Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The principle of the unprincipled (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 09:15 PM PDT

I remember back in the days of Semangat 46, which was basically a party of ex-Umno members and leaders. They, too, toured the country singing like a canary. Even the most respected and revered 'Bapak Merdeka', Tunku Abdul Rahman, and the most cursed and hated 'Bapak May 13', Datuk Harun Idris, allied with Semangat 46 and went all over Malaysia to whack Umno kau-kau.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tunku Aziz: DAP a political circus

(Bernama) - "They are a political circus," said Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim of DAP when asked what he thought of the party's intention to field advisor Lim Kit Siang in the Gelang Patah parliamentary seat in the coming general election.

"You go to one place and you pitch your tent and, when the circus is over, you take down your tent and move to another circus. This is what they have been doing," said the former vice-chairman of DAP.

The DAP had announced recently that the 73-year-old veteran politician and Ipoh Timur MP would be fielded in the hot seat, also eyed by Johor DAP chairman Dr Boo Cheng Hau and Johor PKR chairman Datuk Chua Jui Meng.

The DAP stalwart had previously contested in several parliamentary seats since the 1969 General Election, among them Bandar Melaka, Petaling, Kota Melaka, Tanjong and Bukit Bendera.

Speaking to Bernama, Tunku Abdul Aziz, the former president of Transparency International-Malaysia, said the DAP's practice had negative implications for the voters and the nation.

"You elect them and they do not do anything at all for the constituency and then they move ... this is not good. ""If you watch Lim Kit Siang's progress ... political progress ... it has been the same story, election after election and after election," he said.

Tunku Abdul Aziz cautioned voters to vote with their heads and not their hearts when exercising their rights. Shaking his head, he said the party should have advised its elected members of parliament to serve the people who had voted for them through thick and thin.

********************************************

According to a friend in the Finance Ministry, 90% of the success of the Income Tax and Customs Departments depend on information from insiders. These are people who once were part of the gang (or working for the 'gang' -- such as the accountants) and have now turned informer or 'state witness'. I was told the rewards are pretty lucrative, 50% of whatever the government succeeds in recovering.

Sometimes the government uses deception to rope in informers. For example: say a gang got away with a bank robbery to the tune of RM1 million. The police would then announce that the robbery amounted to RM1.5 million. This would turn the bank robbers against each other because they think that the others in the gang have cheated them. Hence they end up becoming police informers to get revenge on those who have cheated them.

I, too, depend on Deep Throats, people who were in one way or another involved with whatever was going on. And, of course, you need to trust your Deep Throats because not always are there documents to support what they say so you need to depend on their word.

The track record of these Deep Throats also counts. They may have been giving you information since the last few years and thus far all the information they have given has never been wrong. One Deep Throat I depended on regarding information about the night Altantuya was murdered was someone I had known for 50 years since 1963. That is longer than I have known my wife.

Nevertheless, in spite of knowing this chap for 50 years, I still found the information he gave quite incredible until I counter-checked the story with Anwar Ibrahim and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and both of them confirmed the reliability of the information. Only then did I decide to run with it.

Anyway, the point is, who better to know about what is going on inside a certain gang or organisation if not some insider? We on the outside can only hear stories. Those on the inside were part of what was going on.

Hence it is not surprising that Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim is able to sing like a canary. He was once one of the 'gang members' of DAP plus he sat in the top leadership and was privy to the most inner secrets of that party. Hence he would know what many of us would not know.

The question is: is it ethical and noble for Tunku Aziz to now sing like a canary when he used to be one of the birds flocking with the other birds of that same feather? The opposition supporters, in particular the DAP supporters, would definitely say no. They would regard him as a traitor who should not be kissing and telling.

Nevertheless, if it is principles that we worry about, then how principled are people like Anwar Ibrahim, Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Aspan Alias, Ariff Sabri Aziz, and many more of those other ex-Umno leaders who have now joined the opposition and are singing like a canary to reveal what went on in Umno at the time they were in Umno? And who better to reveal what went on and is still going on in Umno than these ex-Umno leaders?

And we must not forget that Tunku Rahman was very hurt and upset about May 13 and never forgave those from Umno who he blamed for May 13 -- Datuk Harun being one of the major players with blood on his hands. Yet Tunku Rahman and Datuk Harun could join forces in Semangat 46 to whack Umno.

And did not DAP and PAS enter into an alliance with Semangat 46 (called Gagasan Rakyat and Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah respectively), a party where some of the leaders had the blood of May 13 on their hands? And was not DAP and PAS excited that the Semangat 46 ex-Umno leaders were now whacking Umno, the party they were once part of?

Principles are one thing. I am all for principles. But how can we say it is unprincipled for ex-DAP leaders to whack DAP but extremely principled for ex-Umno leaders to whack Umno?

This is where Pakatan Rakyat supporters lack principles and hide behind their lack of principles to talk about principles. Let us not hide behind the word 'principle' to deny others their right to free speech, even if what they say upsets us. We can tell Tunku Aziz to shut the fuck up and not talk about DAP if we also tell Anwar Ibrahim, Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Aspan Alias, Ariff Sabri Aziz, etc., to shut the fuck up and not talk about Umno.

*************************************************

The principle of the unprincipled

没有原则者的原则

我想起了当年的64精神党，一个充满了前巫统会员的政党。他们也一样，周游全马大暴巫统内幕。就连我们最尊重的国父东姑阿都拉曼也和最讨厌的'513之父' Datuk Harun Idris 与64精神党联手'厚厚'地给巫统扒了一层皮。

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

东姑阿都阿兹：行动党就像是政治马戏团

（马新社）---- "他们就像是政治马戏团，"东姑阿都阿兹对行动党党魁林吉祥有意在振林山竞选的看法。

"他们去一个地方搭帐篷，当马戏团表演结束后，他们收起帐篷搬到别处，这就是他们的所作所为。" 前行动党副主席如此表示。

行动党日前宣布73岁的林吉祥将会出征这个热席。振林山之前也是柔佛行动党主席巫程豪和柔佛公正党主席蔡锐明有意竞选的国席。

林吉祥从1969年开始在不同地方竞选国席，包括马六甲市，八打灵，丹绒，升旗山等。

也是马来西亚透明国际前主席的东姑阿都阿兹表示，行动党的做法将对选民和国家带来负面影响。

"你选了他们，但他们没有为选区做些什么就去了其它地方。。。这是不好的""如果你观察林吉祥的政治路途。。。都是一样的故事，一个又一个又一个的选举，"

东姑阿都阿兹告诫选民们，应该用他们的头脑而不是心情来履行他们的权力。他摇头的说，行动党应该劝告党内中选的议员们，无论时好时坏，都应该服务那些把票投给他们的选民

********************************************

根据我一个在财政部的朋友，90%税务局的成功行动都是靠线人所提供的消息。那些曾经是'集团'其中一员的（或曾经为'集团'工作的，如会计师）会变成线人，或者是'国家证人'。我听说线人的回报是满吸引人的，大约是政府成功收回的50%

有时候政府会设局来套住那些线人。例如，一帮抢匪打劫了银行100万，那警方就会放出打抢了150万的风声。那些匪徒就会互相猜忌，因为他们会认为被彼此给坑了，然后总会有一些成员为了要报复而成为警方的线人。

而我当然也很依靠我的'深喉'（即线人），那些跟事情有挂钩的一员。你当然必须很相信你的'深喉'，因为有时候他们所透露的消息都是没有证据的。

那些'深喉'的过去表现当然也很重要。他们可能给你放消息放了几年，而他们的消息都是正确的。关于阿丹杜亚（Altantuya ）谋杀案的'深喉'，我已经认识了他50年，那是比我认识我老婆还要久！

虽然说我认识了他50年，我还是认为他的消息是匪夷所思的。直到安华和登姑拉扎利（Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah ）跟我确认那消息的可靠性，我才决定接受它。

我在此要表达的是，有谁比内幕人还更清楚那个'集团'所发生的事情呢？我们这些外人只有听故事的份儿。那些内幕人才真正的清楚所发生的东西。

所以，东姑阿都阿兹对行动党内部消息的掌握进而大暴消息不应该是个很惊奇的状况。他曾经是党内的一员，而且身居高职，知道很多高层秘密。他当然知道很多我们不知道的东西。

问题是，东姑阿都阿兹，之前曾经是那'集团'的一员，如今站出来大暴内幕，此举有违道德操守否？反对党支持者，尤其是行动党支持者，肯定认为这是有违操守的。他们会列东姑为一个永远应该闭嘴的叛徒。

话虽如此，如果我们现在谈及的是原则上的问题，那请问，那些前巫统会员如安华，Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Aspan Alias, Ariff Sabri Aziz, 等等在加入了民联以后就站出来大暴巫统的内幕时，他们又有原则吗？然而，如果他们不说的话，又有谁又会更清楚揭出巫统内幕呢？

我想起了当年的64精神党，一个充满了前巫统会员的政党。他们也一样，周游全马大暴巫统内幕。就连我们最尊重的国父东姑阿都拉曼也和最讨厌的'513之父' Datuk Harun Idris 与64精神党联手'厚厚'地把巫统给扒皮。

我们必须记得国父对于513事件是多么的伤心。他从来没有原谅过那些应该为513事件负责的人，而Datuk Harun Idris 就是其中一个双手沾满了鲜血的幕后操手。然而，国父还是和Datuk Harun Idris 联合64精神党来对抗巫统。

当年64党某些领导者还是513事件的操纵者，但行动党和伊斯兰党不是也曾经和64党联合过吗（当时分别被称为Gagasan Rakyat 和 Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah）？当64党狠狠地大暴巫统内幕时，行动党和伊斯兰党难道不感到高兴吗？

原则就是原则，我就是个很有原则的人。但我们能够说前行动党员站出来大骂行动党就是没有原则的，而前巫统党员站出来大骂巫统党就是很有原则的？

这就是民联支持者没有原则的地方；他们躲在没有原则里大谈原则。我们不应该打着'原则'这个幌子来妨碍他人的言论自由，虽说他人讲的可能不是对我们有利的。当我们够胆叫安华，Lajim Ukin, Wilfred Bumburing, Aspan Alias, Ariff Sabri 等人闭上他们的狗嘴别再扯巫统后腿时，我们才有资格叫东姑阿都阿兹也闭上他的狗嘴别再扯行动党的后腿。

The consistency of inconsistency

Posted: 25 Mar 2013 06:46 PM PDT

Let me explain it this way. I make an allegation that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once told me that he has evidence that Anwar Ibrahim is gay. I then ask the police to investigate Dr Mahathir. The police then arrest and charge for the crime of defaming Anwar. Did I make an allegation against Anwar or did I make an allegation against Dr Mahathir? And are Dr Mahathir and Anwar government officers?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

A-G has no power, desire, guts or clearance?

Ravinder Singh, The Malaysian Insider

What rubbish is the Attorney-General talking "I have no power to investigate Bala's SD2"? So who has the power, or has nobody such power? Are we to believe that feudalism still holds sway in Malaysia?

The case is about the two police officers Sirul Azhar and Azilah Hadri who were sentenced to death. Has the case against them been proven beyond doubt? SD2 casts a very serious doubt on their guilt. They may have pulled the trigger, wrapped the corpse in C4 and ignited it, but all this by itself does not prove their guilt. It must be shown that they had a motive to do what they did. If the intention to annihilate all traces of Altantuya Shaariibuu was not theirs, then they cannot be sentenced to death even though they pulled the trigger.

It was mandatory for the court to find the motive for their doing so. This the court did not do. Instead it came out with a novel argument that MOTIVE was not relevant. This was to camouflage its refusal to find the motive, not that motive is no longer relevant in all criminal proceedings in this country. Why? Did the court have the power to take it upon itself to overrule the requirement to discover the motive for the crime before passing sentence? Do courts not have to adhere to all the principles of justice in carrying out their duties?

Could the learned A-G please explain to Malaysians why MOTIVE is not relevant in this particular case while it is all-important in all other criminal cases? Please show us where is the court's power to overrule the requirement to discover the motive, the basic ingredient of a criminal case.

The confession by the senior lawyer who prepared the SD2 is new evidence. Any new evidence coming to light, even decades later, must be investigated. That is the hallmark of a justice system that upholds justice.

In the murder case of Jean Perera Sinnappa, a witness who gave false evidence confessed to it a few days later. Why could that case be re-opened and re-investigated? As a result, the person sentenced to death was freed and the confessor jailed for giving false evidence. Is the A-G saying that the power which the A-G or the court had at that time has been removed by some amendment to some law? And if so, please tell us the rationale for removing that power to re-open cases (especially involving the death penalty) when new evidence, in any form, surfaces?

Of all people, the A-G should know and uphold the adage that justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done. The court's ruling that MOTIVE was irrelevant in this case only shows that justice was not seen to have been done. Now the A-G's refusal to take cognizance of the senior lawyer's confession and re-open the case is further evidence that justice is not seen to be done. There is a Malay saying: "Jika hendak seribu daya, jika tidak seribu dalih". So, dear A-G, if you want it you can do it!

When lives are at stake, should our justice system be so cruel as to arrogantly shut the door to justice by giving all manner of excuses which are aptly described in Malay as "tak masuk akal"?

********************************************

Ravinder Singh's letter to The Malaysian Insider makes interesting reading indeed. I am not sure whether this chap is a lawyer and not being a lawyer myself I can't comment on his legal arguments. What I do want to comment about, however, is regarding the inconsistency between how the Attorney-General (AG) handled P.I. Bala's Statutory Declaration (SD) and how he handled mine, which were both more or less about the same matter.

When I signed my SD the month before Bala signed his, the AG reacted very differently from the way he reacted (and is still reacting) regarding Bala's SD. Bala was also treated differently. Bala was given a Malaysian passport and was allowed to leave the country and later allowed to return to Malaysia many times -- and eventually for good -- while I am not being allowed a Malaysian passport.

Anyway, that could be because Bala left the country 'legally' while I did not -- I sneaked out. Hence I committed a crime while Bala did not -- which means he can be allowed a passport and also allowed back into Malaysia while I cannot. I can understand that.

Anyway, that is not the point. The point I want to discuss is that the very next day after an Umno Blogger revealed that I had signed the SD (which was supposed to be confidential and hence I do not know how the Umno Blogger got his hands on it) the AG announced that I had signed a false SD and that they (the AG's office) will be taking action against me.

First of all, this was what the Blogger reported. The AG had not even seen a copy of that SD yet. Hence he did not know at that time whether such a SD even existed. Nevertheless, he already announced that the SD was false and that they would take action against me for signing a false SD.

The AG's office had also not started any investigation yet -- not only whether this SD existed or not but whether what was mentioned in that SD was true or false. However, even without confirming the existence of this SD and, if it did, whether the contents were true or not, he announced that they would be taking action against me for signing a false SD.

The very next day, without investigating whether the SD did or did not exist and whether the contents were true or not, the IGP also announced that the SD is false and that the police were going to charge me for signing a false SD.

How did both the AG and IGP know I had signed a false SD? They had not even started any investigation yet. It was not until the following week that the police called me in for my statement to be recorded. And my statement was recorded based on a so-called police report made against me.

Now, according to the AG and IGP, my crime is for signing a false SD -- a SD that they had not even seen yet and which they did not know whether it existed or not since it was supposed to be confidential and for the eyes of only the Prosecutors in the Altantuya murder trial. However, when they brought me to court to charge me, they did not charge me for the crime of signing a false SD. They charged me for the crime of criminal defamation.

First of all, how did they know I had committed criminal defamation? They never interrogated or took the statements of those people mentioned in the SD. How could they come to the conclusion that I had defamed those three people I was charged with defaming? Are they clairvoyant?

Secondly, criminal defamation applies only when you defame a government officer in the execution of his/her duties. Is Rosmah Mansor, the wife of the then Deputy Prime Minister, a government officer? Even now, as the so-called 'First Lady', she is not a government officer. So how could I be charged for criminally defaming her?

As for the husband-and-wife Lt. Col. team, they may be government/army officers, but were they on duty at the time I alleged that they were at the site of Altantuya's murder? Isn't it damaging to the government to admit that after midnight on the night of Altantuya's murder they were still on duty? What were their 'duties' after midnight on the night Altantuya was murdered?

Hence, if the government thinks that I had signed a false SD, then why not charge me for that crime rather than for some other crime that I did not commit? I mean, if I robbed a bank then charge me for the crime of robbing the bank. Why charge me for the crime of fraud and say that I misled the bank teller into handing over the money that does not belong to me. The crime is robbery, not fraud.

And the third and more troubling part of this whole thing is that I was alleged to have defamed Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Even if I am guilty of defaming someone, it is not Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. I had defamed. I defamed a fourth person -- who I was never charged for defaming. I defamed the number two of the military intelligence that I alleged had made that allegation against Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols.

Hence, even if I did commit a crime of criminal defamation, it is not Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. I defamed but the number two in the military intelligence, who I was never charged for defaming.

And that was why when they charged me in court I refused to reply to the charge, which took the court by surprise. I told the court that the charge was defective plus mala fide. Charge me for criminal defamation if you wish but not for defaming Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Charge me for defaming the number two of the military intelligence.

I refused to stand trial on a bogus charge. Hence I refused to answer to that charge. The court can, if it so wishes, then send me to jail. I was prepared for that. However, the court refused to accept my refusal to answer to that charge and instead insisted that they take that as a plea of not guilty.

I was furious. I shouted at the judge and told him that I did not enter a plea of not guilty. The judge ignored me and set bail. I refused to accept bail and instead walked out of court and headed straight for the lockup below with the police officer chasing after me while trying to persuade me to stay in court and accept bail.

For two years I tried explaining that I never made any allegation against Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Instead, I had made an allegation against the number two of the military intelligence. Why, therefore, was I arrested and charged for something I did not do? Why not charge me for a crime I did commit -- if the government is of the view that I had committed a crime?

But all this fell on deaf ears. Finally, I went on TV3 to explain exactly as I had written above. This interview was done in Perth, Australia, after consultation with a few friends who were in Sydney together with me. These friends thought it was a good idea that I go on TV and explain the details.

Of course, today, that TV3 interview has been interpreted as me having done a U-turn. I don't know in what way I did a U-turn. In fact, a copy of that SD was shown in that TV interview. So we are still talking about the same SD, not a new SD or SD2 like in Bala's case.

What TV3 wanted to know is what were the circumstances and reasons behind me signing that SD. So I explained what happened and the reason why I signed the SD. This, however, has been interpreted as me withdrawing that SD.

I did not withdraw the SD. Instead, I explained the story behind that SD. And when the Malaysian police met up with me in the Malaysian Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, soon after that TV interview to record my statement, I repeated what I had said in that TV3 interview without changing one bit of my story and I signed that police statement.

The AG says he has no power or authority to take action on Bala's SD2. But he did take action on my SD. And the action he took was against me. Bala, no doubt, has since died. But Bala was in the country a few weeks before he died. Yet the AG did nothing. And if Bala had not died the AG would most likely still do nothing.

Why is that? And why was Bala allowed back into the country and allowed to travel all over the country to give talks all over the place? I would never have been allowed the same. Why?

Is it because they had made a deal with Bala? In that case, what deal did they make with him? I am beginning to suspect that they are not giving Bala the same treatment that they are giving me.

Okay, you can say that my SD is based on hearsay. You can argue that what I said was what someone told me and not what I saw with my own eyes. But was not Bala's SD also based on hearsay? His SD was about what Razak Baginda and Altantuya told him, not what he personally saw. That is also hearsay, just like what I said.

When Bala signed his first SD he was considered a hero. Even Anwar Ibrahim gave him red carpet treatment at the PKR headquarters. When he signed his second SD, he was called an Indian Pariah, a turncoat, a traitor, etc., and was nicknamed 'Bala U-turn'. Then he again did a U-turn and said that SD1 is true while SD2 is false. And, again, he became a hero and was given red carpet treatment and garlanded.

Signing two contradicting SDs is a serious crime. Why does the AG say he has no power and authority to do anything? And if the AG is powerless to take action until and unless a police report has been made, many police reports have already been made. The AG can pick and choose from the many police reports to take action against Bala. Why did he not do this?

And if the AG really has no power or authority to take action, why then did he take action against me and announce that he is taking action against me even before he could confirm the existence of the SD and confirm the authenticity of that SD, if it did exist?

Many people, especially those from the opposition, scream about justice, good governance, selective prosecution, and whatnot. Actually, these people do not even know what that means. If they really mean what they say then they can clearly see that the manner the AG handled Bala and the manner he handled me are glaringly based on two different standards of justice.

And if you were really a believer in justice, then you would focus on what I said in my SD and not what you imagine I said or wish I had said. And because of this I no longer believe that the opposition people are true proponents of justice. They twist what I had said and allege I had said what I did not say. And this makes the opposition exactly like the government we are trying to kick out.

If you believe that a lie is okay as long as we lie about the government and not lie about the opposition, then your fight is not my fight. That is the plain and simple truth of my perjuangan.

Some of you say I have turned. Of course I have turned. I have turned against those in the opposition who behave just like those in the government. And being a victim of these untruths I, of all people, should know this.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 26 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan