Selasa, 30 Julai 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Scorpene scandal, is Jasbir Singh Chahl credible?

Posted: 29 Jul 2013 12:09 PM PDT

The New Straits Times has never been the beacon of investigative journalism in Malaysia. Resurrecting Jasbir Singh Chahl to try to whitewash the Scorpene scandal is hardly a scoop – Jasbir's churlish account fails to answer the many questions raised by the scandal and the murder of Altantuya.

Kua Kia Soong 

SUARAM has all along stuck to the facts and this can be checked in our publication: "Questioning Arms Spending in Malaysia: From Altantuya to Zikorsky" by Kua Kia Soong, 2010. By no means does Jasbir disprove the chronology of events noted in the book nor shed any light on the revelations by the French enquiry thus far. But first, let us examine the credentials of this man touted as the "architect" of the Scorpene submarine deal, the most expensive arms purchase by our country to date, costing well over RM7 billion.

Who is Jasbir Singh Chahl?

When the submarine deal was signed in 2002, the Far Eastern Economic Review commented that it "…provides a rare peek into the normally opaque process of Malaysian arms purchases…Finally, it underscores the importance of political connections in winning a defence contract in Malaysia." (FEER, 15.8.2002)

According to this FEER story, in 2000 then private French company Thomson-CSF (now called Thales) had been working with a middleman by the name of Jasbir Chahl in an attempt to sell a Crotale missile system to the Malaysian government. A middleman like Jasbir must be beaming with pride at being hailed as the "architect" of the Scorpene deal when in fact middlemen in international arms deals normally try to keep a low profile as Jasbir has done for so many years. This is how The Independent describes the work of a middleman in arms deals: "1) He brings together buyers and sellers of weapons and military equipment, rather as estate agents bring together buyers and sellers of property; 2) He arranges the supply of specialised services, for example training and maintenance for complex Western combat jets that are bought by nations without the expertise to keep these planes flying themselves; 3) He obtains weapons for nations, guerrilla groups, mercenaries or others not legally permitted to buy them from Western governments or defence manufacturers; 4) He acts as a financial 'cut- out' in the extraordinarily complex flow of funds generated by multi-billion-pound arms deals. That is to say he helps to conceal the payment of bribes." (Peter Koenig, The Independent, 16 October 1994)

According to the 2002 FEER article, Thales introduced Chahl to French government-owned DCN and the submarine deal was set in motion. Chahl then brought in Ibrahim Mohamed Noor, a businessman close to Daim Zainuddin, then Finance Minister. Ibrahim's private company, Perimekar, was to become the linchpin between the Malaysian and French governments. Ibrahim then brought in Abdul Razak Baginda, a military analyst who headed the Malaysian Strategic Resources Centre and also adviser to Defence Minister Najib Razak. In August 2001, Ibrahim sold Perimekar to Generasi Mulia, which served to hold the shares temporarily, paving the way for new, well-connected investors to step in. By January 2002, everything had fallen into place. Generasi Mulia sold its 100% stake in Perimekar to Ombak Laut, a private company owned by associates of Abdul Razak Baginda. Ombak Laut then sold 40% to the Armed Forces Superannuation Fund, or LTAT and a sister company.

In that 2002 story, the FEER speculated on the payoff for Malaysian businessmen in the submarine deal: "Defence analysts estimate that for all the effort, and for its continued involvement in the contract, Perimekar will receive, over the next six years, 8% of the total contract value: about RM288 million, and possibly more, as the euro, on which the contract is based, has appreciated 13% against the ringgit since the signing." (FEER, 15.8.2002)

Perimekar Never More than a Travel Agency

Jasbir tries to justify the exaggerated payments to Perimekar. He tells us nothing new to what the defence ministry has told us. What the documents from the French judicial inquiry show is this view of Perimekar by the French state company DCN: "The amount to be paid to Perimekar is over-evaluated. It is not worth it…They are never more than a travel agency…The price is inflated and their support function is very vague…Yes, that company created unfounded wealth for its shareholders."

From the French investigations so far, the former finance director of DCN, Gerarde Philippe Maneyas had made a claim for 32 million euros (RM124 million) allegedly used to bribe Malaysian officials for purchase of the Scorpenes. The budget minister had questioned such a large bribe although he did eventually authorize the tax break.

From the French documents, it emerges that the commissions and dividends for the Scorpene deal were funneled through two companies, Terasasi and Perimekar, both owned by Abdul Razak Baginda. His wife, Mazlinda is a director in Perimekar while his father is also a director in Terasasi. Malaysians have been told about Perimekar and its "coordinating service" in the submarines deal. But so far there has been no mention of Terasasi. Neither has Jasbir mentioned Terasasi.

With the new French law and OECD Convention against corruption in place after 2002, the French arms merchants had to find an alternative way to pay commissions to their foreign clients. The method used was to create "service providers" that could "increase invoices" in order to take the place of commissions. Thus, when the French state company DCN terminated its contracts, Thales took over as a private company, not involving the state. Thales International was appointed to coordinate the political connections.

A commercial engineering contract was then signed between DCNI and Thales, referred to as "C5". It covered 30 million euros in commercial costs abroad. The companies used in the Malaysian case were" Gifen in Malta, Eurolux in Luxemburg and Technomar in Belgium. The travel expences of Baginda and Altantuya were covered by these.

Another "consulting agreement" was signed in 2000 between Thint Asia and Terasasi for 2.5 million euros. From the Paris Papers, we know that at least 32 million euros (RM144 million) were paid by Thales International (Thint) Asia to Terasasi. There is an invoice by Terasasi dated 1.10.2000 for 100,000 euros. There is also an invoice from Terasasi to Thint Asia, dated 28.8.2004 for 359,450 euros (RM1.44 million) with a hand-written note saying: "Razak wants it in a hurry."

Altantuya's links to the Scorpene deal

Altantuya was a translator. According to Baginda's bail affidavit, she met Baginda in 2004 and became his lover, two years after the submarine deal was signed. I don't think the French officials who negotiated the deal needed a translator in the first place. What has transpired is that Altantuya knew about the deal from her liaison with Baginda and she had come to Kuala Lumpur expecting a cut in the commission.

During the Altantuya murder trial, when Baginda's counsel read out the events following Altantuya's fateful night, he skipped the part about Baginda going to the Deputy Prime Minister, Najib's office, which made Justice Segara interject: "Why did you skip that? There is nothing to worry. He just went there. It is in the affidavit. He should have known better and go straight to the police or IGP and not embarrass the DPM…Facts must surface. You cannot hide. The truth will always prevail." (The Star Online, 20.1.2007)

Baginda, accused of abetting the murder, was acquitted in November 2008. He was acquitted without his defence being called while the two policemen charged, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Omar, were sentenced to the gallows for killing her. After the verdict was made known, the government announced it would not be appealing against the Razak Baginda acquittal.

Murder accused Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar said he had been made a scapegoat by certain parties in the murder of Altantuya to protect their "evil plan". The trial was deemed questionable by many observers. Apart from painstaking attempts to keep then Deputy Prime Minister Najib's name from being mentioned in the trial and probing the motive for the murder, other irregularities included: the sudden removal of the presiding judge just before the trial started without a plausible explanation to the lawyers; the changing of the head of the prosecution team at the last moment; the changing of the defence lawyers for the accused, one alleging interference by "third parties" in his work.

A witness testimony by Altantuya's cousin alleging that the victim had shown her a photograph of herself, Baginda, Najib and "others" having lunch in a Paris restaurant was stopped by defence lawyers and prosecutors from testifying further. Nor did the court ask the witness to produce the photograph. In the course of the trial, evidence was given that Altantuya's entry into Malaysia had been erased from the records of the Malaysian Immigration. This could only have been directed by a higher authority.

As we can see, this middleman in the Scorpene deal has hardly illuminated us on all these questions surrounding the murder of Altantuya. What is surprising is the naivete of the high-brow propagandists in the NST in not pursuing the answers to these questions. Any truth seeker would at least be interested to know the motive for the murder of the Mongolian lass.

This recalls Voltaire's reminder that "…those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities."


Mainstream Media in Malaysia

Posted: 29 Jul 2013 11:56 AM PDT 

I wouldn't mind if the mainstream media is pro-government because this is a POLITICAL system where everyone wants to be in power and REMAIN in power and there is no guarantee that the opposition wouldn't do the same should they become the government. Look at their media now and think for yourself. 

Hafizuddin Amir Bin Hasim

The media plays an influential role in shaping Malaysian minds. In the political sphere, the media - be it mainstream and social - have done a great deal to influence voters especially the young and urban ones. The social media claims to be free and more open compared to the mainstream media and have "won the race" in GE12 and GE13.

Opposition leaders usually rely on the social media to convey their thoughts and have successfully instilled in the voters' minds that the mainstream media such as Utusan Malaysia and TV3 are biased to the government and used for BN's political mileage, which is actually true. This leads to another perception that whatever news delivered by Utusan and TV3 are all slander and lies because they are paid to protect the corrupt. With these, voters and fence sitters are confused, eventually agree and then blindly take whatever being said and shown in the social media as the gospel truth and everything on TV is a lie. This is actually more dangerous as we are exposed to greater slander and lies since everyone is free to post, edit and spread anything.

I wouldn't mind if the mainstream media is pro-government because this is a POLITICAL system where everyone wants to be in power and REMAIN in power and there is no guarantee that the opposition wouldn't do the same should they become the government. Look at their media now and think for yourself.

However, this advantage is abused by BN government. Let's narrow the scope to only Utusan and TV3, which are surprisingly worse than RTM.

First of all, they know that the perception is bad towards them and this is proven by looking at GE13 results. This bad perception led to even if they tell the truth, it is perceived as a lie because it is by Utusan and TV3. Don't they learn from it and change? Their tactic of bringing anyone who can talk against the opposition particularly Dato' Seri Anwar had failed. Although it is true or half-true, overplaying it makes people sick. Plus, their everyday replay of Selangor's state government's flaws had also failed, in fact PR won bigger there in GE13.

Buletin Utama's "obligation" to show Datin Seri Rosmah's programmes everyday had also failed to change one bit of a bad perception towards her. As for Utusan, it would mostly publish an unknown NGO and ex-Anwar's aides' statements against him instead of brilliant ideas for a better government and better life for Malaysians. If there is it would only be 10% of the whole news. Their tactics backfired that it almost cost BN the elections.

Their modus operandi have failed and I am surprised they have not changed it after witnessing BN's terrible loss in Selangor and a weaker federal government. I would not want to comment on the opposition's invalid argument that Utusan had lost many times in court therefore they really are at fault as this is contradictory to their stand on the judiciary and judges are also humans and have political opinions that influence their findings.

Here I appreciate RTM for not going overboard and being appropriate although it is a government channel. Appropriate means only showing Ministers' speeches and comments, government agencies and institutions' measures to curb problems and what not. They do not or rarely show for example an unknown ex-PKR branch chief bad-mouthing and questioning the opposition every single day. In addition, RTM's initative to broadcast parliamentary debate on TV and on their website has gathered positive feedback from the people. This is an example of mature politics and democracy.

All in all, Utusan Malaysia and TV3 and in fact the mainstream media as a whole need a major and serious rebranding and restructuring if they are to enhance and echo the government's claim of being responsive. It is so serious that it may need a transformation programme too! Maybe this should be included as key in the national reconciliation effort.

More importantly is that the public's perception and trust in the mainstream media must be made positive again. Yes, perception is half-truth but that is what it has been all about so it stands to be corrected for the sake of bringing major support back to the government, like it used to have. This problem also leads to questions of credibility of Dato' Seri Najib's "behind the scene" advisors. The current state is seriously not helping the government.


Malaysians' political awareness have actually just risen. Thus this contributes to serious conflicting opinions about every issue ignited by politicans and it is up to the media to correct it.

A necessary riposte to Dr M - the Chinese know their place

Posted: 29 Jul 2013 11:54 AM PDT 

If the Chinese really were after political power, they would have have done so along the lines of your paternal ancestors - became Muslims and married locals and morphed into Malays. They would then control UMNO - instead of the Indians. And Ridhuan Tee would not have the platform he now struts on. 

Ice Cream Seller 

Dr M's latest tirade about the Chinese wanting political power assumes we are mostly naive and ill educated to see otherwise.

What a load of codswallop from someone who seems to be in a time warp of his own. There is an Afghan proverb that says that what you see in yourself is what you see in the world


1) Chinese do not appreciate their gains upon independence?

What gains is he talking about? A white master was replaced by a brown one. In the process, we lost an excellent education system, a well respected judiciary, our moral fibre, were given an economic system so convoluted that only the bacteria of corruption thrives. 
To say that DAP argued these issues on behalf of the Chinese gives the DAP unnecessary credit.

2) Under the British, the Chinese were not allowed to go beyond becoming petty traders and shopkeepers?

Lets not forget that we are talking about the 50s and earlier. What shopping malls were there then? Then, many Chinese were still poor. Still, the people had reliable water supply, electricity that was cheap - even without petroleum income; there was no need to go to private schools and universities to get a better education than what the government provided, no need for private hospitals - we had excellent doctors, nurses and administrators and the police force was multi-racial. Being a shopkeeper gave one a dignified existence and they served all races - even giving credit to customers. 

They were in no position to take on the British firms then but have demonstrated that today DESPITE the handcuffs of the NEP, they can take the world stage.

3) Government procurement had to go through crown agents

What's the beef? The crown agents existed then and today it is no different except that we have our own crown (Umnoputra, Bumiputra or whatever putra) agents. In fact it is our own putra agents that have benefited by leaps & bounds to scales never imagined in the exercise of rent seeking. If the British crown agents were indeed still around, our submarines would be able to function properly, there will be less Mongolians dead, our indelible inks would not be edible instead, our public transport would be better and there would be no PROTON.

4) British Banks with government accounts, Chinese banks (OCBC, Ban Hin Lee) not doing much business with the government

Just replace the British banks with Maybank, CIMB, Affin Bank, RHB Bank and a host of others. See the same picture (maybe in different colours now?) On top of it, Ban Hin Lee Bank doesn't exist today - no thanks to post independence policies. And the British banks were PLCs - not GLCs where bailouts are an easy option.

5) Replacement of British firms by Chinese firms

This line of argument is part of the problem. Don't you see it as MALAYSIAN firms as opposed to (Malaysian) Chinese firms? In any case, its not like that the Chinese got government loans or grants to buy over the British ones. Some took loans to buy over the businesses - others pooled their resources. In any case, I am sure the British firms would only exit if they knew that, amongst other considerations, the new owners would be able to sustain or grow the firms.

6) Independence has clearly benefited the Chinese much

Looking at the Chinese in Indonesia who had their backs to the wall (until unfettered by the half blind Gus Dur but with better than 2020 vision), the Chinese in Thailand where there was no independence from any colonial master to speak of, this argument holds as much water as a Malabari fishing net. How does one explain the success of the Chinese diaspora in Canada, Australia, the US, the Philippines, Burma and even in Mauritius? Because of Malaysian independence?!!

Dr M for one, was probably the greatest benefactor of our independence by having 22 years to steer the ship. On either side of the 22 years, he was and is pulling the strings to some extent or other as an adroit puppeteer. But alas, on his watch, the ship was steered on a journey beyond our shores and Kerala only to benefit a select group. 

7) Chinese success under the BN 'kongsi' government

Yes the Chinese became billionaires and started getting involved in businesses globally. I would argue that it was DESPITE the shackles and hurdles were imposed on them. Look at the Singapore companies operating globally - is it because of an UMNO style 'kongsi' in Singapore? I dare say that had it not been for the 'malimplementation' of the NEP, our MALAYSIAN companies (Chinese owned or not) would be streets ahead of Singapore. Instead, our brains just walked and left to help make Singapore what it is.

8) Chinese not well represented in government administration because they do not like salaried jobs / distinct dislike for uniformed services

Who then runs the government in China and Taiwan - Africans? As a boy, when I went to a government department, Chinese were well represented. In schools, they probably made up half the number of teachers (and they didn't do tuition on a private basis big time either). The army and police had visibly a good number of them. So many nurses in the government hospitals were Chinese - and pretty good looking too!!

Today, the Chinese are simply absent because of the lack of promotion prospects, the impression given that they are not trusted/welcome, and also the kind of work culture that permeates such establishments.

9) Chinese colleges and universities

Restore the quality of education we had up to the 60's and you will see the demand for Chinese schools diminish. They send their children to Chinese schools simply because the ordinary schools have become sterile, ineffective, with poor quality teachers, fear of Islam forced upon their children in subtle and not so subtle ways and a host of other reasons you are actually familiar with. Besides, in Chinese schools, the canteens never close - so no need to eat in the shower rooms.


It is not correct to say that the Chinese aspire for political power via DAP. The MCA simply lost support because the Chinese were fed up of a corrupt government that the MCA helped stay in power. If the Chinese really were after political power, they would have have done so along the lines of your paternal ancestors - became Muslims and married locals and morphed into Malays. They would then control UMNO - instead of the Indians. And Ridhuan Tee would not have the platform he now struts on.

My arguments above are not motivated because I am of Chinese ancestry. I am not. My extended family and close friends include Chinese, Malay, and others. In fact, the biggest group of my extended family have roots as deep in the same district as your paternal ancestors. Fortunately, that is where the similarity ends.



0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan


Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved