| Dr M targets emergency rule? Posted: 07 Mar 2013 12:13 PM PST 
Having established a legacy of fame and fortune, Dr Mahathir Mohamad is not going to stand aside and watch his work destroyed. Awang Abdillah, Free Malaysia Today Dr Mahathir Mohamad is a worried man facing a mother-of-all-elections that "threatens" his 22-years of national development legacy, an extensive personal and commercial network and his personal wealth speculated to run into billions. He is not going to take any chances. In the aftermath of the 12th general election in 2008, Mahathir established an organisation called Perkasa whose existence is to launch the brinkmanship tactic with or without the approval of the powers-that-be. He does not have the confidence that his successor-by-appointment Najib Tun Razak can execute radical measures to contain the rise of Anwar Ibrahim-led Pakatan Rakyat. Therefore he has chosen to partner with Muhyiddin Yassin (Deputy Prime Minister). Together they are scheming to take on Najib before the general election. The duo will go to any and all lengths to plan radical strategies to beat the opposition using all available avenues. Should Muhyiddin fail to dislodge Najib as prime minister and the latter refusing to take his orders, then Mahathir will go it alone. With Perkasa as his running dog he believes he can still unleash a lethal force against the opposition. Already, Perkasa has issued warning signals to the opposition and the other races to toe the line. These people are capable of triggering disturbances in the country compelling Najib to declare a state of emergency. As this strategy serves Najib's agenda, too, he will take it from there. Do or die battle Mahathir fears his own safety and the threats to his family business empire. With these fears egging him, Mahathir will take the general election as his personal war with Pakatan, thereby forcing Najib to step aside. It will be a do or die battle for him. Should Najib quit, then Mahathir has three arsenals at his disposal. Muhyiddin as his front man would then forge a reciprocal arrangement with one of the major partners in Pakatan. In the event of a neck-and-neck contest, any minor changes towards the finishing line may have profound consequences on the contesting teams, favourable or otherwise. With money at his disposal, Mahathir can execute his vote-buying tactic before the GE and candidate-buying tactic before and after the GE to ensure victory for Umno-BN. If these tactics don't work, then Mahathir will turn to Perkasa. Being Mahathir's brainchild, it will take orders from him. It is believed that Perkasa's members are ready to trigger chaos in specific parts of the country and blame it on the opposition. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/08/dr-m-targets-emergency-rule/ |
| First ABU, now ABCD, and then what? Posted: 07 Mar 2013 11:38 AM PST 
[ABU] in effect follows the framework that promotes the kind of decision making that uses blanket, all-or-nothing, blind support or rejection. Such a campaign breeds a longer term danger. It spurs more unthinking divisive positions and a precursor to civil hostility. Anas Zubedy In striving to make Malaysia a better nation we must be careful with the road taken. We must not sacrifice the journey for the goal, the means for the end. We need to change Malaysia in the right way towards the right goal. It may take a longer time and we may not be able to see the fruits of our labour but our future generations will profit from it. It is slow, but sure. Good and lasting change needs time to be cultured, we cannot be in a hurry. That is why on many occasions I have registered my disagreement with the ABU's unthinking, irresponsible and destructive approach in choosing our MPs and ADUNs in the effort to advance Malaysian politics. The method in effect follows the framework that promotes the kind of decision making that uses blanket, all-or-nothing, blind support or rejection. Such a campaign breeds a longer term danger. It spurs more unthinking divisive positions and a precursor to civil hostility. Today this divisive scheme has given birth to another blanket stupidity, ABCD; Asalkan Bukan Cina DAP. I have seen this acronym popping in my FB threads and posts that belong to PAS supporters. This trend perhaps was triggered after CM Lim Guan Eng politicised the 'Allah' issue via his Christmas message. What if that 'Cina DAP' is better than the other candidates no matter what their background or ethnicity? Similarly, in the case of ABU, what if the UMNO candidate is the better choice? Aren't we giving the other candidate a free ride? Will we be able to secure the best of Malaysians to be our lawmakers with this method? First ABU, now ABCD, and then what? Is this the way we want to go? |
| We have nothing to hide, says EC Posted: 07 Mar 2013 11:22 AM PST 
(fz.com) - TODAY marks five years since the March 8, 2008 general election, which has been described as a turning point in Malaysian politics. It saw the ruling coalition losing its two-thirds majority in Parliament for the first time since 1969, in addition to losing control of five states. Malaysia has not been the same since. For one, more Malaysians have taken interest in the election process and issues pertaining to it. This has also contributed to the rise of civil societies calling for free and fair elections, including a cleaning up of the electoral roll and introducing reforms to bring about a more transparent election process. Caught in the middle of it all this and under constant scrutiny is the Election Commission, which is entrusted with regulating and conducting elections in the country. Amidst accusations from opposition parties and civil society groups that the EC is an ineffective institution that is biased in favour of the federal government run by Barisan Nasional, fz.com approached its chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, for a response. Despite his busy schedule, he made time and amiably received us at his office in Putrajaya. The interview started off in a brisk, business-like manner but as he warmed up to us, he became more animated and firmly stood his ground in maintaining that the EC has nothing to hide. On Campaign Funds Did the EC impose rules on spending on campaign funds in 2008? Yes, we did. The candidates were allowed to spend RM100,000 for each state seat and RM200,000 for each parliament seat, and they had to submit details of their expenditure. But when we asked them for such details, they claimed that their respective party headquarters had funded the printing of posters or dinners. They only provided us details of their personal expenditure. So the relevant election law does not cover party expenditure during a campaign? No. The law only mentions the candidate. Have any initiatives been taken to plug this loophole? The EC does not have the power to audit a candidate or party's expenditure. That power belongs to the Registrar of Societies (ROS). Will the EC work with the ROS to resolve this issue? Yes, but we need a big enforcement team on the ground for people to conduct checks and audits. We will look into it before the next election because candidates have said that RM200,000 isn't enough. They want to spend RM20 million for a parliamentary seat (laughs). So what is a fair amount? We also have to decide who is allowed to be a political funder and the maximum the person is allowed to contribute. Right now the only thing that disqualifies them from the next election is if they fail to submit details of their expenditure. The Use Of Government Resources During Elections What about the use of government resources, such as government vehicles and personnel, during the campaign period? It is not allowed during the campaign period for campaigning. If it is an official function then it is fine. What about the use of government resources to campaign now? That is all approved in the Budget, by Parliament. We have no control over what happens outside of the campaign period. Does this mean that during the campaigning period, even the prime minister cannot use government vehicles? Not for campaigning. If it is for an official function, then yes. What happens if one were to use an official function to campaign? It is not proper and against the law as they are using official duty to campaign. It has to be separate functions. How well is this enforced and monitored? It is really hard to monitor the situation throughout Malaysia, but observers can help with it as well. As for enforcing the law, a report has to be made, an investigation has to be done, a charge has to be filed with the court. In order to charge somebody, you must have sufficient evidence, otherwise it is not easy. |
| EC snubbed proof to clean electoral rolls, says Selangor Posted: 07 Mar 2013 11:20 AM PST 
(The Malaysian Insider) - The Election Commission (EC) refused to entertain Selangor's plea for a joint solution to tackle discrepancies in the state's electoral roll despite available evidence, says the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state government Faekah Husin, the political secretary to Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim(picture), said the state sent a letter pleading for the EC to discuss its recent findings — that some 28 per cent of the 440,000 newly registered voters in the state cannot be identified. "The least they could do is call us to talk and let us present our findings. You don't even have to say thank you," Faekah told The Malaysian Insider, referring to the state government's initiative to verify the roll through its State Economic Development Unit (UPEN). Khalid told the International Conference on Malaysia's 13th general election here on Monday that the state was told by the EC that it had no authority to clean the list. Faekah said the state government was frustrated by the EC's refusal to co-operate on the matter, saying the move to scrutinise the rolls was not political but a campaign to help the commission in its job to ensure fair elections. "UPEN's work is not political. It was done by the administration and by government officials," she said yesterday. Faekah said the verification process was done thoroughly at grassroots level with organisations like the village development and security committee (JKKK) vetting the lists manually in their respective areas. The data had been collected and compiled for the EC's perusal, she added. The EC, federal ministers and Selangor Umno deputy chief Datuk Seri Noh Omar, who were present at the conference with Khalid on Monday, have been resistant to the state's efforts to verify its electoral roll, a news portal reported. Faekah said the impasse has forced the state's PR lawmakers to take up the matter in court personally but the chances of a positive outcome was highly unlikely since the court proceedings may drag on until elections are called. Election 2013 is expected to be held within weeks. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/ec-snubbed-proof-to-clean-electoral-rolls-says-selangor/ |
| The Struggle for Jihad Posted: 07 Mar 2013 11:10 AM PST |
| Sabah claim: A tale of two versions Posted: 07 Mar 2013 11:03 AM PST 
The great controversy with the Sulu Sultanate is whether the contract involving territories including Sabah was for a lease or a cession. Raymond Tombung, Free Malaysia Today Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III's defiance against calls for his army in Lahad Datu to surrender despite having lost his soldiers in a shootout with Malaysian security forces and his men's decision to "die in Lahad Datu" has stoked the curiosityof Sabahans. His daring modus operandi in claiming Sabah as his rightful homeland has awakened the curiosity of many here who are in the dark or have only a vague knowledge about the historical background of Jamalul's Sabah claim. Why did Jamalul make his move now? In his own words he can no longer "trust" the Philippine government to justly pursue his claim on Sabah. The fact is the Philippine government has been inconsistent in its claim and on its recognition of the Sulu sultanate. Many parties in the Philippines, including the pretenders who claim the throne of Sulu, have been speaking up more out of political expediency than of historical realities. And it is obvious that Malacañang Palace – the seat of the Philippine government – itself has been making decisions on these issues based on changing political climates and pressures, blowing hot and cold to fit its own needs at the material time in violation of past treaties and agreements, even its own declarations. Let's take a quick look at the history of the Philippines' changing position on Sabah claims. Two versions of contract In 1658 the Sultan of Brunei gave away the north and eastern part of what is now Sabah (not the whole of Sabah) to the Sultan of Sulu after the latter helped the Sultan of Brunei quell a rebellion in Brunei. The most critical turning point in the whole issue of the Sabah claim began on June 22, 1878 when a contract was signed between Sri Paduka Maulana Al Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Alam – representing the sultanate as "owner and sovereign of Sabah" – and Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent, representing the British East India Company (later named the North Borneo Company) as the "lessee" of North Borneo. The great controversy here is whether the signing of the contract was for a lease or a cession. How history came up with two conflicting versions of this contract is difficult to understand. The British version of the treaty says that "… hereby grant and cede… all the territories and lands being tributary to us on the mainland of the island of Borneo… from the Pandassan River on the north-west coast and extending along the whole east coast as far as the Sibuco River in the south and comprising, amongst other, the States of Paitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan, Kina Batangan, Mumiang, and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco river with all the islands within three marine leagues of the coast". The Sulu version says, "…do hereby lease of our own freewill… forever and until the end of time, all rights and powers which we possess over all territories and lands tributary to us on the mainland of the Island of Borneo, commencing from the Pandassan River on the west coast to Maludu Bay, and extending along the whole east coast as far as Sibuco River on the south…, and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco River…" If you lease something "forever and until the end of time," can you reclaim it? Now the question is which version is real? Madrid Protocol On July 22, 1878 – one month later – the "Bases of Peace and Capitulation" was signed by the Sultan of Sulu and Spain in Jolo in which the Sultan of Sulu relinquished the sovereign rights over all his possessions to Spain. This means thereafter the sultanate no longer had the right to claim North Borneo of Sabah. But Filipino writers argue that North Borneo was not mentioned, therefore not included in the "possessions". But what did "all his possessions" mean if it didn't include everything he owned? In 1881, North Borneo had its first government under the British North Borneo Company which was given royal charter by Britain. On March 7, 1885, the famous Madrid Protocol was signed by Spain, Britain and Germany. The purpose of the protocol was to recognise the sovereignty of Spain in the Sulu Archipelago and also for Spain to relinquish all claims it might have had over North Borneo. Article III of the protocol states: "The Spanish government renounces, as far as regards the British Government, all claims of sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu… which form part of the territories administered by… British North Borneo Company." The sultanate was not involved in this protocol because despite the cession or lease to Overbeck and Dent on June 22, 1878, he had on July 22, 1878 surrendered "all his possessions" (by understanding including North Borneo) to Spain! Didn't cession to Spain therefore nullify the claim that the June 22 treaty was a lease? To confirm his surrender of North Borneo, Sultan Jamalul Kiram II signed a document on April 22, 1903 known as "Confirmation of cession of certain islands," under which he either granted or ceded to British North Borneo Company additional islands in the neighbourhood of the mainland of North Borneo from Banggi Island to Sibuku Bay, which were not mentioned in the treaty of 1878. Note that the document's title says "cession," not "lease" and that by the understanding of the Madrid Protocol he should no longer be authorised to cede any part of North Borneo. Wrong translation of term By 1915, the status of Sulu entirely changed because the Sultan had by then been stripped off all temporal power and retained only the empty title of Sultan. Because the United States of America was not interested in the territory of North Borneo, the then powerless Sultan of Sulu was understood to continue keeping his sovereignty rights over North Borneo. But remember, he had surrendered these in 1878 (if it was a cession) and in 1903 under the "Confirmation of cession of certain islands". Then in 1935, the Philippine Constitution was promulgated. It stated (in defiance of all contracts, treaties and the Madrid Protocol) that the national territory of the Philippines included, among other things, "all other areas which belong to the Philippines on the basis of historical rights or legal claims". But strangely, a letter to the Governor of North Borneo dated July 28, 1936 from His Britannic Majesty's Consul General in Manila indicated that the Philippine government decided not to recognise the continued existence of the Sulu Sultanate. By this year, therefore, the Sulu sultanate had come to an end. But it is understood that the abolition of the Sulu Sultanate did not abolish the Sultan nor his line of succession, which can be interpreted as the sultan continuing to be sultan in a sultanate that no longer existed. On Dec 18, 1939 the historic judgment of Chief Justice CFC Macaskie was made in the High Court of North Borneo in the civil suit filed by nine heirs of the Sultan of Sulu, including Sultan Jamalul Kiram II. Macaskie ruled that the Grant of 1878 was a cession or sale, and that the money to be paid to the heirs was "cession money" and had nothing more to do with territorial property. However, it is argued by the Philippines that Macaskie was relying on a wrong translation of the 1878 document (which was written in Malayan Jawi). The Philippines claimed that the later translation said it was a "lease", based on the meaning of "pajak" or "padjak", which had been translated both as cession or lease (or rental). Philippines recognises Sulu Then in 1950, Congressman Diosadado Macapagal, together with Congressmen Lacson and Tolentino, sponsored a resolution calling the Philippine government to formally lodge a claim to Sabah. Protracted studies were undertaken to support the claim. These determined efforts led to the passing of a unanimous House resolution urging then President Diosdado Macapagal to legally reclaim Sabah. Macapagal won the presidency partly by using the Sabah claim as an issue in his campaign. In 1957 (according to Jovita Salonga), the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu issued a proclamation declaring the termination of the 1878 contract effective Jan 22, 1958. The declaration was served on the British government for the return of the territory, but it was totally ignored. The question here is: Did the heirs have any power to unilaterally withdraw the 80-year-old contract when the sultanate was no longer in existence? In 1962, Sultan Esmail Kiram I handed over a Letter of Attorney to Macapagal to give the Manila government the right to claim "the territory of North Borneo and the full sovereignty, title and dominion are hereby ceded…" on the sultanate's behalf. By accepting this handover of rights, the Philippine government again had officially recognised the continued existence of the Sulu sultanate and the office of Sultan of Sulu. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/03/08/sabah-claim-a-tale-of-two-versions/ |
| M'sian Armed Forces versus Sulu gunmen in Sabah: Lessons for S'pore Posted: 07 Mar 2013 10:53 AM PST 
(Asia One) - During the three-week long standoff against a force which claims has 200 gunmen and even after blood was shed, Malaysians deployed for security duty do not seem to care much for their personal protection. A week ago, Malaysia's defence information officers were busy ramping up publicity for the Malaysian Army's 80th Anniversary celebrations - a happy occasion that culminated in a massive show of force by Tentera Darat Malaysia (Malaysian Army) in Port Dickson. After a weekend on duty, their pace of work increased dramatically with real operations in the East Malaysian state of Sabah. Ongoing operations by Malaysian security forces against Filipino gunmen in Lahad Datu, Sabah, mean that it will be sometime yet before information officers from Cawangan Perhubungan Awam (Public Relations Department) at Kementerian Pertahanan (Kementah, the Malaysian Ministry of Defence) can enjoy a restful weekend. The exposure to real operations in Sabah will reward Kementah's information officers with firsthand experience managing hearts and minds operations during an unfolding operation that has international dimensions. Add in the timing of the operation, which was triggered during the run-up to the Malaysian General Elections, and the information officers entrusted to handle media operations will get a chance to learn invaluable lessons in calibrating domestic political considerations during an unfolding operation other than war (OOTW). While it is early days yet before defence observers can compile a credible blow by blow account of the assault, here are some preliminary thoughts on the situation: 1. Malaysia's mainstream broadcast media, RTM, worked commendably fast in producing the clip with rousing martial music and TV footage aired at the end of Tuesday night's news bulletin that cavassed support for Malaysia's Fallen Heroes. This is the type of psychological defence response that the Malaysians are good at, having picked up valuable lessons from the British during the Emergency years. 2. The casual attitude to personal protection equipment by Malaysian soldiers and General Operations Force field police has been noted by defence observers. During the three-week long standoff against a force which claims has 200 gunmen and even after blood was shed, Malaysians deployed for security duty do not seem to care much for their personal protection. * Body armour is rarely seen. When worn by some officers, the body armour appears to be of the soft body armour type which is not designed to withstand full metal jacket projectiles discharged from firearms or mortar rounds. * Headgear in the form of ballistic helmets is almost never worn. And let's not even go into protective eyewear like goggles. Read more at: http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130307-406991/2.html |
| Sabah and the Sulu claims Posted: 07 Mar 2013 10:45 AM PST 
(The Brunei Times) - Succeeding Sultans of Brunei have denied that northern Borneo was given to Sulu, and only the weight of Sulu tradition supports the claim. The weight of Brunei tradition challenges it THE 1968 Programme Book for the Coronation of His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah MuizzaddinWaddaulah as the 29th Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, had two interesting documents inserted inside. The documents were reproduction of two treaties taken from microfilm kept at the Public Record Office in London.
The first treaty was signed by Brunei's 24th Sultan, Sultan Abdul Momin, appointing Baron de Overbeckas the Maharaja Sabah, Rajah Gaya and Sandakan signed on 29th December 1877. The second treaty was signed by Sultan Jamalalulazam of Sulu appointing Baron de Overbeck as Dato Bendahara and RajaSandakan on 22nd January 1878, about three weeks after the first treaty was signed.
That begs the question: Who was responsible for Sabah or North Borneo as it was known then towards the end of the 19th century? That probably has a bearing on the event now unfolding in Lahad Datu inSabah, where a group of armed men supposedly from the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo is claiming that they are the rightful owners of Sabah.
Many of the early modern accounts of written history in Brunei noted that Sulu was given possession ofSabah or parts of Sabah for help rendered to Sultan Muhydin, the 14th Sultan of Brunei who fought a civil war against the 13th Sultan of Brunei, Sultan Abdul Mubin.
Sultan Abdul Mubin usurped the throne after killing Sultan Muhammad Ali when the latter tried to stop Sultan Abdul Mubin from taking his revenge for the death of his son killed by the son of Sultan Muhammad Ali. Sultan Abdul Mubin appointed Sultan Muhydin as Bendahara but eventually SultanMuhydin tricked Sultan Abdul Mubin into leaving Brunei for Pulau Cermin and appointed himself as the new Sultan of Brunei. The two Sultans fought against each other and Sultan Muhyidin finally triumphed, said to be due to the assistance provided by the Sulu Sultanate.
Sir Hugh Low, writing in the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JSBRAS) published on 5 June 1880 entitled 'Selesilah (Book of Descent) of the Rajas of Bruni', wrote that "by the assistance of a force from the Sultan of Soolok, the forts on the island (Pulau Cermin) were captured".
Earlier Sir Hugh Low described the negotiation between Sulu and Brunei: "the Bataraa of Soolok went up to Bruni and met the Sultan Muaddin and having feasted and drank, the Sultan asked the Batara for his assistance to destroy the enemies at the island, promising that if the island should be conquered, the land from the North as far as westward as Kimani should belong to Soolook".
HR Hughes-Hallett writing in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society published in August 1940 entitled A Sketch of the History of Brunei wrote: "by the beginning of the 18th century, the kingdom (Brunei) had been territorially diminished by the cession to the Sultan of Sulu in the north".
CA Majul in his book Muslims in the Philippines (1973) referred to a letter from Sultan Jamalul Azam ofSulu to the Governor General of Spain on 17 September 1879 that the coast area from Kimanis toBalikpapan was to pay tribute to the Sultan which he said proved that the Brunei territory facing Sulukwas ceded to Suluk.
Interestingly enough, Pehin Jamil Umar writing in his book, Tarsilah Brunei II: Period of Splendour and Fame (2007), countered all of the above. Pehin Jamil did not deny the fact that the Sulus were invited and promised the northern Brunei territory by Sultan Muhydin if they helped him win the civil war against Sultan Abdul Mubin. However, during the battle for Pulau Cermin, the Sulu forces who were supposed to attack the island from Pulau Keingaran and from the sea, did not do so. They were terrified by the resistance of Sultan Abdul Mubin's forces in Pulau Cermin. It was only after Sultan Muhydin had won the battle did the Sulu forces landed and took the opportunity to seize a number of war booties.
According to Pehin Jamil, Sultan Muhydin refused to cede the territories claimed by Sulu. Pehin Jamilnoted that the area was only "claimed" and not "ceded", as Sir Stamford Raffles, in his book "History of Java" (1830), had noted "on the north-east of Borneo proper (Brunei) lies a very considerable territory (Sabah), the sovereignty of which has long been claimed by Sulu Government".
Pehin Jamil further noted that according to the oral tradition, Sulu continued to press their claim. In 1775, one of their chiefs came to Brunei pretending to seek fresh water. What they really wanted was to seek an audience with the Sultan regarding Sabah. However, the Sultan ordered one of the chiefwazirs to see them and he threatened that if they wanted to pursue their intention, he will kill them all. The Sulus immediately left. Despite that setback, the Sulus continue to maintain their claims. Read more at: http://www.bt.com.bn/golden-legacy/2013/03/07/sabah-and-sulu-claims |
| MNLF kutuk penceroboh Sulu, jelaskan status Nur Misuari Posted: 07 Mar 2013 10:40 AM PST  Pengerusi MNLF, Muslimin Sema
(Agenda Daily) - Siasatan yang dibuat anggota jawatankuasa pusat di Tawi-Tawi dan Sulu mendapati tidak ada anggota MNLF yang terlibat dalam pencerobohan di Sabah. Kami tidak terlibat dalam apa jua bentuk keganasan" Barisan Pembebasan Kebangsaan Moro (MNLF) mengutuk keras keganasan yang dilakukan pengganas Sulu di Lahad Datu dan Semporna di Sabah, kata pengerusinya Muslimin Sema (gambar) Khamis. Muslimin, yang dilantik sebagai pengerusi badan pembuat keputusan tertinggi pertubuhan itu, Jawatankuasa Pusat MNLF, pada 2008, berkata Nur Misuari hanya seorang anggota biasa jawatankuasa itu dan tidak mempunyai pengaruh dalam MNLF. MNLF, katanya, menganggap rakyat Sabah dan Malaysia sebagai saudara mereka. "Kami (MNLF) tidak menyokong apa yang sedang berlaku di Sabah (pencerobohan dan tindakan pengganas). Kami menolaknya. Kejadian di Sabah dicetuskan untuk memecahbelahkan sesama kita. "Ia juga dilakukan untuk memutuskan ikatan antara Sabah dan selatan Filipina dan antara Malaysia dan Filipina. Mereka ingin memusnahkan ikatan itu (antara rakyat)," katanya dalam temu bual ekslusif dengan Bernama melalui telefon dari Manila. Dua hari lepas, Malaysia menggunakan jet pejuang, tentera darat dan kenderaan pengangkut tentera berperisai untuk menggempur penceroboh bersenjata yang bersembunyi di Kampung Tanduo, Lahad Datu. Operasi yang menggabungkan pasukan polis dan tentera dikenali sebagai "Op Daulat" itu berterusan hingga kini. Pertempuran antara pasukan keselamatan Malaysia dan pengganas di Lahad Datu dan Semporna meragut nyawa lapan anggota polis dan sekurang-kurangnya 52 pengganas. Diminta mengulas tentang kenyataan Misuari baru-baru ini bahawa MNLF bersedia menghantar pejuang bersenjatanya ke Sabah untuk membantu pengganas Sulu, Muslimin berkata beliau kecewa dengan kenyataan bekas pemimpin MNLF itu. "Beliau tidak sepatutnya membuat kenyataan yang tidak bertanggungjawab itu. Saya sedih kerana tidak dapat menyekatnya daripada membuat kenyataan itu. Sabah dan Malaysia bukan musuh kami," katanya. Read more at:http://agendadaily.com/Luar-Negara/mnlf-kutuk-penceroboh-sulu-jelaskan-status-nur-misuari.html |
| KL: No ceasefire, wipe out all militants Posted: 07 Mar 2013 10:37 AM PST 
(PhilStar) - The sultanate is willing to swap captives with the Malaysian security forces who are in custody of 10 members of the so-called royal sultanate army. Kiram's civilian supporters, according to Idjirani, are in custody of four Malaysian officials. Malaysia rejected yesterday a ceasefire offer by Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, with the country's defense minister vowing to "destroy all the militants" unless they surrender "unconditionally." "Don't believe the ceasefire offer by Jamalul Kiram. In the interest of Sabahans and all Malaysians, wipe out all the militants first," Defense Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said on his Tweeter feed. Kiram had declared a unilateral ceasefire at 12:30 p.m., calling for reciprocation from Malaysia, whose armed forces are hunting his armed followers. Kiram sent his followers – mostly Tausugs – from their homes across the Sulu Sea to assert an ancestral claim to Sabah. A major Malaysian offensive last Tuesday left dozens dead. Clashes between the sultan's followers and Malaysian forces have left 60 people dead as of last night, according to Malaysian police chief Ismail Omar. By 3 p.m. Wednesday, he said 32 Filipinos were killed in two confrontations. Eight Malaysian policemen died in earlier skirmishes last week. Jamalul's ceasefire call came after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged a peaceful resolution to the standoff, considered as Malaysia's biggest security crisis in years. The ceasefire call also coincided with a sudden visit to Sabah by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak to inspect security operations. Najib's government had tried for three weeks to persuade the Filipinos to leave, but launched a military assault Tuesday after they continually refused and engaged security forces in a pair of deadly shootouts. Cessation of hostilities To Malaysia's rejection of his ceasefire offer, Kiram's response was to declare a "cessation of hostilities." "We are going to declare a cessation of hostilities in positive response to the call of the United Nations and to the reaction of the government of the Federation of Malaysia rejecting the unilateral ceasefire declared by the sultanate of Sulu unless what the Malaysian government said, the militants in Lahad Datu, referring to the Sulu royal forces, will surrender," said his spokesman Abraham Idjirani. "The Malaysian government, in complete rejection of the UN call, demanded that prior to its recognition of this unilateral ceasefire made by the Sultanate of Sulu must surrender the militants to them," he added. "In response to that, the Sultanate of Sulu is now declaring unilaterally a cessation of hostilities." He said a ceasefire should convince Malaysia to stop its assault and sit down for negotiation with the sultanate as encouraged by the UN. "What we are doing is in compliance with the call of the United Nations," Idjirani said, adding that he informed the sultan's brother Agbimuddin of the declaration of "cessation of hostilities" at past 4 p.m. yesterday. Should Malaysia's rejection of the ceasefire offer result in more deaths, the UN would have to take action, Idjirani said. Read more at: http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/03/08/917096/kl-no-ceasefire-wipe-out-all-militants |
| M’sia erects defence line along Sabah east coast Posted: 07 Mar 2013 10:32 AM PST 
(Bernama) - Malaysia has erected a line of defence along the entire east coast of Sabah from Kudat in the north to Tawau in the southeast to prevent any intrusion, especially from the island territories in the southern Philippines. This Special Security Area was announced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak yesterday following an intrusion by a Sulu militant group in Lahad Datu on Feb 12 which forced Malaysia to launch a military offensive after eight policemen were killed. "The government will do what it takes to guarantee the security, peace and sovereignty of Sabah. The question of Sabah being within Malaysia should not be disputed by anybody," Najib said after visiting ground zero at Felda Sahabat 16, in Lahad Datu. The Special Security Area covers Kudat, Tawau, Kunak, Sandakan and Lahad Datu and the government will station five additional battalions comprising the army and police in the area. In 1972, the government set up the Rajang Area Security Command (Rascom) in Sarawak and successfully defeated the communist terrorist threat in the state. Rascom covered the areas of Sibu, Kanowit, Oya, Dalat, Bintagor, Sarikei, Julau, Song and Kapit, which were declared a Special Security Area by the then prime minister, Datuk Abdul Razak Hussein. On Tuesday, security forces launched an aerial assault using F-18 and Hawk fighter aircraft as the first offensive to end the intrusion of the Sulu militants, and the security forces are still engaged in a mopping-up operation there. Three days after the launch of the offensive, security forces faced pockets of resistance from the militants, and 32 of the intruders were killed in Kampung Tanduo and Tanjung Batu today. Thirty-one of them were killed in a gun battle at about 11 am in Tanjung Batu and one at 6.45 am in Kampung Tanduo, raising the militant death toll to 52. The security forces did not suffer any casualties, said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar. The prime minister said the operation to hunt down the remaining militants would go on and Kuala Lumpur would not entertain any request for a ceasefire so long as the militants did not surrender unconditionally. He said Malaysia respected the humanitarian principle and gave sufficient time for negotiations with the militants before launching the offensive. "We gave them three weeks (to negotiate) and postponed (the offensive) four times. We only acted after they killed eight of our men," said Najib, expressing his satisfaction with the outcome of the joint police and army operation. Philippine media reports today quoted Jamalul Kiram III as asking his men in Lahad Datu to lay down their weapons after several members of the group were killed in an operation by security forces on Tuesday. United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has proposed that the parties involved in the situation in Sabah come to a peaceful solution.
|
| Filipino Sultan's Quest Sparks Crisis in Malaysia Posted: 07 Mar 2013 10:29 AM PST 
(AP) - Many stories of poor Filipinos illtreated by Malaysian authorities in Sabah provided the final straw, Kiram's wife said. "It's good if they were placed in jail," she said. "The problem is they are caned, they are punished and then deported ... we couldn't do anything." Unlike many other Muslim royalties basking in grand palaces and opulent lifestyles, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III's kingdom sits in a rundown two-story house in a poor Islamic community in Manila, the only hint of power and glory the title attached to his name. "I'm the poorest sultan in the world," the ailing Kiram, 74, told The Associated Press in an interview in his residence in Maharlika village in the Philippine capital. Although largely forgotten and dismissed as a vestige from a bygone era, Kiram's sultanate, once based in the southern province of Sulu, has sparked the biggest security crisis in Malaysia and the Philippines in decades -- early last month, he sent his younger brother with about 200 followers, dozens of them armed, by boat from southern Philippines to a village in Sabah state in neighboring Malaysia to claim the land the sultanate insists belongs to them. A stunned Malaysia, which runs the frontier resource-rich region of timberlands and palm oil plantations as its second-largest federal state, poured in elite police and army troops and called in airstrikes to quell what it saw as an armed intrusion. After weeks of sporadic clashes that killed 19 intruders and eight policemen, troops launched a full-scale assault Tuesday, codenamed "Operation Sovereign," but failed to account for most of the Filipinos, who according to the Kiram family were unhurt. Malaysian forces shot and possibly killed one of the men, who appear to be trying to escape the area, police said. Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said later Wednesday that security forces combing the area found 12 bodies. However, it was not clear if they died in Tuesday's strike or in the previous weeks of clashes. The crisis has tested the neighbors' friendly ties and hit the leaders of both nations at a delicate time politically. The Kirams claim Sabah has belonged to their sultanate for centuries and was only leased to Malaysia, which they say pays them a paltry annual rent of 5,300 Malaysian ringgit ($1,708). Malaysian officials contend the payments are part of an arrangement under which the sultanate has ceded the 74,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) of Sabah territory to their country. Philippine presidents have relegated the volatile feud to the backburner despite efforts by the Kirams to put it back to the national agenda. The Feb. 9 Sabah expedition by the sultan's younger brother, Agbimuddin Kiram, and the ensuing violence have resurrected the long-dormant issue with the murky history beyond anybody's expectations. One big obstacle for the Philippines is a number of the Kiram heirs, all claiming to be the rightful sultan. That put the government in a quandary on who to deal with for the Sabah claim to be pursued, historian Manolo Quezon IIII said. Overrun by history, the Kirams carry royal titles and nothing much else. "When I was a child, I thought 'princess' was just my name because when you're a child, your idea of being a princess is one with a crown, a palace, a carriage," said Jacel Kiram, a 35-year-old daughter of the sultan, who is regarded a princess. At his Maharlika village home, the sultan, who has failed kidneys and a heart ailment, struggled with slurred speech to proudly recount the saga of his clan's empire based in the Sulu archipelago in the southern Philippines. Chinese and European leaders, he said, once sent vassals to pay homage to his powerful forebears. The Sulu sultanate, which emerged in the 1400s, preceded both the Philippine republic and Malaysia by centuries. The exploits of the sultanate's native Tausug warriors were so legendary, the Brunei sultan at the time sought their help in putting down a rebellion in the 1600-1700s. When the uprising was crushed, the Brunei sultan handed over Sabah — then part of Brunei — to his Sulu counterpart as a gift of gratitude. A Filipino sultan later leased Sabah to a British colonial-era company. The territory was later annexed by Britain. In 1963, six years after colonial Malaya gained independence, Sabah voted to join the new Malaysia. The Sulu sultanate had steadily declined through the centuries, its power passed on to a succession of leaders and heirs. Jamalul Kiram III is the 33rd sultan and a symbolic leader with followers in Sulu and nearby southern provinces, which are among the country's poorest and are troubled by Muslim rebels, al-Qaida-linked extremists and outlaws. Born in Sulu's far-flung Maimbung town in 1938, Kiram is a beloved leader who in his youth turned to dance and singing and played sports, including his favorite, tennis. He once worked as a disc jockey in a Jolo radio station. He took up law but failed to take the bar exams when he joined a prominent cultural dance group in the 1960s, according to his wife, Fatima Celia. He also ran for senator in 2007, backed by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo — a tacit recognition of his sultanate leadership — but lost, leaving his family in debt due to the high campaign expenses, she said. Last year, the sultan was diagnosed with failed kidneys and began to receive dialysis treatment, causing family members to miss out on monthly payments for their house, which they nearly lost had friends not helped out, Celia said. Since then, Kiram has mostly been sidelined to his bedroom, which resembles a hospital unit with two oxygen tanks and serves as an office where he met visitors and followers seeking all sorts of help. In his younger years, Kiram said he traveled often to Sabah. "It's really very rich," he said of Sabah. "When I'm in Sabah, I feel at home." Read more at: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/filipino-sultans-quest-sparks-crisis-malaysia |
| Open Letter from Lord Ahmed to the Malaysian Attorney General... Posted: 06 Mar 2013 08:09 PM PST 
Open letter from Lord Ahmed of Rotherham to The Hon. Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed Minister of International Trade & Industry & the Federal Commercial Crimes Department chief Syed Ismail Syed Azizan 7th March 2013
Further to recent correspondence from The Hon. Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to the 'British Victims of Investing in Malaysia' and recent statements by the Minister of International Trade & Industry Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed and the Federal Commercial Crimes Department chief Syed Ismail Syed Azizan, the British Victims of Investing in Malaysia and I would like to thank them all for their statements, comments and concerns. As Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed stated, "we leave it to police authorities to investigate". British investors have patiently waited for 15 months now for the results of the criminal investigation and unfortunately, investors are no nearer to knowing where their $4,000,000 investment has gone.
For these 60 investors, their first experience of venturing into the Malaysian economy has been a traumatic and distressful one. Their legitimate right to know the whereabouts of their investment has been denied to them by the Chairman and Directors of Doxport Technologies for over 4 long years.
Furthermore, Doxport Technologies have supplied a substantial amount of documents which investors allege are 'fake'. Emotions of concern and 'sympathy' that Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohammed has expressed must translate into swift action by the Malaysian police, the Money Laundering Division and the Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who has recently assured the investors that he 'will look into the matter'.
I still have great faith in the Malaysian authorities and as such:
I request them to interview all the alleged suspects.
I request them to make all attempts to trace and freeze all the missing funds for the duration of any further police investigation.
I request them to investigate all the documents that the British investors allege are 'fake', be they invoices from Doxport to SingTel, used to procure investment or receipts for the telecom switches which the British citizens were led to believe they were investing in.
Those individuals involved in any alleged fraud must be held accountable for their actions, the world must see that Malaysian law is applicable to 'all Malaysians' and that nobody is above the law. I urge the Malaysian authorities to continue to investigate fully and without protraction and to get to the truth with justice.
Lord Ahmed of Rotherham
House of Lords, London ********************************************* Notes to Editors:
A Press Conference will be held in London this month by Lord Ahmed to highlight the case of the investors with several Members of Parliament and Journalists.
For further information on the Case please contact:
The Chambers of Kamarul Hisham & Hasnal Rezua, Kuala Lumpur. Tel: 603 6201 3566 or email seapress@bvimorg.uk
To attend or for further information on the UK Press Conference please contact: ukpress@bvim.org.uk
Further information outlining the Case can also be found as follows:
Web: www.BritishVictimsofInvestinginMalaysia.org.uk Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/British-Victims-of-Investing-in-Malaysia/144142372413916?ref=hl
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/BritishVictims
Please send any articles which you may undertake or web links to: articles@BVIM.org.uk
|
| Irritated by beliefs Posted: 06 Mar 2013 06:58 PM PST 
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once said that Malaysia is not ready to become a full democracy. Malaysia can only be a 'guided' democracy, as what Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore said. This means the people cannot be allowed to think, do and say whatever they like. Malaysians must be guided as to what they can think, do and say. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Some people believe that Muhammad is the final Prophet of God and that the only authentic holy book, the Qur'an, was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (which is the miracle of Prophet Muhammad) through Gabriel and that Muhammad flew up to God's Kingdom to receive the decree that humankind must pray five times a day (and where Muhammad also met Abraham, Moses and Jesus). Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Some people believe that Jesus was of a virgin birth and is the Son of God and that he died for the sins of humankind and came back to life three days later and that if we accept Jesus as the saviour then our soul will be saved. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Some people believe that the Jews are God's chosen people who were led out of slavery by Moses who parted the Red Sea to allow them to escape the Pharaoh and that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments for all humankind to follow plus God gave humankind His laws of Hudud. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Some people believe that you can ignore or mistreat your parents and put them in old folks' homes when they become senile and a burden and then you go to their graves to pray when they die plus you must choose the graveyard properly for good luck and positive fung shui. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Some people believe that you should build statues and place shrines around trees and treat them as Gods and pray to them and that if you are bad you will be reincarnated as a pig or a dog but if you are good you will be reincarnated as a handsome/beautiful Bollywood movie star. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Nevertheless, however silly these beliefs may seem, most people are prepared to live and let live and allow you these beliefs without scolding, cursing, vilifying or disparaging you and will not call you stupid for believing these silly things. They are, after all, your beliefs and you are entitled to those beliefs even though these beliefs may sound insane. Then, on top of that, there are people who believe that Malaysia is ready for a change of government and that the present government has ruled for too damn long and corruption, abuse of power, racism, an erosion of your fundamental liberties, etc., is so rampant and blatant because of that. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Then, on top of that, there are people who believe that it is futile to change governments because the new government we choose will be just as bad as the old government and that history has proven that countries that changed governments did not see any positive change and it was merely business as usual or old wine in a new bottle. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Nevertheless, while you may think that whether you change governments or you retain the present government is a matter of opinion and personal choice, most people will refuse to allow you this freedom of opinion and personal choice and they are not prepared to live and let live and allow you this belief without scolding, cursing, vilifying or disparaging you and call you stupid for believing these silly things. Isn't it strange? When it comes to religion, most people think you are silly for having these silly beliefs but they will keep silent and allow you to continue being silly. When it comes to politics, however, most people think you are silly for having these silly beliefs but they will not keep silent and allow you to continue being silly. In fact, religion is more irrational than politics. Nothing in religion can be proven and all religions work on the basis of the supernatural. Politics, however, can at least be argued supported by historical evidence. But while you are allowed your religious beliefs they will not allow you your political beliefs. They will scold, curse, vilify or disparage you if you take an opposite political stand but they do not do the same when you take an opposite religious stand. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once said that Malaysia is not ready to become a full democracy. Malaysia can only be a 'guided' democracy, as what Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore said. This means the people cannot be allowed to think, do and say whatever they like. Malaysians must be guided as to what they can think, do and say. When Dr Mahathir first said this I was flabbergasted. I thought that Dr Mahathir had become a raving lunatic and was talking absolute nonsense. What do you mean by 'guided' democracy? Isn't that like being slightly pregnant? Either you are or you are not. Over time, however, I began to understand the 'logic' in that most illogical statement, in particular over the last five years since 2008. Of late we have been seeing the evil side of Malaysians. And the conduct of Malaysians over these last five years has proven that Malaysians can't be trusted with absolute democracy. It is like giving a child a box of matches. Mostly likely the whole house will be burned to the ground. The Malays say, macam bagi bunga ke beruk, or, as the English would say: casting pearls before pigs. "Never give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them with their feet and then turn around and attack you." (Matthew 7:6). |
| The political assassination of Nurul Izzah Posted: 06 Mar 2013 04:34 PM PST 
KTemoc Konsiders Today I'll do a second post which has been triggered by what I have read at Malaysia-Today, namely: (a) RPK's Special Report Is Azmin Ali making his move or is this Sodomy 3? and (b) Free Malaysia Today's A move in PKR to oust Anwar's dynasty?  | | Puteri Reformasi Gunung Ledang | In a previous post titled Puteri Gunung Ledang's 8th condition?, my take on Malay unity, I had written of PKR's internal strife which started long ago. For my extracts to follow, I'll only start off from the last PKR party polls when we witnessed questionable and still unanswered party election process (reformasi my bloody foot!), as follows: Since its last party elections, PKR in reality has been a house divided, very very much divided. Jonson Chong (admittedly not a Malay-Muslim) like Zaid Ibrahim left PKR in frustration over the alleged dodgy-ness in the party election process, and in parting, advised Dr Wan Azizah:
"If the president still does not take some serious action to remedy this situation, then I'm afraid the party's days may be numbered with or without a new line-up. And let me unequivocally state that I am not addressing the de facto leader on this matter because I no longer recognize the validity of that position."
That PKR internal rivalry hasn't ended where we currently hear of Team A (headed by Azmin Ali and 101% back by Anwar Ibrahim – the team comprises PKR's 'inner coterie') in acrimonious rivalry with Team W (headed by Wan Azizah – the team has Nurul, Khalid Ibrahim, Faekah Husin, etc).
Where's the party unity, let alone Malay unity?
If you recall what happened before Zaid Ibrahim finally threw in the towel in exasperation, then you'd understand the vipers' nest that's PKR. If you can't, then feel free to read my posts:
In the last post I wrote:
When he was in PKR at the time leading to the party polls (before he tossed his hat into the election ring) Zaid Ibrahim was criticized for being erratic because one moment he said he would not challenge the deputy presidential post IF (initially) Nurul Izaah took up the challenge*, then IF (subsequently) Khalid Ibrahim did so, and the next (when both didn't he took up the challenge.
* Azmin Ali went into a panicky tizzy when Nurul casually mentioned her interests, and 'advised' Nurul against it because people would talk. Bet you Anwar had a few private words with Nurul
The standard anwaristas' cries against Zaid Ibrahim were his inconsistencies (in supporting Nurul, then Khalid, before standing as a candidate himself), and their accusations unimaginatively attacked Zaid for his lust for power.
But I didn't see any inconsistency in Zaid's manoeuvrings. In fact there was a very consistent objective in his support for firstly, Nurul, and subsequently for Khalid Ibrahim, before he personally challenged Azmin Ali in the party election.
That objective was to prevent Azmin Ali from coasting home on an Anwar-provided free ticket into the deputy president post. He wanted Azmin Ali stopped!
Now, on to RPK's question as reported by FMT: READ MORE HERE |
| Tian Chua: I didn’t say it was an Umno conspiracy Posted: 06 Mar 2013 03:14 PM PST 
The PKR vice-president does a U-turn and states that his controversial statement of an 'Umno conspiracy' referred to the media blackout. Anisah Shukry, FMT PKR vice-president Tian Chua today denied claiming the shootout in Lahad Datu was an Umno conspiracy, contradicting what was published in PKR organ KeadilanDaily on March 1. The KeadilanDaily article "Insiden tembakan di Lahad Datuk Konspirasi terancang Umno – Tian" (Shooting incident in Lahad Datu a planned conspiracy by Umno – Tian) sparked intense outrage among the public, who have taken to the streets as well as lodged police reports over Tian Chua's alleged statements. But Tian Chua stressed today the headline was not his own words and did not reflect his beliefs, urging the public to instead focus on the direct quotes published in the article, which is available online. "When I told the reporter I believed there was a conspiracy by the Umno government, I was referring only to the media blackout, and the fact that pro-Umno bloggers were claiming the opposition was behind the armed incursion in Sabah," Tian Chua, the Batu MP, said at a press conference here today. "When [the reporter] asked me about the shooting, I told the reporter: 'don't speculate, there has been no confirmation'. [This is because] it was 12pm at that time, and there was no news from Malaysian media [on Lahad Datu]." Lending credence to Tian Chua's denial is the fact that not one of his quotes in the article referred to the shootout itself. His three quotes in the article are: "We feel that it is strange that the Malaysian media did not report the incident. All sources of reports are from foreign media. "Where did they get the info when there are no media representatives allowed to cover it? In fact, we don't know how true the news that has been reported is. "There is a conspiracy by the Umno government to divert the Sabahans' attention, especially in the issue of ICs being distributed to Sabahans." But the article's headline as well as contents led readers to believe his quote on the "Umno conspiracy" was a direct reference to the shootout last Friday, in which two policemen and 12 armed intruders were killed. While Tian Chua today stopped short of calling the KeadilanDaily article misleading, he stressed that he was not responsible for how the editors had written the story. "That's always the case; I am only responsible for my direct quotes. It is the rights of the editor to arrange the news as they wish." He also said he stood by his position that the finger-pointing and media blackout were an Umno conspiracy, and hence refused to apologise over the matter. On Tuesday, Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor had sent a letter of demand for Tian Chua to apologise to the party or risk legal action. Responding to this, Tian Chua said: "The issue of apologising does not exist because I never insulted anyone. I wish to go to court and clarify this. I believe the judge is intelligent enough to read the article and know what I mean." READ MORE HERE |
| The great Maika Holdings and Telecom shares betrayal by MIC & Samy Vellu Posted: 06 Mar 2013 02:38 PM PST 
It is very apparent that he keeps a very tight hold on Maika. That being the case, how could Maika undertake any business venture without his knowledge and blessing? Shouldn't he be part of the debacle that is haunting Maika today? Shouldn't he also shoulder the blame for "the dismal performance of the Maika management?" Indrani Devi Dear Mr Najib Razak, we the Indian Community in Malaysia present the story below and know in our hearts you will respond Maika Holdings was touted as an economic vehicle and a miracle to lift the Indian poor from the shackles of poverty, Maika was launched with much hype and hope. The poor Indians – traditional MIC supporters, the lower middle-class and the working class Indians as well as a vast majority of plantation workers – were mesmerised into responding enthusiastically. The poor plantation workers put their life savings into the venture, some scraping the barrel, others mortgaging their property and pawning the last of their jewellery. A vast majority also took loans at exorbitant rates to invest in a venture that promised dreams of hopes and tantalising prospects. It's not only the poor Indians who responded to this call to rally behind MIC's efforts to secure seven percent of corporate ownership for the Indian community – which at that time had been stagnating at under one percent since 1960. Although the original plan by the MIC was to ensure that at least RM30 million worth of Maika shares were subscribed, so successful was the promotion campaign that by 1984, a phenomenal RM106 million was raised from almost 66,400 shareholders. A large majority of the shareholders are poor plantation workers. The largest individual shareholder with almost 2.8 million shares was MIC president S Samy Vellu. The amount invested in Maika was even larger than that obtained by MCA's Multi-Purpose Holdings when the company commenced business. When it started operations, Maika had one of the biggest cash reserves among Malaysian companies. At a time when business conglomerates like YTL, Berjaya, Malaysian Mining Corps, etc were practically unknown entities, Maika was already well known and if properly managed, would have been a billion dollar company now. However, in its 25 years of tortured history, Maika investors have known nothing but pain and sorrow. The new dawn of a golden opportunity that was promised to the Indian poor never arrived. Instead, each passing year only witnessed dashed hopes and broken promises that littered the chequered history of Maika. Many of the investors had since passed away, their spirits broken by the betrayal of the leader they trusted. What went wrong? It is a case of bad management, poor investment, sheer arrogance and pure greed. In spite of a number of major acquisitions made into some important companies – like the United Asian Bank (UAB), United Oriental Assurance (UOA), Malaysian Airlines System (MAS), Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (MISC), TV3 and Edaran Otomobil Malaysia Bhd (EON) – Maika's performance has been mediocre. There wasn't any fanfare when Maika was allotted 10 million shares of Syarikat Telekom Malaysia Bhd (STMB). It was assumed in 1990 that Maika had been allotted all the shares it had subscribed to. No details were made known at that time. Sometime in the middle of February 1992, the shroud of secrecy surrounding the Telekom shares allocation was ripped apart. Then, all hell broke loose. A journalist from Watan disclosed that "there could have been some hanky-panky in the allocation of Telekom's shares to Maika Holdings. This was then followed by another report in a Tamil magazine, Thoothan on April 1, 1992, which disclosed that there could have been some discrepancy in the distribution of the 10 million Telekom shares allocated to Maika by the Finance Ministry. Malaysians learned for the first time (two years after the share issuance), that Maika acquired only one million and not the entire 10 million shares that were allotted to Maika Holdings. Samy Vellu, through the Tamil Nesan and at MIC meetings, tried to explain by insisting that the cash flow problem faced by Maika did not allow Maika to take up all 10 million shares. But, one of the directors, a one-time ally of Samy Vellu, Vijendran, issued a statement insinuating that the truth may not have been told. When this matter was raised in parliament, then finance minister Anwar Ibrahim disclosed that since Maika had stated that it could take up only one million shares, the remaining nine million shares were allocated to three companies proposed by Maika because to his "ministry's knowledge, the three companies represented the interests of the Indian community" (The Star, April 30, 1992). Note: At the time of share allocation in 1990, Tun Daim Zainuddin was the finance minister. Maika did not reject the shares The mystery deepened and bewildered the shareholders when another Maika director, Pasamanikam, contradicted the statements made by Anwar and Samy Vellu. According to Pasamanikam, Maika did not reject the Finance Ministry's offer and did not propose that the nine million shares be allocated to any other company. He further revealed that Maika had indeed raised a RM50 million loan to facilitate the acquisition of the entire 10 million shares even before the Finance Ministry had withdrawn its offer. A tidal wave of questions engulfed the share holders: 1) Why did the Finance Ministry cancel the initial offer of the 10 million shares and subsequently allot only one million shares to Maika? 2) Who was responsible for the retraction of the original offer? 3) Who lied to the Finance Ministry? 4) Who informed them that Maika had recommended that the nine million shares be given to three companies? 5) Who supplied the names of these three companies? 6) Who coerced the Finance Ministry to change their mind? 7) Who aborted this offer? (There was no earthly reason for the Finance Ministry to change its mind on its own after having allocated 10 million shares). According to GK Rama Iyer, former managing director of Maika Holdings Bhd – as revealed in his press release dated May 16, 1992 : Samy Vellu was informed at 6.10am on Oct 5, 1990, that Maika had been offered 10 million STMB shares and of the probability of obtaining full loan financing and that Maika intended to take up the entire allocation of 10 million shares. Indeed, a letter dated Oct 5, 1990, from Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bankers Bhd. (AMMBB) – offering RM50 million to finance the purchase of the 10 million shares was received on Oct 6, 1990. There must have been a mistake He further clarified that Samy Vellu replied that "there must have been a mistake. The offer to Maika should be for one million and not 10 million" According to Samy Vellu, the remaining nine million shares were for allocation to "other MIC bodies". "Further, Samy Vellu stated that he would contact the ministry to clarify the position." It was then, after Samy Vellu had contacted the Finance Ministry; that the letter of offer was retracted and Maika's allocation reduced to only one million shares. Why did Samy Vellu prevent Maika from acquiring the 10 million shares? Wasn't Maika his brain-child to raise the corporate wealth of the Indian community so that their economic welfare would be secured? Wasn't he the leader of MIC which launched Maika as a business venture to enrich the community which had long been associated with deprivation and poverty? This was God-sent wealth. Why did he prevent this wealth from reaching Maika? Imagine how much Maika would have made from these shares for which it only paid RM5 per share. When Telekom shares were first traded, it fetched a price of RM6.15 per share and that too during a bearish market. By mid-1992 the share price was hovering around RM11-RM13. According to an article in the Aliran Monthly – 1993:13(10): Samy Vellu had taken away from Maika RM120 million in profits (which it would have attained had it just held on to the 10 million shares until 1993). They don't deserve 10 million shares Samy Vellu made it extremely clear that he personally decided to allocate only one million shares to Maika. According to Samy Vellu, "I could have given all the shares to Maika Holdings if not for their past business record. They don't deserve 10 million shares because of the dismal performance of the Maika management. They have to learn to do business on their own and not depend on shares and make money out of it". (New Straits Times May, 16 1992) His autocratic style and arrogance comes through so forcefully: "I could have given all the shares to Maika Holdings…," he boasts. "They don't deserve 10 million shares…," he berates. It is very apparent that he keeps a very tight hold on Maika. That being the case, how could Maika undertake any business venture without his knowledge and blessing? Shouldn't he be part of the debacle that is haunting Maika today? Shouldn't he also shoulder the blame for "the dismal performance of the Maika management?" And why should he give nine million shares to three obscure companies? SB Management Services Sdn. Bhd and Advanced Personal Computers Sdn Bhd were in fact shell companies with paid-up capital of RM2 each. The third company is Clearway Sdn. Bhd. Samy Vellu decided on the shares allocation – not the Ministry of Finance! On what criteria did Samy Vellu decide that the three companies deserve to get the Telekom shares instead of Maika? What business experience and success could these companies boast about to warrant their being chosen from among all the other Indian businesses in the country? Serious conflict of interest There was a serious case of conflict of interest involved in this scandal. A director of Maika was also a shareholder and director of one of the three companies, all of which divided the nine million Telekom shares equally. Lim Kit Siang named this person as R Selvendra on May 7, 1992. Two of the three companies – Advance Personal Computers and SB Management Services – shared the same business address: Level 2, Block F-North, Damansara Town Centre, Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur. These two companies had the same company secretary: S. Balasubramaniam. Significantly, S Balasubramaniam and S Sothinathan were both directors and shareholders of these two companies. Note: Sothinathan is none other than the present MIC vice-president and MP for Teluk Kemang. Samy Vellu rewarded a person who helped him hijack the Telekom shares by making him a deputy minister and could also probably groom him for future leadership of MIC. Do we need leaders like this? If the 10 million STMB shares were allocated for the MIC, who would be the natural inheritors of these shares on behalf of the Indian community – Maika with its 66,400 shareholders or three insignificant private companies with six shareholders? Does this information in any way suggest that these three companies represented the interests of the Indian community? Who lied to the Finance Ministry that these "three companies represented the interests of the Indian community"? What was the motive for diverting nine million shares to three private companies? Those who sought to find the answers were threatened or beaten up. One brave soul who went on a crusade to expose this scandal was stabbed in Penang. Whenever questions regarding Maika were raised at MIC meetings presided by Samy Vellu, it was alleged that thugs would suddenly appear beside the person asking the question and that would be the end of the affair to seek answers. On May 13, 1992, the then Selangor assemblyman for Seri Cahaya S Sivalingam (now deceased), had also acted as a thug when he led an assault on Maika shareholders who were peacefully picketing against the Maika Telekom shares scandal outside the Maika headquarters. In October 2006, the MIC Johor assemblyman for Tenggaroh, the late S Krishnasamy assaulted M. Kulasegaran the DAP MP for Ipoh Barat at the Maika annual general meeting (AGM) at Legend Hotel. Even though Kulasegaran lodged a police report, no action was taken against Krishnasamy. Some years ago, it was claimed that at one particular MIC meeting at the Dewan Sri Pinang in Penang, chaired by Samy Vellu, a Maika shareholder wanted to know the position of Maika. It was alleged that Samy Vellu told this shareholder that he would provide the answer after the adjournment for refreshment. In the meantime two thugs confronted this shareholder and told him that if he wanted to return home in one piece it was the right time to go home. When the meeting resumed, Samy Vellu reportedly called for the shareholder to repeat his query. But since he wasn't there, Samy Vellu continued with his meeting without touching on the subject of Maika. What is puzzling is the fact that in spite of so much overwhelming evidence, the Anti- Corruption Agency (ACA) after 17 months of investigation cleared Samy Vellu of any wrong-doing but unfortunately without clearing the doubts in the minds of the Malaysians. In 1994, the then chairman of MIC public claims committee, V Subramaniam – also known as Barat Maniam – made a startling public accusation. He charged that the accounts were fabricated to make it appear as if all the profits from the sale of Telekom shares were channelled to MIED. In challenging Samy to take him to court, he declared, "I have come out with this statement to prove that Samy Vellu is a thief. He has stolen (Telekom) shares from the Indian community." Maika Scandal refuses to be buried In spite of 25 years of history, the Maika scandal refuses to be buried. It keeps on surfacing, haunting and hounding the perpetrators of a crime that robbed the poor of their fair share. The controversy surrounding the Maika-Telekom shares scandal appears to be far from over. Promises were made; time and again, that Maika shareholders will get their hard earned money back. But not a penny was paid. At each Maika annual general meeting, the shareholders continue to press for answers. Often the meeting degenerates into violence as 'thugs' linked to the MIC president rough up those who dare ask questions. Samy Vellu appointed his son Vell Paari as CEO of Maika Holdings in 1999. He is now in the process of selling off the few remaining assets of Maika Holdings. Samy Vellu is very much in control of MIC, and he runs the party as a feudal organisation where he makes all the decisions. He has systematically hounded many capable leaders out of MIC to maintain his iron grip in the party. His deputies and committee members are loyal minions who will not hesitate to do anything and everything he says. After years in power, MIC is now a rotting mass, particularly in the head. Instead of serving the Indian community, MIC has become a party that serves only its leaders while millions of Indians face untold misery. The poor Indians have remained poor while those close to Samy Vellu became rich beyond their own expectations. MIC exists for the benefit of its leaders, not the poor Indian community. Now Mr Prime Minister, can you just ignore these contentious issues that have destroyed the lives of thousands of your citizens? The entire Indian community awaits your response and our votes hang on your action. |
| ZI Publications director charged with publishing, spreading, possessing Irshad Manji's book Posted: 06 Mar 2013 02:05 PM PST 
(The Star) - The director of ZI Publications was charged in a Lower Syariah Court here with three counts of publishing, spreading and possessing the controversial Irshad Manji's book in last year. Mohd Ezra Mohd Zaid (pix), 30, however, claimed trial to the three alternative charges before Syarie judge Saharuddin Selamat on Thursday. He was alleged to have committed the offence at ZI Publications in Merchant Square in Jalan Tropicana Selatan 1 here in May, last year. The prosecution was led by Selangor Syarie prosecution chief Abdul Shukor Abdul Hamid while Mohd Ezra was represented by Syarie counsel Zulkifli Che Yong. The court later fixed May 9 for mention. |
| Is Dr M really the devil? Posted: 06 Mar 2013 01:48 PM PST
The country's public institutions could not have been ravaged without the blessing of the electorate, especially the non-Malays. G Vinod, FMT Dr Mahathir Mohamad, that name itself would evoke strong mixed reactions from various quarters, politically savvy or otherwise. Those who thrived under his leadership could see no fault in the man. Nevertheless, a large section of the masses revile and blame him for all the ills plaguing Malaysia. The man's 22-year iron-fisted rule brought prosperity to Malaysia, not to mention putting our beloved nation on the world map. For that, we must thank the man. However, during his administration we saw human rights and the independence of our public institutions taking a backseat, paving the way for rampant corruption and abuse of power. But this article is not about Mahathir. This piece is about the voters who gave him near absolute power to lord over us for more than two decades. The writer recalls a conversation he had with former corporate colleagues in 2008, when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's government provided compensation to the judges victimised by Mahathir during the infamous 1988 judicial crisis. When discussing the gross injustice the judges suffered, one colleague said: "As long as the economy is good, who cares about the judiciary?" The answer stumped the writer. When the conversation veered towards rampant corruption and abuse of power, another colleague replied: "For Chinese ah, as long as the economy is good, this is all that matters." It is not the intention of the writer to talk about the good or the bad of any race but let's call a spade as spade. It was that sort of attitude that kept Mahathir smiling during his premiership. Barisan Nasional, during Mahathir's leadership, was kept alive and kicking by the non-Malays. This is a reality that was even acknowledged by the former prime minister on many occasions. The business community thrived. For the non-Malay businessmen, as long as the Bumiputera requirements were fulfilled, they prospered during the economic boom of the 1990s, aided by Mahathir's business-friendly policies. The working class Indians suffered under Mahathir's rule, but a majority of them hero-worshipped the man nonetheless. Many of them loathed former MIC president S Samy Vellu even then, but their love for Mahathir superseded their hatred for the man, resulting in them voting for BN for many years. The Malays, however, were wary of Mahathir. Some of them were his harshest critics. That resulted in the Malay votes to be split from the late 1970s, between Umno and PAS. But the strange part now is that, the Malays do not vilify Mahathir much but the non-Malays make the most noise about the evils of Mahathir. Malays ready to discard BN Just peruse the comments made after an article is written about Mahathir. The man is called by many names; Mamak Kutty, Mahazalim, Mahafiraun, Kerala Kutty, just to name a few. And some of this racially charged attacks against Mahathir come from the non-Malays, those who are supposedly aspiring to break Malaysia's racial and religious barriers. Looking at the comments posted, it can be assumed that those who resort to such attacks range from the ages of 20 to 40. Now to those people of that age group who revile Mahathir, here is a test. Go back home and ask your parents and their peers which party they voted for between 1981 and 2003. If they say they have voted for the opposition, well and good. But if they say that they had voted for BN, it is best to target your attacks against them first before hitting out at Mahathir. READ MORE HERE |
| Maika Holdings Saga Posted: 06 Mar 2013 12:26 PM PST 
Using the Maika Holdings money, the gang bought into well-run companies and turned them upside down by appointing their own people to run these companies, squandering away the profits with luxurious parties and lavish parties, and, finally, by closing down these companies. They plundered in epic proportions. Bernard Anthony One of the main reasons why MIC President S Samy Vellu should leave the MIC is because he, along with his group of gangsters, robbed the Indian people of an enormous amount of money through Maika Holdings. And they still remain at large. Maika Holdings raised RM108 million in 1981 from Indians, especially rural folks from the lower- and middle-income groups. These people were told to use their life savings – and even sell their jewelry – to invest in Maika Holdings because they were told the company would give them returns that were 10 to 20 times their initial investment. This, of course, is sweeter an offer than any licensed bank could make. Samy Vellu, whose rhetoric needs no introduction, managed to fool these mostly not-so-well- educated individuals into parting with their money. If you ask anyone who was in MIC at that time about how they organised groups of people to go out there to convince the masses to part with their money, you will be surprised. They even went to the extent of telling would-be investors to sell their properties and cattle to invest in Maika Holdings. In other countries, this would have been considered a huge financial scandal, not just because of the amount of money involved, but because of the number of people involved in fleecing equally vast numbers of poor and less-educated citizens. The RM108 million then had a buying power that was 10 to 15 times its value today. In today's terms, it would be valued between RM1 billion and RM1.5 billion. Shortly after the initial investments were collected, the recession in the mid-1980s enabled the cash-rich Maika Holdings to go shopping for properties and collect fantastic deals. If those properties were still in the hands of Maika Holdings, the company would be worth some RM3 billion to RM5 billion today. But those properties were sold at below-market prices through shady deals in which more money was transferred under the table than through actual and legal sales agreements. Some of us may also remember the Telekom shares scandal, in which Maika Holdings was extended an offer to buy Telekom shares during its initial public offering (IPO). But Maika Holdings did not buy the Telekom shares. Instead, Samy Vellu bought them through his personal company, because Maika Holdings, supposedly, did not have the money to do so. Maika Holdings could have made RM30 million, but this opportunity was hijacked by the sole defender and representative of the Indian community. Telekom was only the first privatised government department. Since then, many other government agencies and departments have been privatised. As with Telekom Malaysia, shares were offered to Maika Holdings, but the offers were hijacked over and over again by Samy Vellu and his gang. Using the Maika Holdings money, the gang bought into well-run companies and turned them upside down by appointing their own people to run these companies, squandering away the profits with luxurious parties and lavish parties, and, finally, by closing down these companies. They plundered in epic proportions. To date, Maika shareholders have received almost nothing for their investments. The Maika Holdings scandal has cost many their life savings, property, opportunities to send their children for advanced education and so much more. Recently, during a political speech, Samy Vellu announced that he will return RM1.30 for every RM1 invested in Maika Holdings and set a deadline of 100 days to do so. At the end of the deadline, however, he conveniently turned around and said that he has nothing to do with Maika Holdings because Maika Holdings is a business enterprise and he is only the president of MIC. The managing director of Maika Holdings, Vel Pari, the son of Samy Vellu, then said that he did not know of any such deadline and, as such, is not bound to honour any kind of commitment. Those who had the courage to go to Maika Holdings' annual general meeting last year were met by thugs who intimidated and harassed anyone who raised questions about the management. Death threats and armed assaults are not uncommon at Maika Holdings' annual general meetings. No wonder the MIC is considered the most violent political party in Malaysia with two MPs shot dead by assailants in recent years, one or two knocked down by cars (in what are supposed to be accidents) and some even slashed by parang-wielding gangsters. But Samy Vellu and gang have been allowed to continue plundering Maika Holdings without any accountability. And they were never questioned by the government, Bank Negara, the former prime minister or even the present prime minister. The MIC's handling of Maika Holdings was a con job approved and blessed by the highest public office. Perhaps it's because Indians are the disenfranchised lot in this country that Samy Vellu can do anything, as long as he delivers the votes every election. The government's total apathy regarding this scandal shows its attitude towards Indians – we are nobody's children. This injustice – this lack of government oversight – is happening in Malaysia, a country that is, supposedly, a leader among developing countries and is supposed to be a 'developed nation' in 12 years. If the government is serious about showing its commitment to the Indians, start by asking Samy Vellu to step down. Get Maika Holdings cleaned up and bring to justice those who have been responsible for cheating its shareholders. Don't be so stupid as to think that all we want are a few temples to be left in a few squatter areas. We know that as long as they are in squatter land, they will have to go. And repairing a few Tamil schools in some estates is like throwing us table scraps. Show us that the government cares about Malaysian Indians as equal citizens who are entitled to equal protection under the law. |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
