Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia at the crossroads
The Deepak-Bala marriage: in Deepak’s own words
Umno Incorporated (part 4)
Umno Incorporated (part 3)
Umno Incorporated (part 2)
Umno Incorporated (part 1)
Do you get it now?
So, what do you think now?
Jaw, jaw rather than war, war
History, not theology

Posted: 13 Mar 2013 07:41 AM PDT

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. So Umno ensures that the Malays never forget history and that once upon a time Malay territory was colonised for 446 years before it saw independence again mainly because the Malays were not united and that it is possible this can happen again if the Malays do not remain united.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Why do we need to learn history? One reason would be because those who do not know or forget history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. My usual example would be Hitler. He repeated Napoleon's mistake and thus suffered Napoleon's fate. Nevertheless, looking at things on hindsight is always easy. Everyone can be an expert on hindsight. It is whether one has foresight that matters.

The second reason for learning history would be so that one can develop analytical skills. Are you able to look at history from an unbiased and critical eye and analyse the events for what they were at that particular time and place? Most times we would judge history from our own point of view. And our own point of view would be influenced by our value system. And this value system would, in turn, be influenced by society's norms depending on era and region.

For example, how would you view the Conquistadors of the 1500s -- soldiers, explorers and adventurers in the service of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires? They were initially set up to recapture the Iberian Peninsula that was under Muslim control known as Al Andalus. Over the next 200 years they sailed through most of the world to conquer new territories on behalf of Spain and Portugal.

For all intents and purposes, the Conquistadors were professionally trained soldiers or mercenaries who were very ruthless. The Conquistadors were motivated by just two things -- religion and wealth -- and their objective was to spread Christianity at the point of the sword and to colonise new territories and rob those territories of its wealth.

Today, we would probably call these people pirates and terrorists. However, 500 years ago, they were considered Christian warriors and patriots who plundered the world and eradicated the anti-Christ with the blessing of the Pope in Rome. But how would you, the student of history, judge the Conquistadors? Would you apply today's value system and call them pirates and terrorists or the value system of those days and call them warriors and patriots in the service of God?

You would most likely say, who cares? What relevance is the Conquistador of the 1500s to Malaysia of 2013 where our concern is the coming general election and what the outcome of it is going to be? Well, it may have more relevance than you suspected and it may have more bearing on the coming general election than you had imagined.

First of all, the Conquistadors would not have existed had the Muslim army not occupied part of Christian Europe. Had the Muslims stayed in the Middle East then Christian pride would not have suffered and there would have been no reason to form a mercenary army to retake conquered Christian land.

Then, once this Christian army had fulfilled its task of driving the Muslims out of Europe, it embarked on its own conquest of the world and ventured into Africa, South America, China, India and South East Asia.

In April 1511, Afonso de Albuquerque set sail for Melaka with a force of 1,200 men and a dozen and a half ships. On 24th August 1511, they conquered Melaka and it became a strategic base for Portuguese expansion in the East Indies. The Portuguese, however, did not conquer Thailand. Instead, in that same year, the Portuguese established diplomatic relations with Thailand by sending an ambassador, Duarte Fernandes, to the court of King Ramathibodi.

Why did the Portuguese conquer Melaka but not Thailand? Well, mainly because Thailand was united and had a strong king while Melaka was divided and the other Sultans in Perak, Kedah, Riau, etc., did not come to the aid of the Sultan of Melaka.

In short, as Umno always tells the Malays, the disunity of the Malays resulted in the fall of Melaka and eventually the entire Malay Archipelago was colonised by the western powers -- starting with the Portuguese then followed by the Dutch and finally the British.

To the non-Malays this may not be a significant point. To the Malays, however, this point is very relevant. Malay disunity resulted in the Malays becoming an occupied race. It was not until Umno was formed in 1946 did the fortunes of the Malays change for the better.

So, as far as the Malays are concerned, history is very clear about the issue. No Malay unity and the Malays become second-class citizens in their own country. Malays unite under the umbrella of Umno and the Malays retake the country that they lost.

Now, how do you address this belief? Umno is constantly reminding the Malays about what happened in August 1511 and why it happened. Umno is also constantly reminding the Malays about what happened in August 1957 and why it happened. And to the Malays this makes sense.

You may argue that what happened in 1511 is so long ago and is no longer relevant. Try telling the Irish that what happened in 1641 is so long ago and is no longer relevant. It is still relevant as far as the Irish are concerned and they can never forgive nor forget the events of 1641 when the English 'colonialists' led by Oliver Cromwell invaded Irish land. Hence, if the Malays are being silly then so are the Irish. History may, over time, be forgiven but it can never be forgotten.

This is a very difficult subject to broach mainly because it involves emotions and sentiments. And you can never rationalise emotions and sentiments. You must also never challenge emotions and sentiments head on. You need to carefully navigate around them. And the Malays are very emotional and sentimental, with feudalistic to boot. And Umno has mastered the skill of playing on the emotions and sentiments of the Malays.

No, this is not a non-Malay-bashing article. This is not an article bashing anyone for that matter. This is about what Sun Tzu said: know your enemy. And the 'enemy' here is the heart and minds of the Malays. You can't fight this type of 'enemy'. You have to win over this 'enemy'. The question is: do you know how?

The coming general election is going to be one of the most crucial general elections in Malaysian history. If Umno gets kicked out this may be the end of Umno for a long time to come. Hence Umno cannot afford to lose this election. But how do we convince the Malay voters that the defeat of Umno does not translate to Melaka falling to the Portuguese in 1511?

Well, this is the job for the politicians and I am not a politician.

The Deepak-Bala marriage: in Deepak’s own words

Posted: 10 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Deepak Jaikishan was called to the MACC office a few times. This is already public knowledge and is no secret. What is still a secret, though, is what did Deepak tell the MACC? Until today we have not been given the gist of Deepak's statement. And what we are also not being told is why after more than a month still no action is being taken.

From what we know, based on the newspaper reports, Deepak's first couple of visits to the MACC office came to naught. Deepak told the MACC that he was 'not yet ready' to give his statement and went home, promising to return another day. Finally, on 25th January 2013, Deepak gave his statement to the MACC. However, until now, no one knows what he told the MACC. Neither Deepak nor the MACC are talking.

We are still trying to get our hands on a copy of the MACC report, and there is a strong possibility that that may happen very soon. In the meantime, while we try to get our hands on that report, maybe we can share with you the gist of what, according to our Deep Throat, Deepak told the MACC. Let us see whether this part of Deepak's story is going to appear in his 'official statement'.

What our Deep Throat said appears consistent with what Bala said in his exposé at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH) on 27th February 2013 plus what he related in his Singapore interview (which you can see on YouTube) and in the London press conference earlier. It is also consistent with Deepak's interviews with Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today.

The only part that remains hazy is: did Bala contact Deepak or did Deepak contact Bala that resulted in the meeting in Rawang that same evening that the first SD was released? Both claim that 'the other person' initiated the meeting. Nevertheless, the rest of the story appears consistent -- except for the part that Bala was allegedly promised RM700,000 by M. Puravalen as payment for the first SD, which Bala has thus far never mentioned but which Deepak says did happen.

Anyway, read what our Deep Throat has to say about the matter.

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

In October 2006, Bala was in Razak's office at the time when they received a phone call from Puravalen (picture above). Puravalen said he had something very urgent to discuss with Razak concerning Altantuya. Razak then agreed to meet Puravalen who arrived not long after that.

Puravalen told Razak that the police were about to arrest him (Razak) for the murder of Altantuya. Razak suddenly went pale and started to panic.

Puravalen told Razak not to worry and that he will handle this matter provided that he (Razak) agreed that he (Puravalen) will act for him as his lawyer. Later Razak's family found out that Puravalen was actually linked to Kalimullah and was feeding information to the 'other side' (Karpal Singh included) through Kalimullah. Razak's family suspected that Puravalen, who is very close to Sivarasa, was trying to fix up Razak so they decided to sack Puravalen and replace him with Shafee Abdullah.

In July 2008, Puravalen was the one who introduced Bala to Sivarasa and Americk. Sivarasa then arranged for Bala to meet DSAI to discuss signing a SD to directly implicate Najib and Rosmah to Altantuya's murder. Bala met DSAI twice, the first time a few days before the SD was signed and the second time on the SD day itself wherein he sat beside DSAI and gave his PC flanked by his lawyer.

The first time Puravalen brought Bala to meet DSAI, he was promised RM700,000.00 if he agreed to come up with the SD by 1st July 2008. DSAI had agreed to pay the RM700,000.00 through Puravalen and the payment was to be made in two stages -- Part A, RM200,000.00, immediately and Part B, RM500,000.00, after the PC. On 1st July 2008, Bala made the SD and proceeded to conduct the PC on 3rd July 2008, organised by DSAI and his lawyers at the PKR HQ.

Unfortunately for Bala, after the PC, Puravalen only paid him RM100,000.00 although he had received RM200,000.00 from DSAI. Puravalen told Bala that DSAI had instructed for the balance to be paid after a few days. The balance RM500,000 Puravalen pocketed all to himself without Bala knowing. This angered Bala and he tried to contact DSAI through his lawyer, Americk, and other people he knew in PKR such as Sivarasa. But DSAI never responded at all to him because DSAI believed that Bala was fully paid.

At the same time, Bala started getting calls from the Brickfields Police Station and he became worried that the police will lock him up again like the last time during the Altantuya case. He started to panic as DSAI was not responding to him and the lawyer had just cheated him of his only income to enable him and his family to leave Malaysia. Bala doesn't know that Puravalen cheated him.

Bala, the next day after waiting for DSAI or his lawyer to call him, realised that he had been cheated of his promised money by DSAI and the lawyers. He then contacted Deepak through a mutual friend, Suresh, and asked to meet Deepak so that he could relate what had happened. Deepak informed Suresh that he will first discuss this matter with Rosmah and get back to him ASAP.

That afternoon, Rosmah called Deepak regarding the SD matter and the discussion got to Bala. Deepak told Rosmah what he had found out from Suresh and she asked Deepak to try and help to resolve the attempt to frame her husband with the murder case. Deepak told Rosmah he will speak to Bala directly and get a true picture of the entire events and how this thing can be resolved. Deepak spoke to Bala on the phone number given by Suresh and asked him if he was prepared to tell the truth of about SD conspiracy, which was now being exploited as a political asset by Najib's competitors.

However, Bala was reluctant to do so as he said he didn't want to trust any politicians as DSAI had cheated him on the amount of money promised and at the same time he was worried that Najib's people were going to get him arrested again like during the Razak Baginda case. Deepak told Bala don't worry because if he was willing to tell the truth he will be protected and will not be harassed by the police. He can get this assurance.

After a long chat, Bala was still unconvinced and told Deepak he will call back later. Deepak then called Rosmah and reported the entire conversation to her. She then told Deepak to come to the Putrajaya house and meet her husband to explain all the matters. Deepak went to Putrajaya, Sri Satria, and met Najib and Rosmah on the first floor lounge and detailed his conversation with Bala. Najib asked Deepak to convey to Bala that it was important that he speak the truth and tell about RM700,000 promise by DSAI.

The reason DSAI had asked Bala to make the SD was because to stop Najib from taking over PM post from Pak Lah and DSAI informed Bala that he needed Najib and Rosmah to be directly implicated. The timing was perfect and DSAI wanted this whole thing to implicate Najib and Rosmah to prevent him from becoming PM and thus allowing him to succeed with his September 16th plan to get the MPs in Sabah to defect so that he could become PM as they were demoralised at that time under PM Badawi's administration.

Deepak met Bala in Rawang at about 9pm and they had a long discussion about the entire affair involving the SD and his experience during the time he was employed by Razak Baginda. The next day Bala signed his second SD to contradict the first SD that he had signed.

Private investigator P. Balasubramanian's interview in Singapore

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX0l1V_Ms4

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZdiTk48400

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tVzHDuyzyE

Deepak Jaikishan's statement corroborating Bala's story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2o7lIVH1Dg

Previous news reports on the matter

1. Lawyer Puravalen to give police statement in PI Bala case http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/lawyer_puravalen_to_give_police_statement_in_pi_bala_case.html

2. Lawyer M. Puravalen claims libel by NST, seeks apology or will sue http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/lawyer-m.-puravalen-claims-libel-by-nst-seeks-apology-or-will-sue

3. Explain alleged conspiracy, duo told http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/explain-alleged-conspiracy-duo-told-1.127878

Umno Incorporated (part 4)

Posted: 06 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

In Realmild's accounts, the money appeared as a loan to the company from the shareholders of the company. Then the 'loan' was wiped out or written off in exchange for another company called Radicare Sdn Bhd. But then in the books it shows that Radicare was sold for merely RM2 and not RM200 million or whatever amount of 'shareholders' advances' that still reflected in the books at that time.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Daim-Anwar team

In 1992, Anwar Ibrahim, who had just taken over the Finance Minister's job from Tun Daim Zainuddin, made his move to control the mainstream media in preparation to challenge Tun Ghafar Baba (picture below) at the end of 1993 for the post of Deputy President of Umno and hence for the post of Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia as well.

Anwar's first move was to use Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd as the vehicle to acquire the media conglomerate, NSTP, and the Umno-owned TV station, TV3. Anwar's four nominees or 'fronts' for this exercise were Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mohd Noor Mutalib, Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Khalid Ahmad. And they did this through a management buyout or MBO costing RM800 million, the largest MBO ever in Malaysian corporate history.

However, Realmild was too small to 'swallow' a media conglomerate to the tune of RM800 million so they had to beef up the company's balance sheet. And they did this by injecting cash of about RM200 million into the company.

But then who owns this RM200 million and where did the money come from? Did the RM200 million belong to Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mohd Noor Mutalib, Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Khalid Ahmad and if so how did they acquire this money when their tax returns do not show that they had earned that much money?

That is the first mystery. RM200 million appeared from nowhere and with no tangible evidence to account for it. But the even bigger mystery, however, is what happened to that money later and how did it just disappear as mysteriously as it had appeared?

That is the second mystery.

And to camouflage this whole thing they signed a Settlement Agreement on 3rd August 1999, which the public or auditors were not told about. Basically, this Settlement Agreement was the camouflage to wipe the books clean and to not have to explain where the RM200 million came from and where it went to later.

I suppose this is what they mean by telling a lie to cover another lie.

Umno Incorporated (part 1)

Umno Incorporated (part 2)

Umno Incorporated (part 3)

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

On 3rd August 1999, a 'Settlement Agreement' was signed between Nazri Abdullah and Mohd Noor Mutalib, the majority shareholders of Realmild at the time, and the company, Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd. The purpose of the Agreement was to 'write-off' the RM148 million 'shareholders' advances' -- which was shown as RM182 million in the 1997 Annual Report but got reduced a year later. Hence RM34 million had somehow 'disappeared' over that one-year or so.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When Munir Majid (picture above) approved the injection of Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd into MRCB it was based on projected profits of RM70 million expected from projects in-hand and RM42 million from projects yet to be secured. It was the first time ever that the watchdog Securities Commission gave an approval based on the mere speculation that MRCB would most likely secure projects in the future. More importantly, the 'injection' actually ended up as a reverse takeover.

The whole exercise was touted as a management buyout (MBO) and the four people involved -- known Umno cum Anwar Ibrahim cronies (just like Munir Majid himself) -- were Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mohd Noor Mutalib, Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Khalid Ahmad (picture below).

This was clearly not just a simple 'Ali Baba' exercise but a case of Ali Baba and his forty thieves. After the RM800 million Realmild MBO (see part 2 of this series), they injected the whole thing into MRCB and ended up getting a company worth more than a billion for nothing. That is the beauty of selling a bigger company with large liabilities to a smaller company. You clear your liabilities (the buyer takes over your liabilities) and you end up getting shares in the enlarged group free-of-charge.

One year after Anwar Ibrahim fell out of favour and ended up behind the walls of the Sungai Buloh prison, Realmild changed hands. Anwar was now out so his nominees -- Dato' Ahmad Nazri Bin Abdullah and Mohd Noor Bin Mutalib -- were forced to sell off their interests in the company to another Umno nominee.

And this is where it begins to get even more interesting.

The former head of the Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce, Abdul Rahman Maidin (picture above), alleged that he lost RM40 million on the 7.101 million Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd shares he purchased, which were said to actually belong to Umno and not to the people he bought the shares from.

What happened thereafter appears to be very hazy.

But where did this RM182 million (or RM148 million) come from and whose money is it? And where did this RM182 million (or RM148 million: less the RM34 million 'discount') go after that? Furthermore, what do they mean by 'shareholders' advances'?

Apparently, this money was siphoned out to pay off Rahman Maidin's debts of RM84 million. Hence did he really lose RM40 million as he claims or did he, in fact, make RM148 million (or RM182 million according to the 1997 accounts) as what the accounts and the Settlement Agreement show?

In return for this write-off, the outgoing shareholders of Realmild would receive 49% equity in Radicare Sdn Bhd, a company that was given the government concession to equip and commission hospitals and provide hospital support services that included clinical waste management, cleansing services, linen and laundry services, facilities engineering maintenance, and biomedical engineering maintenance.

Now, in the hearing more than two years ago, this Settlement Agreement was not declared. And it was not declared mainly because this was a cover-up for a fraudulent exercise to siphon out money. It was meant to camouflage an illegal transfer of funds. And you can read below the details of the Agreement, which definitely requires further explanation.

More puzzling is the statement in Realmild's June 1999-2000 accounts where it states in Note 27: "Subsequent to year end the company disposed its entire equity interest in an associated company Radicare (M) Sdn Bhd, for a consideration sum of RM2."

This means Realmild's interest in Radicare was sold for only RM2. But the Settlement Agreement states a figure of RM147,970,621.40. So, is it RM2 or RM147,970,621.40?

This can only mean that RM147,970,621.40 was paid but only RM2 went to the company. The balance must have gone into someone's pocket -- in this case that would be Rahman Maidin since he denies that he was Umno's nominee or that the interest he held in the company actually belongs to Umno.

Something is terribly not kosher here and it looks like everything has not been fully declared in the court hearing of 2010. Rahman says one thing but the accounts show something else. And there are too many unexplained issues that have remained unexplained.

Was the Settlement Agreement, therefore, kept from public knowledge because it was a cover-up for some missing money and hence leading to something illegal?

Umno Incorporated (part 1)

Umno Incorporated (part 2)

Posted: 04 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

In January 1993, Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd, a private company controlled by the management of NSTP and TV3, acquired 48 per cent of NSTP and 43 per cent of TV3 in a deal worth a whopping RM800 million -- it might still be the largest management buyout in Malaysia to date. Realmild was then controlled by four individuals closely linked to Deputy Premier then Anwar Ibrahim -- namely Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mohd Noor Mutalib, Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Khalid Ahmad. The four were executives in the NSTP group, two of them -- Kadir and Nazri -- headed the English and Bahasa Malaysia sections respectively of the newspaper group.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In 1992, Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's Finance Minister, approved the management buy-out (MBO) of New Straits Times Press Holdings Bhd (NSTP), the largest media group in the country, and also public-listed TV3. Anwar directed Munir Majid of the Securities Commission to approve the injection of Realmild into MRCB, which led to Realmild Sdn Bhd controlling four listed companies -- MRCB, Malakoff, TV3 and New Straits Times Press Bhd.

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

MRCB's chequered past colours its future

(KinBiz, 21 February 2013) -- MRCB started out as Perak Carbide Sdn Bhd in 1969. In the early days, Teh Hong Piow, the Public Bank founder was among the shareholders of Perak Carbide.

Perak Carbide was renamed MRCB in 1981 after a change in its core business from the production of carbide to property development and investment.

In the 90's MRCB morphed into a political animal, controlling New Straits Times Press Holdings Bhd (NSTP), then a giant publishing company, the largest media group in the country, and also publicly traded TV3.

The MRCB story is often used to exhibit how corporate Malaysia works.

Realmild was then controlled by four individuals closely linked to Deputy Premier then Anwar Ibrahim -- namely Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mohd Noor Mutalib, Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Khalid Ahmad. The four were executives in the NSTP group, two of them -- Kadir and Nazri -- headed the English and Bahasa Malaysia sections respectively of the newspaper group.

The four flipped Realmild's assets into MRCB in a reverse takeover.

Some say the corporate moves were an attempt by Anwar, manoeuvring to control the media before the impending Umno vice presidential elections in 1993.

With its political clout, MRCB grew to own such choice assets such as 20.2 per cent in Commerce Asset Holdings Bhd which owned Bank of Commerce Bhd (now CIMB)—via NSTP, a chunk of power generation companies like Malakoff Bhd, Sepang Power and Port Dickson Power among a whole host of other large assets.

In 1996, MRCB and Keretapi Tanah Melayu formed a joint venture to develop 77 acres of prime land in Brickfields which is MRCB's flagship KL Sentral, and two years later the government even forked out a support loan of RM336 million to build the station.

However things took a turn for the worse in 1998, when Anwar fell from grace and when the Asian financial crisis started to bite. Lacking in political clout, MRCB's downward spiral was a painful one exacerbated by the financial crisis of 1997-1998.

For its financial year ended August 1999, the company suffered losses of about RM1.45 billion from RM235.39 million in revenue.

As at August 1999, MRCB was saddled with short-term borrowings of RM923 million while the company long term debt commitments were RM473 million. On the other side of the balance sheet MRCB had cash and bank balances amounting to RM38 million.

For the year ended August 1999, MRCB's interest payments on borrowings was RM118 million, about three times the company's net profit.

After Anwar's fall from grace in Sept 1998 when he was removed as finance minister and deputy prime minister and charged with sodomy, Abdul Rahman Maidin, a close associate of former finance minister Daim Zainuddin, was brought in to run MRCB in July 1999.

Daim had been collared in by then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to help deal with the financial crisis. Daim headed the powerful National Economic Action Council then.

But the slide continued. Daim himself appeared to have a rift with Mahathir and some of those who were close to him were removed from their position after their stakes in key companies were taken over by the governments. This included Halim Saad of Renong, Tajudin Ramli of Malaysia Airlines and Celcom (then under TRI) and Rahman Maidin at MRCB.

MRCB management went into professional hands with Abdul Rahman Ahmad and Shahril Ridza Ridzuan becoming managing director and executive director respectively in 2001.

Eventually MRCB was acquired by EPF in an apparent rescue of the group.

The EPF ended up with a chunk of MRCB's stock in a debt for equity swap, after Realmild was unable to service borrowings from EPF. A large portion of EPF's shareholding was obtained in January 2005, when the pension fund acquired a 20 per cent block of shares increasing its shareholding to 30.35 per cent then. Realmild ceased to be a major shareholder after that.

Shahril eventually became CEO of MRCB and left end-2009 after eight years. Following that Mohamed Razeek Md Hussain Maricar took over but left in August last year. Since then, MRCB has been without a CEO. Shahril himself became chief investment officer at EPF in 2010.

Under professional management, much was achieved at MRCB and the KL Sentral development has attracted much interest and has seen property prices climb. But it looks like now EPF has embarked on a path to inject entrepreneurship into MRCB.

This has happened through the proposed injection of Nusa Gapurna which has about 33 acres of prime land located in Petaling Jaya, Old Klang Road and Subang pegged with a gross development value of RM5.7 billion. Part of the plan is for Salim to eventually become managing director of MRCB.

EPF in a statement to KinBiz said: "The model is similar to that of SP Setia or Mah Sing, where an entrepreneur holds a significant stake and works on behalf of all the institutional and minority shareholders.

"The ultimate combination for the EPF is economically neutral as it had a 40 per cent stake in both businesses and will continue to have approximately the same stake in the combined entity going forward."

EPF as a related party cannot vote on this deal, meaning it will be left to the minorities to decide.

Analysts and observers however question the move to bring in Salim and ask whether Salim has the right credentials to run MRCB. After all it can be rightly argued that MRCB has far more expertise developing properties than Salim himself. So why opt for him at this juncture?

Umno Incorporated (part 1)

Posted: 03 Mar 2013 12:00 AM PST

Rahman said he then purchased all the stakes in Realmild from Khalid, former Berita Harian Sdn Bhd group editor Ahmad Nazri Abdullah, former New Straits Times Sdn Bhd group editor Abdul Kadir Jasin and former NSTP director Mohd Noor Mutalib. The four were at that time aligned with then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, before Anwar fell out of favour with Mahathir in 1998, at the height of allegations of sodomy against him.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The problem with public hearings, court cases and trials is that not everything is fully revealed in an open court, in particular the goings-on behind the scenes and the shenanigans in the corridors of power.

Some of you may have read the three news reports below back in 2010. For those who have not, first read these reports and then in part two of this series we will reveal what has not been reported. After all, Malaysia Today dabbles in the untold story or the story that those in the corridors of power would rather remain hidden.

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

Abdul Rahman Maidin

'Shocked to learn Realmild shares belonged to Umno'

(Malaysiakini, 2 September 2010) -- Former Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce chairperson Abdul Rahman Maidin told the commercial division of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today that he had to bear losses of RM40 million for the 7.101 million shares he purchased in Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd, which were said to belong to Umno.

Realmild owns majority shares in conglomerate Malaysia Resources Corporation Bhd (MRCB), which once owned the gold mine media giant New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd (NSTP) and Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Bhd (which operates TV3, among others).

Rahman, who was a director of Realmild when he purchased the stake in the company, is being sued for RM10 million by a former company stakeholder, Khalid Ahmad.

Also a former chairman of MRCB and former executive vice-chairman of NSTP, Rahman said sometime at the end of 2001, he was instructed by then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to transfer all the Realmild shares in his name to Syed Anwar Jamalullail, without any consideration, and that he resigned from the two companies on Jan 8, 2002.

"I was told that the Realmild shares belonged to Umno. I was extremely shocked as I never at any time knew that Umno was the true owner of the shares."

"I undertook the acquisition of Realmild shares purely from a corporate and commercial standpoint. I raised funds for this exercise through my personal financial means, without any assistance from any political entity," Rahman said in reply to questions from his lawyer Alex de Silva. Eugene Jayaraj Williams is also acting for Rahman.

Told that the shares belonged to Umno

Rahman said he informed Mahathir that he had paid RM40 million for the purchase of the Realmild shares.

"He (Mahathir) told me there was no reason why I had to pay the money when the shares never belonged to the individuals concerned as they belonged to Umno. Therefore, he said, no payment will be made to me because the shares always belonged to Umno."

"I also met Nor Mohamad Yaakob, (then economic adviser to Mahathir), and he subsequently confirmed that the shares were to be transferred out by me, without me receiving any consideration as the shares belonged to Umno," he said.

Asked by Khalid's counsel Ahmad Fadzil Mohd Perdaus why he did not institute action against his client and three other Realmild directors, from whom he had purchased the stake, Rahman said he obviously had to believe the (then) prime minister.

"Furthermore, I did not want to do anything that would implicate the premier. That is why I did not want to proceed with any further action. I would rather take a loss," he said.

Tun Daim Zainuddin

Daim offered stake in Realmild

Recalling how he came to own the Realmild shares, Rahman said he was approached by the then Finance Minister, Daim Zainuddin, sometime in 1999.

Daim had asked him whether he was interested in taking charge of MRCB by undertaking and completing a management takeover.

"Daim knew me as chairman of the Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce. I expressed keen interest in taking up this challenge, and Daim told me he would leave the mechanics of taking control of MRCB to me.

"I readily accepted this opportunity as this was a major career advance. It was my understanding that this was a pure corporate exercise," he said.

The four were at that time aligned with then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, before Anwar fell out of favour with Mahathir in 1998, at the height of allegations of sodomy against him.

Rahman said he took steps for the takeover of MRCB by raising funds through personal financial means.

He had paid RM30 million for Ahmad Nazri's stake, and another RM5 million each to Khalid and Mohd Noor.

Ahmad Nazri, a former director of Realmild, told an earlier hearing that he owned an 80 percent stake in Realmild, with 70 percent of it held in trust.

"I was holding (the stake) in trust for Dr Mahathir. The trust was prepared by legal firm Amin & Co. A copy of the trust was given to Dr Mahathir, another to Anwar and I kept a copy."

A. Kadir Jasin

Rahman: I did not pay the remainder

Rahman, also testified before Justice Mary Lim that he did not pay the remaining amount to Khalid as he had been told by Mahathir not to make any payment.

"I met the plaintiff (Khalid) and informed him of my discovery about Umno's ownership of the Realmild shares. The plaintiff admitted to me that he was aware of Umno's ownership of the Realmild shares, but he said the Umno ownership did not apply to his five percent stake, or 355,050 shares."

Saying Khalid was not entitled to the claim, Rahman said the Khalid had misrepresented to him the ownership of the 355,050 shares as these shares never belonged to Khalid.

"I verily believe that he (Khalid) knew all along that Umno was the real owner of the shares and that these shares could be directed to be transferred to any third party at any time based on the instructions of Umno leaders. This also demonstrated the wrongful actions of Khalid in suppressing material information and proceeding in this action against me," he said.

"I am also seeking recovery of the RM5 million I had paid Khalid, based on his misrepresentation as to the ownership of the shares," he said.

To another question from Khalid's lawyer, Rahman said he was unable to pay the balance (the remaining RM10 million) because he was concentrating on reviving MRCB, which was facing billions of ringgit in debt.

"MRCB owed (money) to over 30 banks and it was in a bad shape. That was the reason I did not have money to pay him (Khalid).

"I also do not agree that I owe Khalid RM10 million, as stated in the statement of claim, and do not agree that the purchase price of his portion of the shares was RM15 million," he said.

Khalid Ahmad

Khalid's suit

Khalid, a former director of Realmild and former managing director of NSTP, who was present in court today, had claimed that he owns five per cent of the Realmild shares and he had accepted Rahman's offer to buy his shares.

He said Rahman had paid RM5 million, and that both sides had agreed to the total selling price of the shares at RM15 million, which had been reduced from an initial value of RM30 million.

Khalid claimed that the price of RM15 million was agreed upon after the part-payment of RM5 million was made by Rahman, and that the remaining sum was to be paid within a year.

He said he had asked Rahman many times to pay up the remaining RM10 million, but Rahman had failed to do so.

He is seeking the RM10 million , interest at eight per cent, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.

Rahman in his statement of defence claimed the shares were owned in trust Umno and that he was asked to relinquish all his stake in Realmild to Syed Anwar.

Hence, he said, the amount owed was void or a mistake of fact, and was therefore seeking back the RM5 million he had paid to Khalid, as he had suffered a loss.

Earlier, Syed Anwar testified for Rahman and said got to know from Nor (Mohamad Yaakob), who was then second finance minister, that Rahman's shares in Realmild were held in proxy by Umno.

"My major task when taking over Realmild and MRCB was to turn them around," he said.

Justice Lim fixed Oct 4 for submissions.

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

Nazri Abdullah

Realmild-Umno links judgment on Dec 10

(The Malaysian Insider, 29 October 2010) -- When the High Court here hands down its judgment on the disputed sale price of Realmild Sdn Bhd's shares on December 10, all eyes will be trained on the grounds — whether Umno, the senior party in the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN), has been ruled to be the shadowy company's real owner.

In taking their quarrel over the sale price of Realmild's shares from a decade ago, former company directors Datuk Khalid Ahmad and Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Maidin have showed how the political giant has fed and sustained its tight grip on power through control of several conglomerates starting from the early 1990s.

The suit was mooted by Khalid in March 2005 against his successor, Abdul Rahman, to claim RM10 million in payment for a block of the company's shares.

But Abdul Rahman made a counter-claim to be refunded the RM5 million he already paid, after being told by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that Umno owned all Realmild's shares and the appointed directors were only nominees acting in the party's trust.

The nexus between Umno and certain conglomerates has been revealed in the court hearing that started in August this year involving the past shareholders of Realmild, the shadowy company that took over media giant The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd in 1993, and Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB).

A number of high-flying corporate figures have entered the witness stand, most notably Tan Sri Syed Anwar Jamalullail, younger brother to the Raja of Perlis Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Ibni Al-Marhum Tuanku Syed Putra Jamalullail who also held the position of Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the time of the contentious takeover.

Khalid is suing Abdul Rahman for RM10 million over the sale of a five per cent stake in the company in 1999, which took place during a shake-up and buy-out related to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sacking from government.

Abdul Rahman had paid RM5 million but later reneged on the remainder.

The silver-haired industry captain testified in court that Dr Mahathir, who was prime minister at the time of the buy-out, told him that the shares actually belonged to Umno.

Abdul Rahman, a former Malay Chamber of Commerce Penang president, also claimed to have received instructions from Tun Daim Zainuddin and Tan Sri Nor Mohamad Yakcop had previously instructed him to undertake a management buy-out of MRCB by purchasing the 7,101,001 ordinary shares in Realmild.

But Khalid maintained the five per cent stake was his own although he acknowledged that the majority stake was part of an "Umno trust".

The other directors in Realmild then were former Berita Harian group editor Datuk Ahmad Nazri Abdullah, New Straits Times group editor Datuk Abdul Kadir Jasin, and Mohd Noor Mutalib, who replaced Khalid as NSTP managing director in February 1993.

Realmild, originally a RM2 company, was then already the majority shareholder of MRCB, which is now developing the KL Sentral commercial and transport hub in Brickfields.

Representing Khalid is lawyer Ahmad Fadzil Mohd Perdaus.

Alex De Silva and Eugene Jeyaraj Williams acted for Abdul Rahman.

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

Tan Sri Syed Anwar Jamalullail

Realmild formed to protect Umno's interests, court told

(The Malaysian Insider, 30 October 2010) -- Realmild Sdn Bhd was a brainchild of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim when he was in government as a means for Umno to protect its business interests, a lawyer told the High Court here today.

The former deputy prime minister had also hand-picked four media people — Datuk Khalid Ahmad, Datuk Kadir Jasin, Datuk Ahmad Nazri Abdullah and Mohd Noor Mutalib — to be its first shareholders and act as nominees for the ruling party, said Alex De Silva.

"In 1992, Realmild was formed in Malaysia. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim created it as a new Bumiputera vehicle to take care of Umno's interests.

"This is the genesis of Realmild," De Silva said in making the case for his client Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Maidin.

Khalid, a former TV3 boss, is suing Abdul Rahman to pay up the remaining RM10 million of RM15 million the former claims was the agreed sale price for the block of shares.

But Abdul Rahman disputes the amount — he told the court the agreed price was RM10 million and he had paid half before finding out from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Umno president, that he did not have to pay.

Now Abdul Rahman wants his money back.

De Silva argued today that Khalid, as the seller, was not in a position to demand payment for the sale of a block of Realmild Sdn Bhd's shares wholly held in trust for Umno.

"My submission is that none of them were actually running MRCB. They were just put there by the powers-that-be...to take care of MRCB, NST and etc.

"It's completely illogical for Umno or anyone to own only 70 per cent [of the shares] and for 30 per cent to be shared out among the others," he added, noting previous testimony from another successive Realmild director, Tan Sri Syed Anwar Jamalullail, showed that Umno owned all the shares.

Syed Anwar is the younger brother to the Raja of Perlis Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Ibni Al-Marhum Tuanku Syed Putra Jamalullail who also held the position of Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the time of the contentious takeover at the turn of the millennium.

Anwar who happened to be in court today for his Sodomy II trial, was evasive when asked to comment on his role in the Realmild-Umno deal.

"Seventy per cent was held by Dr Mahathir. It has nothing to do with me," said the 63-year-old politician, now PKR's advisor.

Khalid's RM10 million suit against Abdul Rahman, over the sale of a five per cent stake in the company in 1999 took place during a shake-up and buy-out related to Anwar's sacking from government.

"Yes, I was supportive of it back then but 30 per cent of the shares was owned by Khalid, Kadir, and Nazri, Mohd Noor," Anwar said.

"It was only when I exposed them in court, Dr Mahathir called for Realmild surrender 70 percent," he added.

Asked if he saw the controversial 100-storey Menara Warisan announced by Prime Minister Najib Razak reflected in Umno's continuing bid to protect the party's interests, the Opposition Leader remarked: "All mega deals protect the interests of the Umno elite".

"Realmild is a classic example, proven, it was led by Dr Mahathir. I'm convinced there are cronies involved," he said.

Back in court, De Silva stressed that Realmild was a "sendirian berhad" (private limited company) with four ex-NST journalists and accountant who became stakeholders of MRCB, a public-listed company, supposedly bought from Renong Berhad for RM800 million.

"It's clear as daylight none of the shareholders had the means or capacity to do so," De Silva said.

"Yes, they testified they raised the money on their own. [But] nobody wakes up one morning and says, 'Yes! I'm going to take over NST and TV3. Can you do this on your own? Impossible!

"My Lady, from the start of the scene, government hands or Umno hands were involved...to keep the media under control of Umno.

"It was not for personal benefit but for the benefit of the party. That's why Realmild took control from Renong. That's the genesis of Realmild," Abdul Rahman's lawyer repeated for emphasis.

De Silva also pointed out that none of the four had exercised their rights as owners after the buy-over from Renong and instead continued their daily duties as news men, which was typical of nominees.

Trial judge Datuk Mary Lim asked if they were nominees, whether it meant they can't transfer the title deeds to the shares; and whether it would not then require the defendant to show he had a title to pass on.

"Not necessary. What we are looking at is the concept of real ownership," De Silva replied, before adding, "Who were the real owners?"

He moved to back his argument by pointing to the large number of lucrative projects given to Realmild's construction subsidiary, MRCB, including building a power plant.

"MRCB was bestowed and granted huge government contracts and loans, subsequently...in 1997, the government awarded MRCB the KL Sentral project...two years later, they got a support loan of RM336 million," De Silva cited.

"All these point effectively to the fact they were formed by the government because MRCB was effectively owned by Umno," he argued further.

"Yes, the shares were held in their names, but when instructed to transfer, they transferred.

"And they all transferred all, together," he said slowly, lending emphasis to his submission.

But lawyer Ahmad Fadzil Mohd Perdaus, in pushing the case to be ruled in the plaintiff Khalid's favour, submitted that Abdul Rahman had failed to show documentary evidence that proved an Umno "trust" existed, adding the defendant's entire argument was pulled from oral testimony by parties not brought to court, including the former prime minister.

Ahmad even suggested that Abdul Rahman should have taken legal action against Dr Mahathir to recover his money instead of claiming it from Khalid.

"Why the defendant chose not to take action when he found out about the trust?

"His line, his basis is what was told to him by the PM [then, Dr Mahathir] that he would not get his money back and that the shares belonged to Umno," Ahmad said, referring to Abdul Rahman's testimony in court.

"It's not for the defendant to say the plaintiff held it in trust, held it as a nominee...that he was not accountable to pay...

"The transfer was valid. He was the registered owner, legally, and [it was] common for nominees to transfer shares to [their] principals; it's not for defendant to say no.

"If such a case, defendant still liable to pay for the purchase price as agreed upon for the transfer of shares at the material time," Ahmad concluded.

A total of five witnesses were called.

Verdict is fixed for December 10 at 9am.

Do you get it now?

Posted: 23 Feb 2013 03:38 PM PST

MNLF Attorney Ombra Jainal described Misuari as a strong advocate for the recovery of Sabah from Malaysia and is still bitter toward Malaysia for arresting and turning him over to Philippine authorities in January 2002. MG Dolorfino commented that Malaysia is not only concerned about Misuari's intentions toward Sabah, where Misuari apparently still has hundreds of followers, but also about his recent contacts with Malaysian opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim, described as an "old friend" of Misuari's.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Subject: Nur Misuari Back On Jolo, Amid New Fighting

Origin: US Embassy Manila (Philippines)

Cable time: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:38 UTC

Classified By: Pol/C Scott Bellard for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

1. (C) Summary: The Makati Regional Trial Court temporarily permitted detained Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) Chairman Nur Misuari to campaign for Sulu Governor in Jolo City May 11-14. Followers of rogue MNLF Commander Habier Malik clashed again May 8 with government security forces in Kalingang Caluang on Jolo Island. Pressure may be building on some MNLF commanders to support Malik, who remains on the run. Misuari apparently still harbors aspirations to "re-gain" Sabah from Malaysia. The Philippine government clearly hopes Misuari will be a force for peace and reconciliation over the long-term -- but probably not as Sulu governor. End Summary.

Court OKs Misuari to Jolo

2. (U) On May 9, Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Winlove Dumuyag issued written approval for detained MNLF Chairman Nur Misuari to return to Jolo City May 11-14 to campaign for Sulu Governor and to cast his votes. He intends to hold at least one political rally in Jolo City. The judge denied requests for him also to visit Luuk, Siasi, and Pangaturan May 10-20. The Court is also unlikely to approve a motion to allow Misuari to accept an invitation to the May 15-17 Organization of Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Islamabad, Pakistan. However, Judge Dumuyag scheduled Misuari's bail hearing for June 21. Exceptionally, the hearing will took place in the house where Misuari is serving his detention.

3. (C) Armed Forces of the Philippines National Capital Region Commander Major General Ben Dolorfino -- the most senior AFP Muslim and the chief of the Ad Hoc Joint Action Group with the Moro Islamic National Liberation Front -- told poloff that he had personally encouraged Misuari to run for governor and had advised him to attack incumbent Sulu Governor Benjamin Loong for engaging in "un-Islamic practices," including embezzlement of Internal Revenue Allotment funds, corruption, alcohol consumption, gambling, and absenteeism from official duties. MG Dolorfino said that he had also advised Misuari to criticize the other gubernatorial candidate -- former Sulu Governor Sakur Tan -- for engaging in many of the same "un-Islamic practices," in addition to drug trafficking.

Fresh Fighting

4. (U) Renewed fighting erupted in Jolo on May 8 between AFP troops and followers of rogue MNLF Commander Habier Malik (reftels). AFP Western Mindanao Command Information Officer Eugenio Batara told the press that the fighting began during the early morning in Barangay Kambing of Kalinggalang Kaluang.

5. (C) MG Dolorfino, whom Malik briefly held captive in February (ref f), described the current political and security situation on Jolo as "very delicate." Dolorfino commented that, while Malik remains isolated and on the run, pressure is building among some MNLF commanders to support Malik in the face of mounting MNLF casualties. He commented that if Malik is "pushed to the wall," the potential exists that other MNLF elements on Jolo, Basilan, the Zamboanga Peninsula, and/or in central Mindanao will enter the fray. Dolorfino instead welcomed efforts by the Philippine National Police to bring Malik to justice based on a new arrest warrant for Malik. Attorney Jainal separately predicted that Malik would never allow himself to be captured alive by government security forces and that Malik's death would likely embolden other MNLF members to fight.

Dreaming of Sabah...?

6. (C) MNLF Attorney Ombra Jainal described Misuari as a strong advocate for the recovery of Sabah from Malaysia and is still bitter toward Malaysia for arresting and turning him over to Philippine authorities in January 2002. Misuari once commented to MG Dolorfino that when the timing was right, "the MNLF could invade Sabah at 5 a.m. and control it by 7 a.m." Misuari has also reportedly claimed that he personally was a legitimate claimant to Sabah by virtue of his "royal blood," and has blamed "Malaysia's agents" for stirring up trouble in Sulu.

7. (C) Self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan Fuad Kiram granted Misuari the hereditary rank of "Datu" (Royal Prince) of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo (Sabah) at Misuari's detention house on March 14. Kiram attended the March 18 MNLF Freedom Day Anniversary Celebration at Malik's then-camp in Bitanag as guest of honor, where Malik called him the only "true and legitimate" Sultan of Sulu and Sabah, according to Kiram's chief advisor, Omar Kiram.

8. (C) MG Dolorfino commented that Malaysia is not only concerned about Misuari's intentions toward Sabah, where Misuari apparently still has hundreds of followers, but also about his recent contacts with Malaysian opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim, described as an "old friend" of Misuari's. Over the past several months, Malaysian officials have held at least three meetings with Misuari and/or Misuari's wives, according to Jainal and Dolorfino. During an April 10 meeting, a special envoy from Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told Misuari not to meddle in Malaysia's domestic politics, Dolorfino said. According to Jainal, Misuari promised Badawi's representative that he had no intention of getting involved in Malaysia's internal affairs.

9. (C) Dolorfino opined that Malaysia would likely seek stronger assurances that Misuari would not pursue the Sabah claim. He added that Malaysia had promised to facilitate an eventual power sharing agreement between the MNLF and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) after the GRP-MILF Peace Panels reached an ancestral domain agreement.

Comment

10. (C) Despite his checked past, Nur Misuari retains considerable respect among the MNLF as its founder and long-time leader, despite his rather ignominious term as governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and his ongoing trial for sedition. The Philippine government clearly hopes he will be a force for peace and reconciliation over the long-term, but probably not as Sulu governor, unlikely as that now seems. His two competitors, Loong and Tan, have even stronger ties to different elements in the Arroyo Administration, which must ultimately find a path to peace with the MILF without treading on too many MNLF toes.

SOURCE: WIKILEAKS

So, what do you think now?

Posted: 21 Feb 2013 06:03 PM PST

Nevertheless, the next general election will soon be upon us. Barisan Nasional claims it will win at least 145-150 Parliament seats, which means Pakatan Rakyat is going to win only 72-79 seats. Pakatan Rakyat, in turn, says it is going to win 145-150 Parliament seats, which means Barisan Nasional is going to win only 72-79 seats.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Russians, in response to the KAL 007 tragedy, said that the world has a memory of only 100 days. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad, in turn, said that 'Melayu mudah lupa'. And I have written a few times that actually most Malaysians, and not just Melayu, mudah lupa.

You may first want to read what Haris Ibrahim (Sam) wrote in his Blog more than two years ago on 27th October 2010 (below). Basically, this refers to our plans -- and 'our' here meaning the Bloggers cum political activists -- for initiating a Third Force.

This was what Sam said in his Blog posting of 27th October 2010:

Before I go any further, I want to observe and acknowledge here that many have expressed concerns and reservations about the 'Third Force' that has been mooted by many, myself included.

The concern has principally been about this 'Third Force' forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE.

Maybe the very name, 'Third Force', conjures in the minds of many civil society forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE, although I have in many posts emphasised that this is not the case.

Let me say it clearly now that that which I have been speaking of as the 'Third Force' is no different from the initiative and objectives that RPK now moots through the MCLM.

However, to placate the many concerned out there, let's stop calling it the Third Force.

Let's call it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' or simply IR.

The reason Sam felt he should clarify what is meant by the Third Force is because I had written about this matter earlier -- not long after the 2008 general election -- (as I also did regarding the Unity Government) and I got whacked good and proper by many people, Pakatan Rakyat leaders included. And because of that I backed off from talking about the Unity Government and the Third Force. Sam, therefore, knew he had to tread very careful when talking about this and hence he wanted to explain very clearly what we had in mind before everyone flies of the handle and goes off tangent.

Anyway, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the launching of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) in October 2010. Sam has since left, as have many others, and MCLM has been transferred into the hands of a new team, all Pakatan Rakyat supporters, may I add. I felt it is only right that this new team should take over since a vote of no confidence has been passed against me, so to speak. The only setback with this, though, is that MCLM will no longer be viewed as an independent movement or a Third Force since it is allied to Pakatan Rakyat.

But I suppose this is unavoidable since it looks like most Malaysians do not want an independent Third Force but would rather you be aligned either to Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. Malaysia is not yet ready for a Third Force. In Thailand you are either red shirt of yellow shirt. In Malaysia it is blue shirt (BN) or yellow shirt (Bersih).

In short, either black or white, no shades of grey.

Okay, when the idea of a Third Force was mooted, which subsequently saw the creation of MCLM, there must have been certain concerns at the back of our minds to prompt us to make this move. Yes, there were. And I had, in fact, already detailed my 'Vision and Mission Statement'.

And Sam agreed with this Vision and Mission Statement although he said he would rather called it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' to avoid any misunderstanding of what we had in mind. However, since Malaysians muda lupa, maybe I can take you for a walk down memory lane and we can explore whether these concerns that were driving us then were misplaced or warranted.

One concern (but not in order of priority) was regarding absorbing politicians from Barisan Nasional into Pakatan Rakyat who were 'damaged goods' or 'expired goods'. These people join the opposition because their 'shelf-life' has expired and their political career in Barisan Nasional is going downhill. Hence they join the opposition not because they are committed to reforms or because they have repented but because they are trying to reinvent themselves and attempt a second bite of the cherry.

One more concern was regarding the racial and religious politics being played by both sides of the divide, which is threatening to rip the country apart and send Malaysia back to the era of 1960s -- and which is regarded as the blackest period of Malaysia's post-war history. We felt that unless race and religion are kept out of politics then Malaysia can never progress and it may even one day trigger a second ethnic clash like what happened in 1969.

Another issue was regarding the inter-party and intra-party quarrelling and squabbling. The members of Pakatan Rakyat are fighting with one another and even within the individual parties there is infighting. One reason for this is because there is no clear common platform, although all the parties in Pakatan Rakyat claim that there is.

Each party still has its own individual objective and aspiration, which overrides the objective and aspiration of the coalition. And unless this was resolved, this may trigger a serious crisis closer to the next general election and more so after the general election in the event that Pakatan Rakyat wins the election.

Furthermore, the fighting over seats and candidates threatens to add to this crisis if not resolved. Barisan Nasional did badly in 2008 partly because of internal sabotage due to unhappiness over seats and candidates. Pakatan Rakyat is in danger of suffering that same fate, which will jeopardise the opposition's chances of winning the election.

Then there was the issue of election promises. In the past, voters would forget what you promised in the last general election. Hence you can make the same promises in every election and no one is going to remember that these were the old promises you made in the last election but never delivered.

Today, because of the Internet and the information revolution, people can remember what was said even ten or 20 years ago. Hence delivering on your promises is crucial. And one promise that I raised was regarding The People's Declaration and which Anwar Ibrahim rejected back in 2010 after endorsing it in February 2008.

Further to that, last year, the Selangor Menteri Besar made a statement saying that it is not mandatory to deliver promises made in Election Manifestos. If so then why even present an Election Manifesto if you do not intend to fulfil it and you feel that you are not compelled to make good your promises?

Anyway, Pakatan Rakyat is going to present its new Election Manifesto this Monday. Let us see how much of that was from the last election's Manifesto and how much of it was fulfilled. We can also compare it with The People's Declaration and see how much of it has been adopted into Pakatan Rakyat's new Election Manifesto.

I also raised the matter of good governance, transparency and accountability and how, after two-and-a-half years (as at end 2010), there are still incidences of mismanagement, abuse of power and corruption in the Pakatan Rakyat run states. The response to this was Barisan Nasional is worse. Pakatan Rakyat -- although it still happens in the opposition states -- is not that bad.

But then you are comparing states like Selangor to the federal government. Of course Barisan Nasional is worse. Barisan Nasional is the federal government. You should compare Selangor to Barisan Nasional run states like Pahang, Johor, etc. Pick on someone your own size. It is like comparing Malaysia to Singapore when Singapore should be compared to Kuala Lumpur or Penang.

Anyway, the Pakatan Rakyat leaders denied that there were 'problems' in their states and they challenged me to reveal the evidence to back up my allegation that there are incidences of corruption in Pakatan Rakyat run states. One issue, for example, was regarding sand mining in Selangor. Another was regarding the cronyism system in awarding legal work.

Prove it, they said. Show us the evidence, they screamed. And I did, as what they wanted. I published the evidence. However, instead of admitting the problem, they still disputed my allegation and called it a lie. They even challenged me to return to Malaysia with all the evidence. The state was even prepared to pay my expenses to return to Malaysia.

Well, those are but some of the issues I raised since late 2010. And because of that I was condemned, called a liar, accused of being bought, and much, much more.

Let us see who is right. In the meantime, more than 80% of the voters have already decided whom they will be voting for, with less than 20% undecided or on the fence. And this less than 20% are non-partisan. They do not belong to or support any political party. They just want a good government. And it is this less than 20% who will be deciding who is going to run Malaysia over the next five years. And many of this less than 20% are readers of Malaysia Today.

And that is the Third Force I am talking about -- and have been talking about for more than three years now. And now do you understand what Malaysia Today is all about and has been doing since 2010?

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

Can the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement give life to the much talked about 'Third Force'?

Haris Ibrahim, 27 October 2010

Last Monday, RPK wrote in M-Today that he had, in 2004, "attended the inaugural meeting of the Malaysian Civil Liberties Society (MCLS)…That was six years ago and after six years nothing further has happened. This is because the MCLS is still awaiting the approval of its registration".

I, too, was at that inaugural meeting and to this day I remain a protem committee of the MCLS that awaits registration.

I have given up waiting on the registrar of societies.

I was therefore excited to read in RPK's posting that this coming Saturday, 30th October, he will cause to be registered in the UK the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement.

It's objectives, as disclosed by RPK in his post, are :

1. to promote and propagate the People's Voice & the People's Declaration to all political parties contesting the coming general election.

2. to 'offer' non-political party candidates from amongst the Malaysian professionals/lawyers and the civil society movements to ALL the political parties contesting the general election that may either be short of candidates or are not able to find 'quality' candidates to field in the elections

In a post entitled 'Why the mad scramble' yesterday (READ HERE), RPK disclosed that the immediate focus of the MCLM is to engage the 3 Pakatan Rakyat parties in dialogues to try to convince them to change their system of candidate selection in the general and by-elections. This, RPK elaborates today in his 'When you don't trust your own people' post (READ HERE), spotlighting two issues: first, which party gets to contest which seat and, second, the practice by political parties of naming candidates at the eleventh hour.

In three posts, RPK has summed up the concerns of so many of us about what is believed to be an imminent 13th GE that offers an opportunity displace BN from federal governance, and an opposition that does not look quite so ready to go to war and despatch BN to the Indian Ocean.

I received an e-mail last Monday inquiring if I would be willing to serve as the interim spokesperson for MCLM until this Saturday when they will officially appoint office bearers.

I replied in the affirmative, subject to getting clarification on one point. The first objective talks about making available civil society candidates to ALL parties. Did that include BN?

The reply I got was reassuring.

All non-BN parties.

I agreed to that request, for one reason only.

If you compare the objects of MCLM as disclosed by RPK with the much-discussed Third Force, I think you will find little difference between the two.

Before I go any further, I want to observe and acknowledge here that many have expressed concerns and reservations about the 'Third Force' that has been mooted by many, myself included.

The concern has principally been about this 'Third Force' forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE.

Maybe the very name, 'Third Force' conjures in the minds of many civil society forcing three-corner fights in the 13th GE, although I have in many posts emphasised that this is not the case.

Let me say it clearly now that that which I have been speaking of as the 'Third Force' is no different from the initiative and objectives that RPK now moots through the MCLM.

However, to placate the many concerned out there, let's stop calling it the Third Force.

Let's call it 'Inisiatif Rakyat' or simply IR.

Or any other name that any of you would care to suggest.

I agreed to serve as interim spokesperson in the hope that, in that capacity, I could try to get MCLM to serve as the platform by which we push forth IR or whatever name you want to call it, to make ready for the 13th GE.

Should we try?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/can-the-malaysian-civil-liberties-movement-give-life-to-the-much-talked-about-third-force/

Jaw, jaw rather than war, war

Posted: 20 Feb 2013 04:44 PM PST

Has the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim, in very clear terms, made a statement asking the government to shoot them dead if they refuse to leave Malaysia in the next 24 hours? Is Anwar Ibrahim prepared to declare that he will support any drastic action taken by the Malaysian government, including shooting them dead if they refuse to leave Malaysia?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Many people are screaming about the 'terrorist invasion' of Lahat Datu, Sabah, and they are upset that the Malaysian government has not taken drastic action against these infiltrators. What drastic action are you talking about? Do you want the army to shoot them all dead?

The Muslim Bangsamoro come from the Philippines and they make up about 5% of the 95 million or so population of that Roman Catholic country. This means there are millions more from where these people came from. And many of the Moro are not only armed but are battle-seasoned as well after going through two generations of civil war since 1969.

Shooting these infiltrators dead is not a problem. In fact, that is the easiest thing to do. The problem would be what then? Are we prepared to risk retaliation after that? We must remember that shooting a few hundred 'illegals' dead is not that difficult. All it takes is guns and bullets, and Malaysia has plenty of that. It is what comes next that we have to worry about.

Sabah has always been a dicey issue in the Malaysia-Philippines relationship. It is also an issue for the Malaysian-Indonesian relationship as well for those like me who are old enough to remember the Konfrontasi of the early 1960s.

Sure, in the early 1960s the Indonesians invaded parts of Malaysia such as Johor and North Borneo and, sure, we whacked them good and proper. But the 'we' at that time included soldiers from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and many more -- the British Ghurkhas and British Special Forces included. Almost 30,000 military personnel were involved -- plus 80 ships from the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy, Royal Malayan Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy.

In North Borneo there was a secret and undeclared war going on along the Kalimantan border that the world did not know about. And it was more serious than many Malaysians are aware of. More than 1,100 people were killed and wounded (almost 100 of them civilians). But we were not told this because the government did not want the people to panic.

I know many Malaysian are blaming Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Hishammuddin Hussein, the Malaysian government, Barisan Nasional, Umno, and so on for what is happening. They say that this is the government's fault for not taking drastic action in shooting them all dead.

What is the opposition view on this? Does the opposition, too, want the government to shoot these people dead? Is the opposition prepared to set aside politics and stand united with the government in asking the government to take drastic action?

When push comes to shove, are Malaysians prepared to face the risk of retaliation in the event the action the government has to take triggers an armed conflict with our neighbours?

There are about 350 million Indonesians and Filipinos in total as opposed to less than 30 million Malaysians. And about 3 million of these Indonesians and Filipinos live in Malaysia, all over the country, and some even possess Malaysian 'papers'.

As a responsible Malaysian I would first like the government to explore a peaceful solution to this standoff. Only if that is not possible and only if they start shooting first should we fire our guns. And even then the guns should be fired as an act of defence and not as an act of aggression.

Sure, infiltration itself is an act of aggression. Hence shooting them can be interpreted as an act of defence and not an act of aggression. But was that not also what they said in Lebanon, Bosnia, Rwanda, and many other places all over the world that saw bloodshed?

The United Nations was formed so that we can avoid wars. And the United Nations is where we go to settle disputes. As what the late Tun Ghazali Shafie once said: as long as can continue to jaw, jaw we can avoid war, war.

In other words, keep talking (jaw, jaw) until it is no longer possible to talk before we go to war. Starting a war is easy. Ending it is difficult. Nevertheless, a long-term solution needs to be found to settle this matter, which is a decades old problem.

Now, assuming Pakatan Rakyat wins the coming general election in the next month or two and it gets to form the new federal government. And, say, this standoff has still not been settled by then (meaning the infiltrators are still in Sabah). How does Pakatan Rakyat propose to solve this issue? Will Anwar get sworn in as the new Prime Minister and then the very next day he sends in the army to shoot everyone dead?

I doubt Anwar will do that. Anwar, too, will try to negotiate a peaceful end to this standoff. There is one thing we must remember. The creation of Malaysia was not exactly 'kosher', if you know what I mean. There is a lot of 'history' behind the creation of Malaysia. And some of that 'history' has now surfaced to bite us in the butt.

According to the Americans, the South China Sea region is the most likely region for the outbreak of the Third World War in the event a Third World War does break out. So let us ponder on that before we ask the government to do a John Wayne and go in with our guns blazing.

And now read that statement by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) below.

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

Statement by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)

MILF to Sulu sultan's heirs: We consulted you on peace talks

(luwaran.com) -- "We have reached out to you as we did to other groups in Mindanao on the subject of resolving the conflict in Mindanao. We did this on several occasions particularly when the MILF peace panel had a sortie in Zamboanga City more than a year ago."

This was the explanation of Khaled Musa, deputy chairman of the MILF Committee on Information, in response to allegation purportedly coming from one of the spokesmen of the Sultan of Sulu that they were not consulted on issues surrounding the GPH-MILF peace negotiation.

Currently, followers of the Sulu sultan are reportedly involved in the standoff in Lahad Datu, Sabah, Malaysia.

In the Zamboanga forum, one of the relatives of the Sulu sultan asked the policy of the MILF regarding the sultanate especially the Sulu sultanate and the answer was: "We want to preserve it but we will not revive it."

"The sultanate is part of Moro history and heritage and it is one of the basis of the present Moro's assertion of its right to self-determination," Musa stressed.

He, however, clarified that the MILF will not stand on the way if the various sultanates would want to revive themselves.

"We respect their decisions," he added.

In 1935, Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon abolished the sultanates and the datu system. In one of his meeting with them, he had this blunt message:

"… The sultans have no more rights than the humblest Moro and that under my administration the humblest Moro will be given as much protection as any datu under the law, and that his rights will be recognized exactly as the rights of a datu will be, and that every datu will have to comply with his duties as citizen to same extent and in the same manner that the humblest Moro is obligated."

In the sultanate or datu system, the people are generally divided into three categories: the nobles, the commoners, and the slaves. Some say correctly or wrongly this system has roots in the caste system in India. The only difference is that amongst Moros, slaves were at times given the chance to buy his or her freedom or were freed by benevolent nobles.

Asked to comment on the Sabah standoff, Musa declined to make any statement, saying it is highly sensitive issue that the MILF Central Committee has not yet made the necessary guidelines.

"It is better to remain silent," he confessed.

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

Sabah a sanctuary for the people of Bangsamoro

(The Star) -- The Malaysian Government has done more for the displaced people in the former conflict zone of Southern Philippines than just brokering a peace agreement.

Moro Islamic Liberation Front chairman Murad Ebrahim said the Malaysian Government as well as its people contributed much by opening their doors to the Bangsamoro people in Sabah when they had to flee from their homes because of the conflict since the 1970s.

"At that time, there was no peace and order, and the economy was in tatters."

"Sabah was near and I suppose the Bangsamoro found it better to seek opportunities there."

"We are thankful for that because at the time there was no way for us to help our own people," he said.

At the same time, he said he was appreciative of the Government for allowing qualified Bangsamoro people to apply for citizenship and identity cards after having stayed in the country for decades.

The ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry heard a testimony by a former Moro National Liberation Front leader who slipped into Sandakan in 1975 and has since become a permanent resident.

However, Murad said since the restoration of peace in the region, the doors were now open for the Bangsamoro people to return and rebuild their homeland.

"Now many of them are well-off. If they choose to come back to the Bangsamoro area, they can help with development and investment in the Bangsamoro, like how we also welcome Malaysian investors."

"But we give them a choice. If they choose to stay in Malaysia, we won't have objections," he said.

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

The term Bangsamoro refers to a people who are natives of the Sulu archipelago, parts of Mindanao, parts of Palawan in the Philippines, and parts of Sabah in neighbouring Malaysia at the time of conquest or colonisation. It comes from the Malay word bangsa, meaning nation or people, and the Spanish word Moro, from the Spanish word for Moor, the Reconquista-period term used for Muslims.

Bangsamoro covers the provinces of Basilan, Cotabato, Davao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sarangani, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, and Zamboanga Sibugay; and the cities of Cotabato, Dapitan, Dipolog, General Santos, Iligan, Marawi, Pagadian, Puerto Princesa, and Zamboanga.

Other interpretations may include territories that used to form North Borneo including Sabah, Labuan and the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan. These areas are currently under the Sabah dispute. Historically, the island of Mactan plus the provinces of Manila and Cavite also formed part of Bangsamoro, as they were under Muslim rule.

The Moro ethnic group comprises the following population located in the southern islands of the Philippines.

Bajau

Banguingui

Illanun

Kalagan

Kalibugan

Maranao people

Maguindanao

Tausug

Samal people

Sama

Sangir

Yakan

History, not theology

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 06:14 PM PST

The Puritans wanted England cleansed of Catholics, who they regarded as deviant heretics who should be put to death. Amongst others they also wanted Christmas banned and shops ordered by law to stay open on 25th December. Parliament was also not happy that Mass was being said in the Royal Court since Mass or Eucharist is the central act of worship for the Roman Catholic Church.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It is interesting to note that my article titled 'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter' attracted 167 comments at the time I am writing this. And it would have been more than 200 had I not deleted all those copy-and-paste comments of verses from the Bible.

And do you know why it attracted so many comments? Well, because most readers took it as an article regarding religion and whenever we talk about religion all the loonies and weirdoes would crawl out of the woodwork to argue and defend their God.

It never fails each and every time. However, what they fail to see is that I am talking about history, not theology. But these people just cannot grasp the spirit of my article.

And these are the same people who try to interpret what I say and do and usually would misinterpret it and take the opposite of what I said (remember the TV3 interview in Perth that I did?) And these are the 'thinkers' of the Malaysian public who will be voting for the 'right' government come the next general election in the next month or two.

Heaven help Malaysia when we put the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

I have noticed that most Malaysian Christians (at least those who post comments in Malaysia Today) normally argue that there is a distinction between the Old and New Testaments and that Christians follow the New and not the Old Testament.

In other words, the New Testament has abrogated the Old Testament. But this is not what I find in England, strangely enough.

Anyway, let me emphasis, yet again, that today I am talking about history, not theology. And I will try to equate the history of Christianity in England (mainly the 1500-1600 period: which was a period of religious turmoil) with that of Islam so that you can better understand how both religions went down the same historical path.

You see, in Islam, there are those who interpret the Qur'an literally and there are those who take it as allegorical. Then there are those who accept the 'Scriptures' (in this case the Hadith) as authentic and those who reject them completely. Then there are those who accept some Hadith but not all while others accept different versions of Hadith.

Then, the most puzzling part of all (to those not schooled in the Qur'an, that is) would be the history of the Qur'an verses and which verse abrogates which verse. Then again, there are those who reject the 'science' of abrogation and argue that all verses still stand and none have been abrogated.

And that is why when non-Muslims copy-and-paste verses of the Qur'an and then try to interpret it the way they see it (meaning literally) they are terribly off the mark. Which verses, if any, are taken as literal and which ones as allegorical? Even Muslims are divided and sometimes confused on the matter so what more the non-Muslims who think they know what they are reading but actually do not know a thing.

Now, Christianity, too, suffers from this same ailment (such as literal versus allegorical). And that was what happened over more than 150 years from the early 1500s to the late 1600s in England. And because of this, England erupted into a Civil War from 1642 to 1651 and which resulted in the first time in English history that a monarch lost his head.

To study the history of the English Civil War you need to also understand the reigns of Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I, a prelude to the reign of Charles I.

We all know that Henry broke from Rome and declared himself the head of the church, the Church of England. Soon after that he purged England of Catholics. Cathedrals and churches were burned to the ground, Catholics and their priests were executed, and all symbols of Catholicism (even the crucifix) were destroyed.

When Henry and then Edward died, Mary took the throne and, being a Catholic, she reversed what her father did. This time, Protestant cathedrals and churches were burned plus Protestants and their priests were killed (even burned alive). In fact, she did worse than what her father did and for that she earned the title of Bloody Mary.

Then Elizabeth took the throne and she, in turn, reversed what Mary did. This time Catholics were put to death and their houses of worship and symbols destroyed. They also passed a new law that prohibited Catholics from sitting on the throne of England.

Now, we come to the reign of Charles I.

Charles was not a Roman Catholic but he believed that the Church of England was more Catholic than the Church of Rome itself. And there were many Catholics within Charles' own family -- such as his mother, Anne of Denmark; his wife, Henrietta Maria; etc. In fact, later on, his eldest son Charles became a Roman Catholic on his deathbed while James II, who also became a Roman Catholic, lost his throne because of that.

Hence England takes this 'No Catholic' rule very seriously.

The problem with Charles was that he was surrounded by those suspected of being 'closet' Catholics plus known Catholics. Hence Parliament wanted Charles to remove his advisers whom many Members of Parliament suspected were misleading Charles and giving him the wrong advice in favour of Catholicism.

Parliament, in fact, even forced Charles to sign death warrants for some of his close friends and although at first Charles resisted, he later had no choice but to sign these documents while crying as he did so.

The quarrel between Charles and Parliament was about two issues. One was regarding money (Charles bypassed Parliament when he imposed new taxes: in fact, Charles suspended Parliament five times during his rule) and the other was regarding religion.

Parliament suspected that there was a secret agenda to turn England into a Catholic state. Hence the Catholics needed to be destroyed and England retained as a Secular State with separation of State and Church. Charles, however, refused because he wanted to retain Episcopacy.

And with that the Civil War broke out with the Puritans on one side and the Royalists on the other. Later, after Charles was defeated, a bloody war broke out between Parliament and the Catholics in Ireland, so bloody and brutal that until today the Irish have never forgotten or forgiven the English.

Charles was eventually pronounced a traitor and executed. The English Catholic Church, however, has canonised Charles as a martyr, more or less confirming that Charles was Catholic 'at heart'.

So you see, not all Christians regard Catholics as real Christians (just like not all Muslims regard Wahhabis and Shias as real Muslims). The Catholics even up to these modern times are viewed as deviant heretics who bring affront to the religion of Christ.

No, I am not talking about theology here. I am talking about the history of England (at least of 500 years ago) and how many in England view the Catholics as sesat (misguided) Christians.

TIMELINE

Henry VIII: 21 April 1509 to 28 January 1547

Edward VI: 28 January 1547 to 6 July 1553

Mary I: 19 Jul 1553 to 17 November 1558 (a.k.a. Bloody Mary)

Elizabeth I: 17 November 1558 to 24 March 1603 (a.k.a. the Virgin Queen)

James I: to 24 March 1603 to 27 March 1625

Charles I: 27 March 1625 to 30 January 1649

England then temporarily became a Republic upon the death (execution) of Charles I until Charles II took the throne on 29 May 1660.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 15 Mac 2013