoalan berkaitan peranan dan kejujuran Musa Hassan dalam siasatan kes terhadap Anwar apabila rekod-rekod lama dinilai semula. 9. Jika seorang Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen bolih merakamkan dalam nota prosiding bahawa keterangan Musa Hassan tidak bolih dipercayai,sedangkan beliau ketika itu masih Ketua Polis Negara, maka tidak salah untuk mempersoalkan sama ada beliau telah berbohong atau tidak, ketika memberi taklimat kepada Tun Mahathir berkaitan Anwar. Siasatan SPRM. 10. Umum telah maklum bahawa dakwaan Anwar pada 1.7.2008 terhadap Gani Patail,Musa Hassan,Dr.Abdul Rahman Yusof dan termasuk saya sendiri (atas sifat Pegawai Penyiasat kes mata-lebam)kerana memalsukan keterangan telah disiasat olih pihak SPRM.Kemudiannya Peguam Cara Negara telah melantik 3 orang Ahli Panel Bebas terdiri daripada mantan-mantan Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan dan Rayuan,sebagai DPP bagi meneliti kertas siasatan SPRM tersebut. 10.1. Pada 11.3.2009,iaitu lapan bulan kemudian, Menteri di-Jabatan Perdana Menteri telah mengumumkan di-Parlimen bahawa hanya dua orang sahaja iaitu, Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan dibersihkan daripada sebarang salahlaku. Walaupun demikian, seorang daripada Ahli Panel Bebas tersebut telah memutuskan terdapat keterangan salahlaku jenayah terhadap Gani Patail. 10.2. Tun Mahathir mempertahankan hujah beliau,bahawa walaupun Mahkamah Persekutuan telah membebaskan Anwar daripada pertuduhan meliwat atas sebab teknikal,Tun tetap mengatakan bahawa Anwar terlibat dalam aktiviti homoseksual kerana terdapat diantara Panel Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan tersebut yang mengesahkan terdapat keterangan aktiviti homoseksual antara Anwar dan Sukma benar berlaku.Kerajaan akur dan menghurmati pendirian Tun sedemikian itu. 10.3. Dalam premis yang sama,walaupun Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan telah dibersihkan daripada sebarang salahlaku jenayah, namun fakta ada diantara Ahli Panel Bebas yang menyatakan, terdapat keterangan salahlaku jenayah olih Gani Patail dalam dakwaan ini, adalah tidak tergugat. Ringkasnya, keterangan Gani Patail telah memalsukan keterangan seperti yang didakwa adalah intact. 10.4. Tambahan kepada itu pula,produk pemalsuan itu sendiri dalam bentuk 3 laporan pakar yang dipalsukan berjumlah 65 muka surat itu sememangnya ujud.Malah bolih diperiksa olih rakyat jelata jika masih ragu dengan dakwaan ini.Saya ulangi kenyataan saya bahawa keterangan ini adalah lebih konklusif dari keterangan DNA. Pengesahan Panel Bebas dan Keputusan.. 11. Saya kemudiannya mencabar kesahihan perlantikan Ahli Panel Bebas olih Peguam Cara Negara dibawah peruntukkan CPC.Saya menegaskan perlantikkan itu sebagai tidak sah dari sudut undang-undang dan bahawa keputusan yang dibuat olih Panel Bebas tesebut adalah sia-sia,lantas menuntut keputusan tersebut diistiharkan null and void. 11.1. Bagaimanapun Kerajaan sendiri yang secara bersungguh-sungguh menentang cabaran itu, sehingga keperingkat Menteri di-Jabatan Perdana Menteri membuat "Ministerial Statement" yang panjang lebar di-Parlimen dalam bulan Disember 2010 bagi menerangkan pendirian Kerajaan terhadap perlantikkan Panel Bebas tersebut ketika menjawab soalan berkaitan isu ini. 11.2. Kerajaan telah mengesahkan bahawa perlantikan 3 Ahli Panel Bebas yang dilantik olih Peguam Cara Negara itu adalah sah disisi undang-undang dan demikian itu keputusan yang dibuat olih Panel tersebut juga adalah sah dan diperakukan. 12. Saya mengambil pengesahan tersebut, sebagai Kerajaan turut memperakukan dan mengesahkan keputusan salah seorang Ahli Panel tersebut yang telah mendapati Gani Patail terlibat dalam salah laku jenayah.Dengan demikian itu dakwaan bahawa telah berlaku pemalsuan keterangan dalam siasatan kes melibatkan Anwar adalah betul. 13. Soal sama ada tindakan undang-undang telah diambil atau akan diambil kemudian atau tidak akan diambil langsung, terhadap Gani Patail adalah perkara kedua.Motif beliau melakukan pemalsuan itu juga tidak penting. 13.1. Perkara utama dalam persoalan ini, ialah sama ada beliau telah memalsukan keterangan dalam siasatan melibatkan Anwar atau tidak.Jelas dalam hal ini,Kerajaan sendiri yang telah mengesahkan pemalsuan keterangan itu benar berlaku. 13.2. Dalam kata ringkas,secara sengaja atau teknikal, Kerajaan sendiri yang mengesahkan Gani Patail sebagai seorang penjenayah. "Covering up". 14. Seterusnya,meminjam kata-kata budiman Tun Mahathir, "Even I would be compromised,for if it was discovered that I knew and yet failed to take necessary action then I would be accused of covering up". (m.s.686 Memoirs).Kata-kata ini adalah selaras dengan peruntukkan dalam Kanun Keseksaan.Melindungi suatu kesalahan jenayah secara sendirinya, adalah satu salahlaku jenayah yang bolih dikenakan hukuman mengikut peruntukkan dalam Kanun Keseksaan. 15. Kini telahpun jelas,bahawa Jemaah Menteri,Jabatan Peguam Negara,SPRM dan Polis sedar bahawa Gani Patail telah disahkan melakukan salahlaku jenayah yang sangat serious. 15.1. Persoalan sekarang ialah bagaimana pula dengan tanggung-jawab masing-masing dalam mempastikan penguatkuasaan slogan "Rule of Law" secara "Without fear or favour" dan "no one above the law" yang saban hari masing-masing laungkan untuk didengar rakyat. 15.2. Siapa pula yang akan dipegang untuk mengambil tanggung-jawab "covering up" salahlaku jenayah ini yang telah disorokkan sekian lama. Pengetahuan Perdana Menteri. 16. Saya menegaskan PM Najib sendiri dipercayai sedar perkara ini sejak Oktober 2008 lagi.Saya yang mentaklimatkan beliau di-Kementrian Kewangan ketika beliau masih Timbalan Perdana Menteri. 16.1. Taklimat ini saya susuli dengan laporan bertulis bertarikh 19.2.2009 yang disertakan dengan bukti-bukti lengkap menjelaskan dakwaan ini.Saya menjangka beliau akan mengambil tindakan sewajarnya, apabila beliau mengambil alih jawatan Perdana Menteri. 16.2. Alasan kekurangan bukti sepatutnya tidak timbul lagi.Alasan 'standard',akan siasat lanjut juga, tidak relevan kerana Panel Bebas telah membuat keputusan dan Kerajaan telah mengesahkannya. 17. Saya menyatakan diperingkat ini, Penubuhan satu Tribunal atau Suruhanjaya Di-Raja Penyiasatan bukan lagi satu opsyen.Ini memandangkan kes prima facie terhadap Gani Patail dan mereka-mereka yang bersubahat dengannya,kerana kesalahan memalsukan beberapa keterangan dalam sesuatu penyiasatan telah dibentuk. Perkara am dan penutup. 18. Tun Mahathir menyatakan beliau tidak akan merelakan sesaorang yang tidak bermoral menjadi pengganti beliau sebagai Perdana Menteri.Saya percaya rakyat Negara ini pula tidak akan merelakan seorang Peguam Negara yang telah disahkan sebagai seorang penjenayah olih Kerajaan, terus menjadi pelindung hak kebebasan Rakyat dan Keadilan Awam. 19. Hanya beberapa hari yang lepas, Perdana Menteri telah mengumumkan pemansuhan ISA dan EO dengan menjanjikan akan menggubal undang-undang yang lebih sesuai demi memelihara kepentingan dan kebebasan rakyat, sambil menjamin keselamatan Negara. Pengumuman ini mendapat reaksi bercampur. 20. Bagaimanapun, sekiranya PM Najib terus menggunakan Gani Patail untuk mengepalai penggubalan undang-undang baru dan seterusnya,sedangkan Kerajaan beliau sendiri telah mengesahkan Gani Patail terlibat dalam salahlaku jenayah,maka samalah seolah PM Najib menghumbankan hak kebebasan dan nasib rakyat kedalam genggaman seorang penjenayah. 20.1. Jika ini berlaku, maka ianya bukan sahaja merupakan sebagai satu penderaan dan penganiayaan terhadap rakyat, malah terhadap Rule of Law itu sendiri. Salam sejahtera. Yang benar,
Mat Zain Ibrahim 19 September 2011 |
| Posted: 18 Sep 2011 11:04 PM PDT By Lynne_c On behalf of the passengers of Air Asia X flight D7 2686 from Kuala Lumpur to Incheon, Seoul on September 2, 2011, I would like to share our experience about a delay that cost us more than 10 hours and the shabby treatment that Air Asia extends to its paying customers. The chronology of the events are as follows: The flight, D7 2686 was initially supposed to take off at 11.00pm and reach Incheon at 6.00am the next day. 11.00pm - Captain of the flight announced a delay due to a route change which requires the plane to upload 2 tonnes of fuel. The reason given was non-approval from ATP for clearance from Ho Chi Minh to Taipei. The delaying tactics employed by Air Asia was obvious. On top of all that, the passengers were subjected to rude treatment and thuggish behaviour from the ground crew and staff of Air Asia. When a disagreement arose between two Korean ladies and the ground crew at approximately 5.30am, passenger Mr. Chew recorded the incident on his handphone, but he was subsequently threatened and browbeatened by the Air Asia security to delete the video or else his mobile phone would be confiscated. To date, there has been no effort from Air Asia to reach out to its customers and at least make an attempt to compensate everyone for the ordeal they suffered at the hands of Air Asia. We have never received any official answer on the reason for the delay. From what we had found out verbally, someone in Air Asia forgot to ask for clearance through Taipei air space, which sparked off the whole fiasco. I am writing this to you in the hopes that our experience on board Air Asia X flight D7 2686 will be shared with your readers. Was all these hassle and stress worth the price of a cheap ticket? My answer, and the answer of all my fellow passengers would be, a resounding No. More than that, seeing how shabbily Air Asia treated its guests that night, how they verbally accosted the Korean passengers who were struggling to speak English, I can honestly say, I felt an emotion I had never felt in my lifetime - I was embarassed to be Malaysian because Air Asia is a Malaysian company. |
| Invitation to the MCLM forums on Rakyat Reform Agenda (RARA) Posted: 18 Sep 2011 01:00 AM PDT
The Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement will be officially launching a series of forums nationwide on the 'Rakyat Reform Agenda' beginning from Monday 19th September 2011 in Kuala Lumpur at the Kuala Lumpur Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH) from 7pm - 11pm. It is MCLM's fervent hope that in order for Malaysia to be the great inclusive nation envisioned by our founding fathers, we must return to basic principles. How will we achieve this? The answer - Through the Rakyat Reform Agenda (RARA), which is a four-point plan to: 1. Honour the agreements made in 1963 between the Federation of Malaya and Sabah and Sarawak prior to the formation of the Federation of Malaysia 2. Restore the national institutions to the Rakyat – the judiciary, Election Commission, police force, Attorney-General, etc. 3. Restore the liberties guaranteed to the Rakyat under the Federal Constitution by repealing the ISA, OSA, PPPA, UUCA and Sedition Act 4. Adopt the Social Inclusion Agenda, designed to raise the living standards of all marginalised persons in Malaysia. Apart from Kuala Lumpur, the MCLM RARA forums will also be held in Kota Kinabalu (27th Sep), Sandakan (29th Sep), Kuching (1st Oct), Penang (24th Oct), Ipoh (25th Oct) culminating in Johor Baru (27th Oct). Details on the time and exact venues at these locations will be provided in due course. We would appreciate if you can send your journalist to cover the KL event. MCLM Secretariat
For further information, please contact the MCLM Secretariat at Tel: 03-79827101/79712244 or Fax: 03-79829097 or Email: admin@mclm.org.uk
|
| Malaysian Scorpene Submarine Corruption Case Legal Briefing Posted: 18 Sep 2011 01:00 AM PDT
The Solicitors International Human Right's Group (SIHRG) and Malaysian Human Rights NGO (SUARAM) will be hosting a briefing and fund raising event in relation to the French Scorpene submarine deal in which French giant shipbuilder DCNS is alleged to have paid millions of Euros in kickbacks to top Malaysian officials. Joseph Breham, a renowned French lawyer from Sherpa, a non-profit organisation dealing with human rights legal issues and Cynthia Gabriel from Suaram will provide up-to-date briefings followed by an open dialogue session. William Bourdon, a colleague of Mr Breham, who is also part of the French legal team, was unfortunately deported by Malaysian authorities in July this year en route to speak at fund raising events in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur. Please join us for what is bound to be an interesting and engaging evening. Date : Friday 30th Sept 2011 Venue : Lecture theatre BPP Law School, 68-70 Red Lion Street, London WC1R 4NY Time : Registration : 6pm Briefing and Dialogue Panel : 6.30pm-8.00pm A nasi lemak supper will be on sale at the venue. All proceeds will go towards the legal fund. Admission is free but donations towards the legal case are welcome. Please register at http://malaysianscorpenesubmarinecorruptioncaselegalbrief.eventbrite.com/ For further details pertaining to the case please see below: Briefing on the Scorpene Submarine Case Chronology: 5 June 2002: Malaysian Government signed an agreement with French DCNS and Spainish Navantia for the procurement of two (2) Scorpene class submarines. The procurement contract was through direct negotiation with the manufacturing companies, said to be with the service of Perimekar Sdn Bhd. According to the Government explanation, the contract was divided into two parts: a. Cost of two Scorpene submarines together with the package that covers Integrated Logistic Support and training amounted to Euro 969.15m (however on 14 May 2008, Najib told the Parliament that this part cost Euro 999.15) b. Payment to Perimekar Sdn Bhd in the name of "coordination services" for a period of six years, the sum was Euro 114.96m It is widely believed that payment for the second package was in reality the commission for Najib/Rosmah through Razak Baginda as the owner of Perimekar. With the exchange rate at the time, the cost was equivalent to: 1) Payment for submarine cost between: RM 2.14b (Euro=RM3.2 in 2002) – RM 5.43b (Euro=RM5.6 in 2008) (nowEuro=RM4.7) 2) Commission: probably about RM 540m (exchange rate at the time of payment) 26 July 2006: Royal Malaysian Navy announced these vessels will be named after the first and second prime ministers. The first hull will be named KD Tunku Abdul Rahman and the second hull KD Tun Razak. 24 Oct 2007: The first vessel, KD Tunku Abdul Rahman was launched by then Defence Minister Najib on at the DCNS dockyard, Cherbourg, France. (According to Sharribuu, Altantuya was in France with Najib during the launch) 3 Sept 2009: The first Scorpene submarine KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, arrived at a Port Klang naval base after a 54-day voyage from France. The second of the series, KD Tun Razak, is scheduled for delivery in late 2009. However it only arrived in mid 2010. 10 Feb 2009: It was reported that KD Tunku Abdul Rahman could not dive due to technical faults. The Navy sources admitted that the defect had prevented it from diving for three months. However the Government claimed that the problem was fixed in early February and it was allowed to undergo tropical water trial since then. As a result, builder DCNS SA extended the warranty for the submarine, which was supposed to expire on 25 January 2010, until May 2010 so the submarine could complete its trials as the first step to obtaining its Initial Operational Capability (IOC). 25 May 2010: KD Tunku Abdul Rahman warranty expired. 2 July 2010: KD Tun Razak, the second Scorpene submarine, arrived at the Lumut RMN Base. It was more than 6 months behind schedule. 7 July 2010: Marhalim Abas of the Malay Mail again reported that Malaysian submarine crews had remained on dry land since the first arrival due to continuous problems of KD Tunku Abdul Rahman; the crews risked to lose their submarine rating for unable to participate any trial dive. Both submarines are now parked at Sabah Sepanggar Naval base, to date neither of them had undergone the necessary tropical water trial dive. What is the actual cost of the Scorpene submarines? Agreement signed with DCNS/Navantia costed Malaysian taxpayer Euro 1.08b (with Euro 114.96m commission for Perimekar). Nonetheless, we later found out that the price did not include many items. What are the missing items that need additional payments? 1. Maintenance services: Malaysian Government had awarded a joint venture Boustead-DCN Bhd (BDCN) as the services provider for the submarine maintenance. Until today the cost had not been finalized. Nonetheless, in June 2009 Boustead Heavy Industries in a statement to Bursa Malaysia informed that the government had expressed an intent to award a contract worth RM600 million to its joint-venture unit for in-service support for submarines. 2. LIMA 2009: Defence Minister announced additional contract worth Euro37.5m (about RM150m) for the supply of Support and Test Equipment (S&TE) for Scorpene submarines. 3. Weapon not included: on 22 June 2010 Defence Minister answered parliament question revealed that the Government has paid Euro219.265m (about RM890m) for 40 units Exocet SM39 missile and 30 units Black Shark torpedo, to be delivered by 2013. 4. Infrastructure for submarine base in Sabah (not yet constructed)? 5. Training for crews, support staff etc. No price yet.
Grand total (rough estimate): Hardware: two Scorpene class submarines RM 5,430m Commission: in the form of services by Perimekar RM 540m Package for simulation and training, S&TE RM 150m Weapons: 40 Exocet missiles and 30 Black Sharp torpedo RM 890m Total: RM 6.98b Maintenance service (under negotiation) RM 270m (first year)/ RM600m (max) Money spent to date RM 7.3b If we add RM600m maintenance RM 7.58b (for 3 years) Uncertain for repair cost to overcome defect RM ???
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan