Isnin, 16 Disember 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The assault on academic freedom

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 08:01 PM PST 

Public universities should not be a place just to obtain good grades. They should be a place where diverse ideas are celebrated, and intellectual independence and autonomy admired. 

Khoo Ying Hooi 

There is little for academic freedom in Malaysia. Has our academic freedom become such an alien idea that it no longer has a place in our universities?

An academic discussion recently featuring Wan Saiful Wan Jan, CEO of Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas), held at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), was forced to have its session in the dark as its authorities sealed off the proposed venue at Latar Siswa situated in the Faculty of Modern Languages.

Responding to this, UPM's management said it was part of the Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) because there was a need to apply for permission prior to the event, which the organisers had failed to do. As reported, the event also saw heavy security presence, disallowing the taking of photographs or video.

It is ridiculous to disallow a research think-tank like Ideas to have an academic session in the compound of public universities. I also personally do not see any "threat" from its topic, "Liberalisation of economy: the best system for the poor". In fact, such activities should have been organised in a more frequent basis in the universities.

And the way UPM addressed Ideas's session has, again, attracted attention to the state of academic freedom in Malaysia.

Calling it "Kelas Pencerahan", or Enlightenment Class, I am glad to know that this informal session was organised by a group of students who are part of the Facebook community page.

Public universities should not be a place just to obtain good grades. They should be a place where diverse ideas are celebrated, and intellectual independence and autonomy admired.

One of the key problems is the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) and its regulations that have stifled the intellectual development of local universities. Although university students are now allowed to engage in political activities under an amendment of the UUCA, students who hold positions in political parties are barred from campus elections.

Last year, University of Malaya's Centre for Democracy and Elections (UMCEDEL) was forced to scrap its second session of a political forum, which featured members of parliaments from both coalitions.

This was because of the "instruction" and pressure from the Prime Minister's Office and the Higher Education Ministry as highlighted by its Director, Prof. Datuk Dr. Mohamad Redzuan Othman. 



BN leaders: Retain consensus system

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 07:58 PM PST 

Leaders from MCA and MIC want the existing system to be maintained while one from PPP stresses that the coalition needs to change its system to a workable one. 

Alyaa Azhar, FMT 

Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders gave mixed views over the proposal to change the current system in making decisions from a consensus agreement to a simple majority vote.

MIC central working committee (CWC) member S Murugesan disagreed with the proposal, saying that even to pass the proposal, it would require a consensus beforehand.

"The basis of BN is that all parties must agree with a particular decision. Therefore, the current system must be maintained," he said.

He elaborated, saying that each component party is there for a reason.

"If we take away the consensus system, the party that represents a certain community would not be able to be represented in certain decisions.

"If we pass something that's not agreeable to Sabah and Sarawak then won't it be as if others are making the decision for them? This is not the spirit of which BN was formed," he said.

BN secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said the BN constitution should be amended so that all decisions can be made using a majority vote against the consensus system practiced now.

He said this in response to a request by Indian Progressive Front (IPF) president M Sambanthan in his speech at the party gathering that BN receive IPF as a component party.

BN chairman Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has been informed of the matter and the proposal will be submitted at the BN Supreme Council meeting, next year.



Syiah: Tindakan KDN dipersoal pemimpin Pas

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 07:56 PM PST 

(Sinar Harian) - Jika kerajaan serius mengambil tindakan terhadap pengikut Syiah, sewajarnya individu yang mengaku menganut ajaran itu yang perlu ditahan bukannya orang yang tidak mengaku ahli Syiah.

Demikian menurut Ahli Jawatankuasa Pas, Idris Ahmad yang menyifatkan tindakan Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) yang memaksa Timbalan Presiden Pas, Mohamad Sabu supaya mengemukakan bukti bukan pengikut Syiah merupakan perkara yang tidak munasabah.

"Sebelum ini kerajaan sendiri pernah umumkan jumlah pengikut Syiah, dan ada individu yang mengaku sebagai pengikut ajaran Syiah, jadi kenapa mereka pula tidak ditahan?

"Tapi yang disibukkan sekarang adalah orang yang tidak mengaku Syiah, ini yang jadi bahan ketawa orang ramai," katanya kepada Sinar Harian.

Menurutnya, tindakan KDN yang 'memburu' Mohamad atau lebih dikenali Mat Sabu hanya untuk memberikan imej buruk kepada Pas.

"Ini semua 'nasi tambah' kepada isu lain untuk jatuhkan Pas. Sebelum ini isu agama, Melayu, raja dan sebagainya.

"Kalau betul KDN ada bukti, tolong dedahkan kerana kita juga mahu tahu bukti yang bagaimana untuk kaitkan Mat Sabu dengan Syiah, tidak perlu untuk beritahu bukti gred A, B atau pun C," ujarnya yang juga Ahli Parlimen Bukit Gantang.

Sehubungan itu katanya, KDN perlu bertindak bukan hanya  bercakap memandangkan maklumat sudah pun ada untuk menahan pengikut Syiah.

"Kalau bukti sudah ada, buat apa suruh orang yang dituduh bertindak untuk menunjukkan bukti beliau tidak terlibat.

"Sekarang ini siapa yang mendakwa dan siapa pula yang didakwa. Jadi rasanya tidak perlu orang yang dituduh menampilkan bukti. Dakwa sahaja pihak yang mengikut  ajaran Syiah," kata beliau.

Kelmarin, Penolong Setiausaha Bahagian Keselamatan dan Ketenteraman Awam  KDN, Dr Zamihan Mat Zain Al Ghari berkata, Mat Sabu perlu kemukakan bukti jika dirinya tidak terlibat fahaman Syiah.

Kata Zamihan, Mat Sabu perlu berhujah secara ilmiah bagi menafikan 10 bukti KDN yang mengaitkannya dengan fahaman Syiah.

Pada 12 Disember lalu, Ketua Setiausaha KDN, Datuk Seri Abdul Rahim Mohamad Radzi mendedahkan 10 bukti yang mengaitkan Mat Sabu dengan ajaran Syiah antaranya pernah 'berselawat' sebagaimana penganut Syiah pada satu sesi ceramah Pas, di Arau, Perlis.


The myth of the Constitutional Crisis

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 07:42 PM PST

No, Tun Dr Mahathir did not remove the powers of the Rulers because the Rulers are Constitutional Monarchs and, therefore, have no power. But he did remove one of the powers they did have -- and that power was the power to reject unjust and undemocratic laws, especially if they violate the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Many people have heard of Malaysia's Constitutional Crisis of 30 years ago, which took about ten years to resolve. Not many, however, can give me the details of this Crisis.

Many people hate ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and at the same time praise him for doing at least one good thing for Malaysia -- he removed the powers of the Rulers.

However, when I ask these people which of these so-called powers of the Rulers did Tun Dr Mahathir remove, not many can tell me.

The more 'learned' of the lot will say that, because of Tun Dr Mahathir, Parliament no longer needs the signature of His Majesty the Agong to approve the laws passed by Parliament. If His Majesty refuses to sign these laws, they will get automatically approved after 60 days with or without the signature of His Majesty.

And you say this is a good thing and you praise Tun Dr Mahathir for this although you hate the man?

Malaysia used to be one of the more unique countries in the world in terms of power sharing. Most countries have three branches of government -- the Chief Executive (the President or Prime Minister), the Legislature (that makes laws), and the Judiciary (that enforces these laws). Malaysia, however, has a fourth branch of government -- the Monarchy (that signs these laws and which would not become law unless His Majesty signs them).

Tun Dr Mahathir, however, removed the powers of Parliament (we all know that and, in fact, bitterly complain about it). He also removed the powers of the Judiciary (we all know that as well and this was one of the main reasons why many Malaysians began to hate Tun Dr Mahathir). But there was still one remaining check-and-balance -- and that was the Monarchy.

So, with the Monarchy in place, Malaysia was still spared the fate of being turned into a dictatorship. The Prime Minister can control Parliament. He can even control the Judiciary. But he still had to deal with the Monarchy and as long as His Majesty the Agong refuses to sign certain laws then the hands of the Prime Minister would be tied.

Hence, allowing the Monarchy or His Majesty the Agong certain powers over what does and does not become law was a good thing for Malaysia. It prevented Malaysia from being turned into a dictatorship because the Prime Minister still had to share power with His Majesty the Agong. Only if you remove the powers of His Majesty the Agong can the Prime Minister run Malaysia like a dictatorship.

And that was the one and only power of His Majesty the Agong that Tun Dr Mahathir removed (there were no other powers that were removed). And Malaysians say they hate Tun Dr Mahathir but they still praise him for the good thing that he did in removing the powers of the Monarchy. 

Tun Dr Mahathir did not remove the powers of the Monarchy, as many of you believe. He removed only one power of His Majesty the Agong. And that was His Majesty the Agong's power to sign laws before they become laws. Now, the Prime Minister can pass laws whether His Majesty the Agong approves or signs them or not.

And this was the beef that Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li) had when he opposed Tun Dr Mahathir. Ku Li, in fact, explained this matter about 30 years ago when he went all over Malaysia to campaign against Tun Dr Mahathir. But I take it many of you were not listening to Ku Li at that time. Instead, you praise Tun Dr Mahathir for 'controlling' the Monarchy.

When Tun Dr Mahathir realised that not all Umno members and leaders agreed with the move to remove the power of the Monarchy because this would turn Malaysia into a dictatorship, he arranged for Umno to be deregistered so that he could register a new Umno and exclude all those who were opposed to him from the new party (who were then forced to form their own party in the end -- Semangat 46).

There were actually two Constitutional Crises. During the first Constitutional Crisis of the early 1980s, Tun Dr Mahathir failed to get the support of the people. So he was forced to back down. The people did not hate the Rulers enough to support Tun Dr Mahathir in his fight with the Rulers. So Tun Dr Mahathir first had to get Malaysians to hate the Rulers before he launches his second attack against the Monarchy.

And that was when they launched their hate campaign against the Rulers.

The two people who were put in charge of this hate campaign were the late Tun Ghafar Baba and Anwar Ibrahim. Ghafar was from Melaka and Anwar from Penang, both states that had no Rulers. Hence these two people had no love for the Monarchy.

All sorts of stories were spun and carried by the mainstream media. Some of these stories were true, of course. But many were not. The story regarding the Sultan of Johor (the murder issues), the Yamtuan Besar or Negeri Sembilan (selling of awards and titles), and so on, were true. But many of the other stories were downright lies aimed at making Malaysians hate the Monarchy.

Anwar accused His Highness the Sultan of Kelantan of smuggling. Anwar even impounded the Sultan's Lamborghini on the allegation that the tax on the car had not been paid. Anwar said that the Conference of Rulers approves only a certain number of tax-free cars for the Rulers and that the Kelantan Sultan had exceeded his quota.

That was not true. First of all, it is not the Conference of Rulers but the Umno state government of Kelantan that approves the number of tax-free cars for His Highness the Sultan. Secondly, the Sultan had not exceeded his quota of tax-free cars.

The mainstream media then showed footages of a Chinese towkay's mansion in Penang and said that this was a house built by the Raja Muda of Selangor (now the Sultan) using the taxpayers' money. They showed footages of Kedah House along Northam Road in Penang and said that this was a mansion owned by His Highness the Sultan of Kedah, also built with the taxpayers' money.

Actually, the so-called 'mansion' is an old colonial and rundown house owned by the Umno Kedah State Government for the use of Kedah civil servants who visit Penang on business and is not owned by the Sultan at all.

They then revealed that a person called 'Tengku Wong' in Pahang, who was alleged to be the business partner of His Highness the Sultan of Pahang, was ripping off the state of millions in timberland. The truth is 'Tengku Wong' was the Menteri Besar's business partner (Tun Mohd Khalil bin Yaakob) who was, in fact, a strong supporter of Anwar.

And the list went on and on. 'Misconduct' of the Rulers was revealed one after another until the people could no longer take it and there was much hatred against the Rulers all over the country.

And that was when Tun Dr Mahathir launched the second Constitutional Crisis and soon after that amended the law whereby Parliament could get laws passed without the need of any approval or signature of His Majesty the Agong. 

But that was the only thing that changed. Other than that what else changed? What other powers of the Rulers did Tun Dr Mahathir remove? 

Okay, some may argue that Tun Dr Mahathir set up a 'Royal Court' whereby Rulers can be prosecuted for their crimes. When we talk about 'crimes' here we, of course, mean criminal cases. However, when it comes to civil cases (like a certain Ruler may owe you money and did not pay) there has never been any law that forbids you from suing the Ruler.

Even before the creation of this 'Royal Court' you could still sue a Ruler in the event of a civil dispute. And you can still do so until today but in the normal or common law court. You do not need to do this in the 'Royal Court'. The 'Royal Court' is only for criminal cases. 

However, over the last 30 years or so, how many Rulers were brought before the 'Royal Court' to be tried for criminal cases? Not a single one! And if they were, and if the court found a certain Ruler guilty of a crime, would he be sent to jail or merely forced to abdicate? Can all of you who hail this 'Royal Court' tell me or do you not know the answer?

Do you need a 'Royal Court' to force a certain Ruler to abdicate? Who is it that has the power to force the Ruler to abdicate? Is it the 'Royal Court' or the Royal Council? Do you know?

The appointment and removal of a Ruler is done by the Royal Council (not by the Conference of Rulers or the 'Royal Court') -- which is a state matter and not a federal matter. And in the past Rulers have been removed (such as Sultan Ali of Terengganu in 1945 or Sultan Musa of Selangor also in 1945). There was no 'Royal Court' at that time and, in fact, Malaysia was not even independent yet then and the country was run by the BMA (British Military Administration).

There are a lot of myths regarding the Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s. Many talk about 'the good thing' that Tun Dr Mahathir did in removing the powers of the Rulers whereas none of these so-called powers were removed other than the one and only power of preventing the Prime Minister from becoming a dictator. 

The British gave Malaya independence in 1957 and left the country a good system of balance of power and power sharing whereby the country had four branches of government.

The Prime Minister cannot run the country like a dictatorship because he would have Parliament, the Judiciary and the Monarchy to keep him in check. But that changed in the 1980s. And you all say it is a good thing because Tun Dr Mahathir removed the powers of the Rulers.

No, Tun Dr Mahathir did not remove the powers of the Rulers because the Rulers are Constitutional Monarchs and, therefore, have no power. But he did remove one of the powers they did have -- and that power was the power to reject unjust and undemocratic laws, especially if they violate the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. 

And that became possible because by the time Tun Dr Mahathir removed this one and only power of the Rulers the people were already very angry and hated the Rulers. And the men who headed the hate campaign against the Rulers were two of the one-time Deputy Prime Ministers of Malaysia -- Tun Ghafar Baba and Anwar Ibrahim.

And today you want Anwar Ibrahim to lead the country when it was he (and the late Tun Ghafar) who made it possible for Tun Dr Mahathir to turn Malaysia into a dictatorship?

Malaysians are so stupid they are beyond help.


Is it necessary to demonize the Shiites?

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 05:54 PM PST

I have to admit that I might not have enough knowledge to scholarly conclude whether Shiites are Muslims, pseudo-Muslims or outright kafirs. However, is it necessary to go all out, guns blazing, on Shiites? 

Imran Hakim 

What do Shiites and final exams have in common?

They are the two most popular topics as I scrolled down my Twitter timeline for the past week. 

Although I am supposed to be studying for my Environmental and Resources Economics final tomorrow, I can't help but to be bothered by the constant attacks and demonization of the Shiites by some Malaysians. 

"Syiah Musuh Islam"

"Syiah Itu Yahudi"

"Syiah Bunuh Sunni"

And many other similar rhetorics that somehow managed to appear on my timeline (I guess I need to recheck who I am following on Twitter).

I have to admit that I might not have enough knowledge to scholarly conclude whether Shiites are Muslims, pseudo-Muslims or outright kafirs. However, is it necessary to go all out, guns blazing, on Shiites?

The "rightful" Sunnis are worried that Muslims will be deceived by the Shiites, into praising Saidina Ali over Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The "rightful" Sunnis are worried that Muslims will be deceived into cursing the Sahabahs of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the zen-like Shiite prayers.

The "rightful" Sunnis are worried that Muslims will be deceived into hurting themselves during Asyura'.

The "rightful" Sunnis are worried that Muslims will be deceived into the control of the Jews, through the Shiites.

and so on.

Aren't the "rightful" Sunnis worried about the extremism that they are portraying and its effect on the Muslim society? How would that translate to non-Muslims? "Don't mind us, we're just cleaning up Islam, the religion of peace - by a massive witch-hunting, filled with hatred, on the Shiites."

Even if the Shiites are indeed kafir, why do some people see hatred as the only way out? Shouldn't we, as the real Muslims, be more compassionate? We should at least try to bring the Shiites back to the real path, if they are not on one, through education. If indeed Shiites are wrong, at least guide their followers to the right path. We shouldn't be too quick to judge and punish. If we really want to emulate the Islam that our Prophet Muhammad led, we should follow his lead, and not be too hasty with the sword.

I mean, sure, some might disagree and say there is no tolerance in religion and all deviant teachings must be eliminated for the sake of the Muslim unity. But maybe they should sit back and take a look at the bigger picture. If they go on an all-out, state-sponsored war (be it figuratively or literally) on the Shiites, wouldn't it cause more conflict between Sunnis and Shiites? Do you think that some Shiites would just keep quiet and let themselves be trampled upon and demonized? I am sure that some would fight back when pushed too much. Such a conflict would definitely weaken the whole Muslim community, making them vulnerable to the Americans, the Jews, the Israelis, the Zionists, the communists, the liberals, the homosexuals, the Chinese, the Illuminatis, the Freemasons, etc. Maybe they should spread the real Islam, instead of pushing each other towards a societal collapse, or even worse, a civil war.

I'm afraid all the witch-hunting will make the "rightful" Sunnis worse than the so-called pseudo-Muslims of Shiites. 

That is just ironic, don't you think?

Educate, instead of hate.


Commonwealth Journal Devote Special Issue to Malaysia

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 05:32 PM PST 

The Round Table, founded in 1910, is Britain's oldest international affairs journal, providing analysis and commentary on all aspects of international affairs. The journal is the major source for coverage of the policy issues concerning the contemporary Commonwealth and its role in international affairs. The publisher, Taylors and Francis, has made some articles free on its website.


SINGAPORE:  Far from advancing democratic change, then, GE13 has served to roll democracy back. This was the view of Professor William Case, a Malaysian expert from City University of Hong Kong, writing in the latest issue of The Round Table, the Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs.


Case argued that after the GE, though a few UMNO politicians called for reconciliation, they were eclipsed by many others demanding exclusion and punishment of the Chinese community over the Chinese 'tsunami' and 'betrayal'. Further, after their victory top politicians in UMNO found the polarisation they had instigated to be helpful in their attacks on the opposition DAP and the Chinese.


UMNO knows that as ethnic Chinese are only a quarter of Malaysia's population today, and thus DAP can be contained. In remarks made at the launch of the journal at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Case said he is not optimistic about reforms in UMNO.


ISEAS's Professor James Chin, the guest editor of the journal, argued that while the opposition used the right strategy for the 2013 campaign, it lost because it could not overcome the three biggest hurdles for opposition politics in Malaysia: East Malaysia, the rural Malay votes and a biased electoral system. His article examines in detail strategies employed by the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (or National Front), and the opposition alliance, Pakatan Rakyat (People's Alliance).


Kai Ostwald, from the University of California, writes that it was impossible for the opposition to win any elections in Malaysia given the current electoral structure. Kai provides data to show that by international standards, the distortions in the Malaysian electoral system is extremely high.


Other contributors to the journal are Professor Farish Noor and Ms Choong Pui Yee from Nanyang Technological University. The Round Table, founded in 1910, is Britain's oldest international affairs journal, providing analysis and commentary on all aspects of international affairs. The journal is the major source for coverage of the policy issues concerning the contemporary Commonwealth and its role in international affairs. The publisher, Taylors and Francis, has made some articles free on its website.



Farish Noor: 

James Chin: 

Kai Ostwald: 

Choong Pui Yee:

William Case: 


Requesting support for feature documentary on Stateless Filipinos in Sabah

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 05:28 PM PST 

This is a film that focuses on two stateless families of Philippines descent and tackles the issue of stateless migrants in Sabah. Production was especially hard for us when we were interrogated by the special branch on more than one occasion and faced resistance from members of the public because, lets face it, no one wants trouble.

Vila Somiah 

Dear En. Raja Petra and the Malaysia Today family, 

Greetings and salutations. I hope this email finds you in the best of health. My name is Vila Somiah, I am an independent filmmaker currently based in Ohio and I am writing to you for in hopes of some assistance.

You see, I am a Sabahan and as a child, I watched undocumented Filipinos/nas through the window of my fathers car flooding the streets of Kota Kinabalu. I may not have been then but much later on in adulthood, I grew very interested in the the lives of this people, especially since it became increasingly sensitive as a subject. For almost two years now, my production partners and I have been working on the film, entitled Di Ambang: Stateless in Sabah. 

This is a film that focuses on two stateless families of Philippines descent and tackles the issue of stateless migrants in Sabah. Production was especially hard for us when we were interrogated by the special branch on more than one occasion and faced resistance from members of the public because, lets face it, no one wants trouble. But persistence got us through it all I suppose.

Throughout production, we followed our subjects through their daily lives, studying the socio-political implications on the life of migrants in Sabah. Production was on going even when the latest Sulu attacks in May occurred. Although many thought it was planned, the team and I had no idea how the skirmish in Lahad datu could impact our film so greatly. In fact, Di Ambang incorporates the skirmish into the plot. 

But now, the film needs exposure and donations for the final push and this is how I hope you can help me sir. To me (including many, many people out there), you are an Icon. People listen to you and they value your opinions, and through you, the film can most definitely reach a larger audience. All I request of you is that you check out our kickstarter page and website (the links are bellow), and if you can believe in the value of this project then please, help us promote it in one of your many channels. In fact, just a few days ago, Ms. Marina Mahathir (and soon Dato' Ambiga) have expressed support and made pledges which you can view online. As of now we have hit 22% of our target.  

I am striving for a much needed change in Malaysia En. Raja Petra, and the help I am asking of you only requires a few minutes of your time. My partners and I (who are all legit I assure you) have worked so very hard on this film and we want to bring Di Ambang to the Malaysian and international audience but we can only do it with your help. So please help us in any way you can and share our sites with as many people you know. We would appreciate it so much.

Berbanyak-banyak terima kasih,

Vila Somiah

IGP: Cops to question Mat Zain on Shafee report soon

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 05:02 PM PST

(MM) - The police are expected to haul up former senior police officer Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim for questioning today over his report accusing Umno lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah of lying in an affidavit.

Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar told a press conference in Cheras this afternoon that the former KL CID chief could be called in as early as today, according to a report by news portal Malaysiakini.

"We... will see what the (alleged) offences (are) that are revealed in his statement," Khalid was quoted as saying.

The news portal said this was over Mat Zain's police report yesterday against Shafee, who the former said had filed a false affidavit-in-reply to the government's appeal against the sodomy acquittal of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahimm

In response, Mat Zain reportedly told Malaysiakini in a text message that he would offer his fullest cooperation to the police.

"Okay, good. This is the kind of quick action that should be taken. My thanks to the police.

"I am ready to give my fullest cooperation. I have nothing to hide. I am very pleased with their speedy response..." he was quoted as saying.

In his December 11 affidavit, Shafee had sought to distance himself from Mat Zain's allegations of misconduct against the Attorney-General in Malaysia's loss of Pulau Batu Puteh and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's 1998 "black eye" incident.

In the document, the prominent Umno lawyer rejected remarks attributed to him in Mat Zain's statutory declaration (SD).

"I vehemently deny that I have been involved in any particular 'meeting' whatsoever and have commented on any alleged misconduct concerning the current Attorney-General TSGP, in particular, over the Batu Puteh controversy," said Shafee, using Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail's initials.

"I have never insinuated nor mentioned about funds in Hong Kong and such like."

Shafee also said that Anwar's second attempt to disqualify him from leading the prosecution appeal against the verdict in the opposition leader's second sodomy trial was based on frivolous and vexatious grounds.

Anwar had said in recent a statement that the grounds for his application was based on the revelations made by Mat Zain in the latter's statutory declaration (SD) signed on October 7 and publicly revealed on December 2.

Citing Mat Zain's latest SD, Anwar had noted that the former senior police officer alleged that Shafee knew of Abdul Gani allegedly suppressing important evidence in the Pulau Batu Puteh hearing at the International Court of Justive (ICJ) in 2007 that caused Malaysia to lose the island to Singapore.

"Shafee told Mat Zain that 'you will not believe your eyes if you were to see the amount of cash that was transferred into Gani's account in Hong Kong'," Anwar had written in the statement, citing the SD.

Mat Zain was also the investigating officer in the case on Anwar's "black eye" assault in 1998, in which the PKR de facto leader was assaulted by then Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor while in custody.

Mat Zain has been lobbying for the case to be re-opened in a series of open letters penned to Bukit Aman and the government, insisting that Gani was complicit in the alleged fabrication of evidence in the case.

"Shafee agreed with Mat Zain that Gani had fabricated evidence against myself during the "black eye" investigation.

"Shafee agreed it was indeed true that Dr Abdul Rahman bin Yusof, a forensic consultant at Kuala Lumpur Hospital had fabricated evidence in my 'black eye' investigation," Anwar said in his statement.

Shafee later expanded on his denial and said only Mat Zain could speak to the contents of his declaration.

"Mat Zain was the dominant person who was doing the talking on the 'black eye' matter. I suspect this was due to the fact that Mat Zain was introduced to Tun Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) as the investigator of the 'black eye' incident," said Shafee, referring to a recent gathering at the former prime minister's house.

"I was never a witness to the 'black eye' incident, nor to any fabrication about it and I therefore cannot give any firsthand information or opinion on that issues; only Mat Zain can," he added.


Rafizi to take AG’s misconduct to HK

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 03:59 PM PST

PKR strategic director to seek Hong Kong government's help to investigate alleged misconduct of Attorney-General

Lisa J. Ariffin, FMT

Rafizi Ramli will seek help from the Hong Kong government over former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain's allegations that money changed hands, which led to Malaysia losing its claim on Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore in 2007.

The revelation was made in Mat Zain's 31-page statutory declaration (SD) sent to the Prime Minister's Office on Oct 9 which revealed the wrongdoings of Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail, who handled the Pulau Batu Puteh case.

"Also included was information that a large amount of money changed hands and was credited into (Gani's) bank account in Hong Kong," the SD said.

Speaking to reporters today, Rafizi, who is PKR strategic director, announced that he will approach the Hong Kong government in hopes they will commence investigations into Mat Zain's allegations.

"What is more pertinent about this SD is that for the first time, there is a serious allegation made involving the territorial integrity of the country. This is bringing corruption to a new level altogether.

"The police say they won't take any action against him (Gani), and there is no news from SPRM (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission)," he said.

"Therefore, we have no choice but to bring this issue to Hong Kong, as the reputation of their financial institution is of utmost importance to them," added Rafizi.

We have leads

The National Oversight and Whistleblowers Centre (NOW) executive director said all details and entities of the transaction must be submitted to the Hong Kong authorities in order them to start investigation, but acknowledged that it was "not easy" to trace.

"We are trying to trace it and it is not easy. Although some of our friends in Hong Kong say that basic information which involves the AG is enough for them to start looking, we hope to give them pointers," he said.

Rafizi assured that he had "leads to follow" and has given himself until Wednesday to finalise the information to be submitted to Hong Kong.

"If we don't get anything, we will proceed with submitting a formal request to the authorities and continue from there," he said.

Asked if he would be disclosing a copy of the information to SPRM, Rafizi said the local anti-corruption authority would simply "bury the lead altogether".

"Based on the SPRM Act, once I have submitted information to the commission, I am legally prohibited from ever talking about it," he said.

"That is how they (SPRM) sweeps issues under the carpet and bury leads," he said. "Hong Kong is extremely attentive to complaints. I would rather pursue it in Hong Kong and see whether anything can come out of there," he added.



Get Guan Eng to submit all documents, Karpal told

Posted: 15 Dec 2013 03:41 PM PST

(NST) - DAP chairman Karpal Singh should order party secretary-general Lim Guan Eng to submit all documents required by the Registrar of Societies (RoS) relating to the party election on Sept 29, said former Kedah Parti Kesejahteraan Insan Tanah Air (Kita) chairman Zamil Ibrahim.

He said a mere three-page report submitted by the party was evidently too brief for the RoS to conduct investigations into allegations of fraud, distortion and manipulation of the delegates' list during the party election.

"Karpal should adhere to the RoS' order instead of engaging in a long-running battle and challenging the decision."

RoS is requesting a full list of DAP's 2,576 members, along with their branch affiliation and addresses, a full list of the 1,740 voting members, along with their particulars, and a list of 985 branches with an "A" certification.

The DAP central executive committee election last year was marred by a tabulation "glitch", with party members claiming irregularities.

The glitch caused party activist Vincent Wu to be moved to the 26th spot from his original sixth position.

This gave way to Lim's political secretary, Zairil Khir Johari, who was in the 39th position, to move up to the 20th spot in the CEC elections on Dec 15 last year.

The RoS sent a letter to DAP saying that it did not recognise the leadership, which led to the party to hold another election to avoid de-registration.


0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan


Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved