Selasa, 26 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan 11:52 PTG Dicatat oleh blog2

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan 9:37 PTG Dicatat oleh blog2

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

70 years later and still the same (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
The untold story of the Lahad Datu incident
Talking to a ten-year old
Conjecture, imagination and suspicion
The Chinese and Indians screwed up
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)

70 years later and still the same (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

Posted: 24 Mar 2013 05:14 PM PDT

Millions of Malaysians could go hungry as unpredictable weather in rice -producing countries is likely to affect our supply of rice. Unpredictable weather in rice-producing countries, spurred by Malaysia's rising population, could mean less food on the table, warned Kota Belud MP Abdul Rahman Dahlan. "If they have major flooding in rice-producing countries, such as Vietnam or Thailand, or assuming they go to war, where are we going to get our rice?" he asked.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

More than ten years ago, before Malaysia Today was launched, I wrote about the low food production in Malaysia -- in particular rice, which is the staple food of most Malaysians -- and said that if war ever breaks out Malaysians would go hungry; just like they did 70 years ago when the Japanese invaded Malaya and Malayans had to eat tapioca.

After 70 years since the Japanese occupation and more than ten years since I wrote that article, nothing much has changed. Today, Indonesia, which has a population about ten times that of Malaysia, has announced it is now self-sufficient in rice production. Maybe Malaysia should do what Cambodia did -- send the people from the urban areas to the rice fields to plant padi.

And that is why I should not be in politics. If I were and if my party were to win the general election, I would impose a one-year national service program and send school-leavers, plus those who are about to enter university, to the rice fields to serve their country by planting padi. And if you have not done this national service you cannot enter university or get a job -- unless you 'run away' to a foreign university without doing your national service (which means you will have to stay and work overseas after you graduate).

What is the focus of most Malaysians? Well, our focus is whether Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim makes the better Prime Minister. And those who will be voting in the coming general election are going to vote with this in mind -- which person is going to make a better Prime Minister.

Basically, the main factor is going to be whether Najib is guilty of involvement in Altantuya's murder and whether Anwar is bi-sexual and guilty of homosexual activities. If you think Najib is guilty then you will vote for Anwar (meaning Pakatan Rakyat) and if you think Anwar is guilty then you will vote for Najib (meaning Barisan Nasional).

No doubt some of you are going to say that you will not vote for Barisan Nasional because it is a racist and corrupt party. If Pakatan Rakyat is not also racist and corrupt then I would agree with this argument. However, when it is pointed out that Pakatan Rakyat is also racist and corrupt, many will reply that that may be so but Pakatan Rakyat is not as bad as Barisan Nasional.

In other words, Pakatan Rakyat may be just as bad but Barisan Nasional is worse. So you are prepared to accept the lesser evil over the bigger evil. That, of course, is your prerogative and in a democracy you have a right to your choice, whatever the reason may be for you making that choice.

But there are other factors we also need to consider. And we should be very concerned that the government we choose is in tune with what is happening in the world. All countries are moving towards self-sufficiency in food supply. And many countries have already achieved self-sufficiency. Malaysia, however, has been talking about self-sufficiency since the time of Tun Razak Hussein back in the 1970s and after 40 years is still just talking about it.

Food and water are crucial to life. And these are two things that in time are going to become scarce -- food and water. If, say, one day those countries selling us food decide to stop exporting food to Malaysia for whatever reason -- be it war, natural catastrophe, food shortage in the exporting countries, crop diseases, etc. -- where will Malaysia get its food supply from?

Golf courses, holiday resorts, shopping complexes, more cars on the road, high-rise condos, etc., are fine and allow Malaysia to project an image of success and progress. But at the end of the day we need to import our food to stay alive. And if another country wants to bring Malaysia to its knees it need not send in its army. All it needs is to stop sending food to Malaysia. In just a few weeks we will have to surrender without a single shot being fired.

So let's up the election fight one step. Whether Najib is involved in murder or Anwar in homosexual activities are certainly important points to consider. But this is not going to put food on the table. What is would be a government that has a clear program on how to make Malaysia self-sufficient in food, say in the next ten years, and not merely talk about it over 40 years and still be far from achieving self-sufficiency.

Yes, I know many of you are going to say that this is the whole reason why we need to change the government. But then I have not heard what this new government is going to do to guarantee us food on the table. And note that Anwar was once the Agriculture Minister and his policies as Agriculture Minister actually regressed things rather than progressed it. In fact, many people were actually unhappy with Anwar's policies and thought that he was undoing the good things that the Ministers before him did.

No, this is not an anti-Anwar article. This is about hearing what Anwar plans to do if he becomes Prime Minister to ensure Malaysians do not one day starve. And please do not give me political talk. Give me concrete and workable plans. And once this is addressed then we can talk about the other issues. But without enough food and water the other issues become meaningless.

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

Indonesia declares rice sufficiency, no more imports

(Jakarta Post) - Indonesia's State Owned Enterprises Minister Dahlan Iskan said Sunday that Indonesia would not import rice in 2013 as local farmers could produce sufficient rice to meet the domestic demand.

He said that as of December 2012, the existing rice stock inventory in state logistics agency PT Bulog's storehouses across the country reached around 2.5 million tons. Bulog should procure 3.5 million tons of rice during harvest periods this year.

"If Bulog can procure 3.5 million tons of rice during harvest periods this year we will not need to import more rice, as we did last year," said Dahlan, as quoted by Antara news agency. He spoke on the sidelines of a rice harvest event in Jati village, Jaten district, Karanganyar regency, on Sunday.

He said that from last year's rice imports, Bulog reaped Rp 800 billion (US$82.1 million) worth of profit. However, the profit was returned to the farmers so that the price of rice did not decline.

"To procure such a large amount of rice, from now on Bulog should use its full capacity to achieve the target. And if Bulog is willing to work hard, I'm optimistic that this can be achieved," Dahlan said, adding that in 2012, Bulog procured 2.6 million tons of rice from local farmers.

The Minister said that state run agribusiness firm PT Pertani planned to buy 100 units of rice dryer machines to distribute in several regions across the country. The machines would help farmers to dry their unhulled rice properly.

Dahlan said that obtaining fertilizer was no longer a problem for farmers and there was no more accumulation of fertilizer by traders.

"I haven't heard any more about traders accumulating fertilizer, which means that fertilizer distribution has been continuing under a mechanism requested by the farmers," said Dahlan.

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

Rice Consumption in Malaysia

Domestic consumption increased 3.8 percent to 2.7 million tons in 2011. Malaysia is about 62 percent self-sufficient. Consumption is forecast to increase about 4 percent in 2012 as demand is bolstered by an in-flow of foreign workers and tourists. While rice consumption per capita shows an increase from 81.6 kg in 2006 to 95 kg in 2010, the figure does not account for foreign workers and tourists.

In reality, the domestic consumption per capita is about 72 to 75 kg, and it has been on the slide vis-à-vis the consumption of wheat over the last two decades.

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Kuala%20Lumpur_Malaysia_2-15-2012.pdf

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

Experts: Rice production vital

Malaysia is 72 per cent self sufficient in rice production, Science adviser Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr Zakri Abdul Hamid said yesterday.

"Malaysia is progressing steadily. Ten years ago, we were 60 per cent self sufficient and in the next 10 years, we are aiming for 90 per cent," he said at the launch of a strategy meeting workshop on rice security.

"The global population is expected to swell to 9.3 billion by 2050, hence food security is critical.

"We need to find a way to accelerate our food production because Malaysia is one of the most import-dependant countries in the world," he said.

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

'Not enough rice to eat'

A rice shortage and a worsening self-sufficiency on food could force many Malaysians to go hungry.

Millions of Malaysians could go hungry as unpredictable weather in rice -producing countries is likely to affect our supply of rice.

Unpredictable weather in rice-producing countries, spurred by Malaysia's rising population, could mean less food on the table, warned Kota Belud MP Abdul Rahman Dahlan.

"If they have major flooding in rice-producing countries, such as Vietnam or Thailand, or assuming they go to war, where are we going to get our rice?" he asked.

Citing the 2008 global rice shortage as an example, he added: "If the crisis then lasted for another five or six months, we would all have had to learn to eat tapioca."

"This is no laughing matter. Our national rice stockpile was being consumed very rapidly, and we couldn't buy rice quickly."

Abdul Rahman said this in response to concerns raised by the World Bank over the country's worsening food self-sufficiency levels.

According to the Malaysia Economic Monitor (Smart Cities) report, the country's self-sufficiency in rice shrunk to 62% in 2007 from 71% in 1970.

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

Rice Supply Channel Needs Improvement

Problem and implications of low rice production growth that is not able to match the higher growth rate of the population of the world are the subject of a workshop on 'Sustainable Rice Production' here last week.

The workshop organised by the Faculty of Science and Technology (FST) of The National University of Malaysia (UKM) deliberated on solutions to overcome the escalating problem which include the growing of high yielding and quality rice while ensuring safety of the rice farmers.

Tan Sri Dr Mohd Noor Ismail, Corporate Advisor to Tradewinds Malaysia Berhad in his key note address at the workshop said the rice business has to be looked at wholistically from farm to shelf.

He said finding ways to grow rice better and faster is all well and fine but attention must also be given to the issues that goes beyond research so that whatever findings and innovations made will not be undermined.

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

70年过去了，一切还是没有改变。

近期在稻米盛产国变化无常的天气很有可能会影响我国的稻米入口，进而导致数以百万的马来西亚人民挨饿。哥打贝鲁（Kota Belud）国会议员阿都拉曼（Abdul Rahman Dahlan）指出，他国的无常天气，加上我国的人口暴涨，会导致我们人均食品量的减少："如果大水灾发生在那些稻米盛产国，如泰国，越南等，抑或爆发战争，那请问我们应该去哪儿购买稻米呢？"

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

大约十年前，在今日大马还没开网以前，我曾经讨论过有关大马国内食品供应——尤其是稻米（我国主要主食）供应——过低的隐忧。我甚至还提过如果战争爆发马来西亚人民将会挨饿，就如70年前二战期间日本入侵马来亚时，我们必须依靠木薯糊口度日。

70年过去了，我那篇文章也写了十年，一切还是没有改变。印尼的人口多于我国十倍，但日前他们早已宣布他们已拥有足够的国内稻米供应。或许大马应该多向柬埔寨学习——把城市居民带回乡间种植稻米。

这就是为什么我不应该参政的原因：如果我执政的话，我将会强制那些刚离开中学或即将进入大学的学生们参与一年制的国民服务计划——我会派送他们去种稻米。那些不愿意的人将不被允许进入大学和申请工作。当然你可以'逃离'到他国留学，但是毕业后你将会在国外生活和工作。

马来西亚人民最关注的是什么呢？我们关注的是，纳吉抑或安华，哪个会是比较好的首相？那些即将去投票的人都是这个思想模式的——哪个会是比较好的首相，他就会投哪个。

基本上，投票的因素会是：纳吉是否牵涉在阿丹杜亚(Altantuya)谋杀案中，而安华又是否是双性恋且牵涉在鸡奸案中。如果你认为纳吉是有罪的你就会投给安华（即民联），而如果你认为安华是有罪的你就会投给纳吉（即国阵）。

你们当中当然会有人跳出来讲说你们不投给国阵是因为国阵是腐败兼具有种族歧视的。如果民联是廉政且一视同仁的话我当然赞同你这个理由。事实上，当有人站出来指出民联的腐败和种族歧视时，很多人会认为这些指责可能是对的，但他们会说民联还没有国阵这么糟糕。

换句话说，民联是有问题的，但国阵更糟糕，而你愿意从两个烂苹果中挑一个比较不烂的。当然，这是一个民主社会，无论背后的原因是什么，你都拥有绝对的选择权。

我必须提醒你，我们还是应该参照其他因素。我们应该考虑到我们所选的政府是否能够跟上国际社会的步伐。所有国家都设法在食品供应上自给自足，很多国家都已经达成目标了。我国早在敦拉萨时期就提起了自给自足方案，但40年过去了，我们还是停留在'讲讲'这个阶段。

食物与水源是生活的首要必需品，而这两样东西在未来可能会面临短缺。若有朝一日我们的食物入口国因某些原因——战争，天灾，农作物歉收等——而拒绝继续供应我国粮食，那我们应该去哪儿买食物？

高尔夫球场，度假村，购物广场，高楼大厦。。。等等，都显示出马来西亚的发展与成功，但终究我们现今还是得入口食品以存活。如果他国想要我们俯首称臣的话，他们根本都不必发兵来袭，他们只需要停止供应我们食物。不出几个星期，也不用打出一枚子弹，我们就会投降了！

所以，让我们来为这次大选增添'看头'。虽然说阿丹杜亚案和鸡奸案都是重要的考虑因素，但毕竟这些都是不能拿来吃的。重要的是，政府必须提出有效方案以解决国内食品不足问题，而这个方案必须是要有事时间性的（比如说我们定制10年为限期）而不是有如上述40年的空谈。

是的，我知道你们当中会有人告诉我这正好是我们应该改朝换代的原因。但是，我并没有听说过这个所谓的新政府就食粮课题上做出任何承诺。你们应该知道，安华曾经当过我国的农业部长，而他当时的农业政策是开倒车的。是的，当时确实很多人对他的政策不满，认为他把前任农业部长的良好政策给搞砸了。

不，这不是一篇反安华的文章。我是要听听安华在当了首相后，他会怎样做以确保人民不会有朝一日挨饿。还有，麻烦你们别在给我上政治课；给我一个实在的，可行的计划。当我们解决这个课题后，我们才能解决其他的；没有了食粮水源，其他问题都是扯淡的。

The untold story of the Lahad Datu incident

Posted: 24 Mar 2013 01:00 AM PDT

On 16th July 2012, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim flew to Jakarta to meet Nur Misuari -- who is very close to Anwar since the days when Anwar was in the government -- and the military commanders of the MNLF. The meeting was held in the Crowne Plaza Jakarta hotel and was arranged by an Indonesian Member of Parliament -- another close friend of Anwar -- at the behest of Anwar. A second meeting was held in Manila on 4th August 2012 to finalise and seal the agreement.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I wrote about this matter eight years ago back in 2005. However, many of you were probably not yet readers of Malaysia Today in 2005 so you most likely did not read what I wrote then.

For those of you who can remember what I wrote, it was a very long story indeed but basically it was about the links between the Muslim leaders in the Malaysian government and the Muslim leaders in the Philippines and the role that Malaysia played in the 'internal affairs' of the Philippines.

Most Malaysians do not understand the difference with Sulus, MNLF, MILF and Abu Sayyaf -- as they do not know the difference between the PLO and Hamas. Nevertheless, let me simplify it by saying that they are all merely splinter or rival groups of the Muslims in the Philippines who are seeking self-determination, just like the Palestinians in the Middle East are. And Malaysia, being a Muslim country, sympathises with the Muslims of the Philippines -- as it does with the Muslims of Southern Thailand -- and is helping in any way it can to resolve both the Philippines and Southern Thailand issues.

Along the way, however, something went wrong. As I had written in 2005, certain promises were made that were not delivered. And this has a bearing on the Sabah 'IC issue' (you do not need a RCI for me to tell you that). And that resulted in the Sipidan hostage crisis and the involvement of Libya in helping to eventually resolve the crisis after many months of deadlock.

A reported RM50 million changed hands to secure the release of the hostages, the cost which Libya underwrote. Of course, no one is going to admit to this although they will not be able to explain how and why the hostages were eventually released.

But all that happened decades ago. We are talking about the start of the crisis in 1970, when many of you were not even born yet, and the hostage crisis 30 years later in 2000. Since then everything has been very quiet -- that is until last year when this whole thing was resurrected in preparation for the coming general election.

And this was what happened recently.

Anwar's and Nur Miusari's links go way back to the time Anwar was in government

A second meeting was held in Manila on 4th August 2012 to finalise and seal the agreement. Anwar flew to Manila on flight MH 704 and if you were to check these flight details you can confirm that Anwar did make this trip, as he did the trip to Jakarta just two weeks or so earlier.

In that meeting, Anwar told Misuari that he needs the latter's help to win the coming general election. Pakatan Rakyat was confident of winning at least 82-85 of the 165 seats in West Malaysia. It was the 57 seats in Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan that he was not confident of winning.

Pakatan Rakyat needs to win at least 30 of those 57 East Malaysian seats to be able to form the federal government with an extremely slim but comfortable enough majority. (Anwar can always increase this majority later with crossovers from Barisan Nasional once they form the government). And for that to happen Anwar needs the support of the Muslims in East Malaysia, in particular in Sabah, many of them Filipino Muslims with Malaysian citizenship and voting rights.

Anwar promised Misuari that in the event Pakatan Rakyat takes over the federal government, Sabah and Sarawak would be given autonomy, as what they had been fighting for over 42 years since 1970. These two East Malaysian states would also be given 20% oil royalty, an increase of 15% from the current 5%. This would ensure that these two states would become very wealthy -- an estimated RM4 billion a year for each state.

Furthermore, all the non-Malaysian Filipinos in East Malaysia would be given Malaysian citizenship -- or at the very minimum permanent resident status -- so that they could seek employment in Sabah. Jobs for them will also be assured.

Nur Misuari agreed to these terms and subsequently appointed Haji Ibrahim Omar as the MNLF coordinator or 'unofficial ambassador' to Sabah to help Anwar garner the support of the Filipino Muslims in that state.

And that was why the Malaysian government hesitated to take drastic action when trouble first emerged in Lahad Datu. The government knew that there was more than meets the eye in this whole episode although it was not too clear yet at that time how this incident fit in to the bigger scheme of things.

To leave things alone is certainly out of the question. But taking military action would only play into the hands of the conspirators and convince the Filipino Muslims in Sabah that they must unite behind Anwar to gain autonomy from the federal government.

Yes, the Lahad Datu incident was certainly a 'wayang', as the opposition claims. Very few Malaysians would deny that this is so. Many Malaysians are also convinced that there are certain 'dalang' behind this incident. What they do not know is: who is the dalang? Well, Malaysia Today has just revealed the untold story and I challenge the Malaysian government to deny the authenticity of what I have just revealed.

Another point to consider is whether the 'war of words' between the MNLF and MILF is another wayang. By perpetuating this conflict, which will result in the torpedoing of the peace process, this gives them an excuse for continuing the armed conflict. However, the relationship between the MNLF and the other splinter groups does not appear as ruptured as what it shows behind the scenes, if the above photograph is anything to go by.

My conclusion to this whole thing is that there are many plots and sub-plots and at the end of the day we really do not know who is playing whom.

2. Columnist claims Misuari helped Sulu siege to derail Bangsamoro peace deal: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55284-columnist-claims-misuari-helped-sulu-siege-to-derail-bangsamoro-peace-deal

3. Anwar claims of BN plot to implicate him in Sulu clampdown: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55320-anwar-claims-of-bn-plot-to-implicate-him-in-sulu-clampdown

4. Sulu military commander captured: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55327-sulu-military-commander-captured

5. Lahad Datu: Kg Tanduo chief's son is coordinator for Sulu group, say police: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55326-lahad-datu-kg-tanduo-chiefs-son-is-coordinator-for-sulu-group-say-police

6. Sultanate: 8 terror accused are Malaysians, not Pinoys: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/55315-sultanate-8-terror-accused-are-malaysians-not-pinoys

7. There's much at stake in Sabah: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/guest-columnists/55346-theres-much-at-stake-in-sabah

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

Hostage crisis in the Philippines

(CNN, 23rd April 2000) - Abu Sayyaf gunmen attack a Malaysian dive resort on the island of Sipadan, seizing 21 hostages.

The hostages -- 10 tourists and 11 resort workers -- were taken to an Abu Sayyaf camp on the southern Philippine island of Jolo.

Over the following months all but one of the hostages, a Filipino, were released, allegedly after ransoms of up to US$1 million per hostage were paid to the kidnappers.

READ MORE HERE: Libya and the Jolo Hostages (20th August 2000) http://212.150.54.123/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=126

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

AFP mum over sultanate's Sabah intrusion

The intrusion occurred just as former Malaysian leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, also Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader, proposed that Sabah be granted autonomy.

(AFP, 16th February 2013) - ZAMBOANGA CITY: Philippine military officials kept silent over the daring intrusion of dozens of Filipinos into the eastern Malaysian state of Sabah, where authorities surrounded them and were negotiating for their peaceful surrender as of press time.

Reports said that the men are members of the sultanate of Sulu province and North Borneo and the Moro National Liberation Front (MILF), and that some of them were armed.

The Filipinos were believed to be active in the campaign to reclaim the Malaysian oil-rich island, which is part of the sultanate.

"The Department of Foreign Affairs has the sole authority to give a statement about that," Col. Rodrigo Gregorio, spokesman for the Western Mindanao Command, told The Manila Times.

The Philippine Embassy in Kuala Lumpur and the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila have not issued any official statement about the situation in Sabah's Lahad Datu town, where some 100 Filipinos, many of them wearing military uniforms, were holding out.

Foreign Affairs spokesman Raul Hernandez said that they are still trying to ascertain and complete the facts of the Sabah incident.

The Sultanate of Sulu obtained Sabah from Brunei as a gift for helping put down a rebellion on Borneo Island. The sultanate of Sulu was a Muslim state that ruled over much of the islands off the Sulu Sea. It stretches from a part of the island of Mindanao in the east, to North Borneo, now known as Sabah, in the west and south and to Palawan province, in the north.

The Sultanate of Sulu was founded in 1457 and is believed to exist as a sovereign nation for at least 442 years. Malaysia, which is now brokering peace talks of Manila and the MILF, still pays a token to the heirs of the sultanate of Sulu around 6,300 ringgits each year.

Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said that they will do their best to prevent any bloodshed. Gen. Tan Sri Ismail Omar, police inspector, and Sabah Police Commissioner Datuk Hamza Taib, said that the Filipinos arrived in speedboats and that police and military forces have encircled the men.

"In terms of strength, we have the upper hand in combat power to arrest them, but the government opts for negotiation to break the stalemate so that they leave peacefully to southern Philippines," the prime minister was quoted as saying by the Malaysian news agency Bernama.

"We have more and less identified the group. But let the police negotiate with them and hopefully, it will bear fruit and succeed. This is because they cannot go anywhere, they have been surrounded . . . They have no choice and have to find a solution," he added.

The intrusion occurred just as former Malaysian leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, also Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader, proposed that Sabah be granted autonomy.

Sultan Muhammad Fuad Kiram I, the sultan of Sulu and the sultan of Sabah, said that Malaysia illegally occupied Sabah. "Sabah is still the property and sovereign patrimony of the sultan of Sulu and the royal sultanate of Sulu to this day," he said in the website of the royal hashemite sultanate of Sulu, which is accessible at http://www.royalsulu.com.

He said that the sultanate supports "a free and independent Sabah [which] will be under our reign and our heirs and successors according to law of succession as the reigning sultan of Sabah."

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

Authorities urged to reveal if Sulu militants are 'Project IC' Malaysians

(The Malaysian Insider, 21st March 2013) - PKR has urged the government to reveal if the Sulu militants who invaded Sabah last month were given blue identity cards (ICs) under Project IC.

The Sulu sultanate said yesterday that Agbimuddin Kiram — the brother of self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III — was never issued a blue IC, but admitted that he had worked as an assistant district officer in Kudat on Sabah's north.

"The confirmation (by the Sulu sultanate) raises worries among many quarters whether the armed group in Lahad Datu involves Malaysians originating from the Philippines who hold blue identity cards," PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli (picture) said in a statement today.

"This matter raises the possibility of threats to national security, as a result from certain parties allegedly linked to (former Prime Minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who allegedly gave citizenship without due process," he added.

Dr Mahathir, Malaysia's longest-serving prime minister who was in power from 1981 to 2003, has been accused of spearheading the so-called "Project IC", in which citizenship was allegedly given to immigrants for their votes.

PKR said yesterday that Agbimuddin was appointed in the civil service in 1974, based on a 1975 Sabah government payroll dug up from the state's archives.

The Sulu sultanate's spokesman, Abraham Idjirani, reportedly said yesterday that Agbimuddin was still alive after fresh clashes against Malaysian security forces that killed two Sulu militants yesterday.

The Sulu sultanate's "raja muda" or crown prince had led a 200-strong band of gunmen into Lahad Datu last February 9 and turned the Sabah east coast into a violent battleground in their bid to retake the state.

Rafizi also urged the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on illegal immigrants in Sabah to continue its proceedings to expose the illegal issuance of ICs in the Borneo state.

The RCI is due to resume on April 15, according to RCI secretary Datuk Saripuddin Kasim.

The RCI, which was formed on August 11 last year, has an additional six months to complete its probe after receiving the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's consent.

Former Sabah National Registration Department (NRD) officers have testified at the RCI that blue ICs were sold to Filipino, Indonesian and Pakistani immigrants in Sabah.

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

Misuari cautioned not to take advantage of Lahat Datu episode

(Daily Express, 21st March 2013) - Kuching: Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Richard Riot on Wednesday cautioned former Moro National Liberation Front leader Nur Misuari not to try and take advantage of the Lahad Datu episode to advance his personal selfish agenda.

In rebuking Misuari's claim that Sabah rightfully belonged to the so-called Sultan of Sulu, he said, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had made it categorically clear that the State was part of Malaysia and no one should question its sovereignty and territorial integrity as a legitimate part of Malaysian territory.

"My advice to Misuari is, if he is a peace-loving man as he desperately claimed to be and if he really loves and cares for his Bangsamoro, he should support and join the efforts towards the peace agreement within the framework that was signed recently between the Philippines government and Bangsamoro for long-lasting peace in Mindanao," he told a media conference here.

Cautioning Misuari to heed the Malay proverb, "jangan menagguk di air yang keruh" literally translated as "not to fish in murky water," he urged him to devote his remaining energy and time to the peace accord for the good of his fellow countrymen and government of the Philippines, to which he owed his loyalty.

He said the promotion of peace was one of the pillars of Malaysia's foreign policy and, for which, the country would vehemently protect and defend every inch of Sabah against foreign aggression and any hostile action.

"We have witnessed that turmoil and instability in Southern Philippines have certainly brought no advantage to anyone but only to burden Malaysia and other neighbouring countries having to host those fleeing their homes for safety and better lives," Riot said.

There was nothing that Malaysia desired for its neighbours more than for them to enjoy peace, stability and prosperity, he said.

For that reason, he said, Malaysia had been actively involved in peace keeping missions all over the world and willing to broker peace efforts in neighbouring countries, particularly in the Philippines.

He said the warm bilateral relationship between both countries was reflected when the regional governor of the autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao, Mujir S Hataman, paid him a courtesy at his office in Putrajaya in October last year.

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

Lahad Datu: Misuari's claim a lie, says MILF

(The Star, 21st March 2013) - The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) has denied the claim that the Malaysian Government had used it to strengthen its claim on Sabah.

MILF secretariat head Mohammad Ameen also dismissed claims by former Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) chairman Nur Misuari that Malaysia was responsible for promoting disunity among the Moro people.

"This is a total lie and completely fabricated. Misuari has committed a sin for making such an irresponsible and callous statement against both the MILF and the Malaysian Government.

"He should rectify and atone for this," Mohammad was quoted as saying in a news report by the Luwaran News Centre yesterday.

He was responding to Misuari, who accused Malaysia of being a "stumbling block" in efforts to unite rival Moro groups in southern Philippines.

Misuari also said that the MILF was "the instrument of Malaysian colonialism" and that it was Malaysia which was "pulling the strings" behind the MILF.

Mohammad pointed out that it was Malaysia who called for the formation of the Bangsamoro Solidarity Conference (BSC) in 2002 to unite the MNLF and MILF factions, as well as to promote a common position among them, especially in their dealings with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

"How could Malaysia use the MILF to strengthen its claim to Sabah when Sabah has never been made part of the agenda of the peace talks since 2001?" said Mohammad.

He said Malaysia did not volunteer to facilitate the peace talks between the MILF and the Philippine Government, but it was the then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in 2001, who requested Malaysia to act as a negotiator.

Mohammad questioned why Misuari was so eager to raise the Sabah claim now when throughout his 21 years of peace talks with the Philippine government, he had never raised the issue.

"It is a pity that Misuari is blaming everyone else for the failure of his leadership and growing irrelevance to the Bangsamoro struggle to self-determination," he said.

"As a leader, Misuari has nothing more to prove. It is better for him to rest, write his memoirs, and allow the new breed of leaders to lead the Bangsamoro people towards the fulfilment of their true aspirations."

Talking to a ten-year old

Posted: 21 Mar 2013 06:19 PM PDT

The NEP is not just about stocks and shares and listings on the stock exchange. The NEP is about the aspirations of a two-prong attack: reducing the gap between the haves and the haves-not and reducing the disparity between the different races. Hence, while the Bumiputera ownership of stocks and shares or listed companies may have met a shortfall, what about the rest of us, which the NEP is also about? Are we still short in those areas as well, as we may be in corporate wealth?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Never mind whether I write a short article (The Chinese and Indians screwed up) or a longer article (Conjecture, imagination and suspicion), the average Malaysian still does not understand what I am trying to say. This only goes to show the low comprehension level of most Malaysians. And these are the same people we are depending on to make the right decision in the coming general election.

God help Malaysia when we need to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum and the monkeys in charge of the zoo.

Now, allow me to speak to you as I would to a ten-year old. The events of 1982 and 1992 that I talked about in the two previous articles regarding the New Economic Policy (NEP) were specific to the Malay Chamber of Commerce, which I was not only a member of but I also sat in the Central Committee.

Hence the discussion focused on issues of concern to the Malay Chamber -- and that would be the Bumiputera share of the corporate wealth of Malaysia. It does not involve other issues such as land, housing, education, jobs, etc. The Malay Chamber represents the Malay business community and the job of the Chamber (just like in any Chamber of Commerce anywhere else in the world) is to focus on the needs and aspirations of its members.

Hence it speaks on behalf of only the members of the Chamber. It would not, for example, be speaking on behalf of the taxi drivers, trishaw pullers, lorry owners, petty traders, teachers, bank employees, civil servants, ex-servicemen, ex-policemen, etc., who all have their own associations to represent their interests.

It is like, say, the Association of Chinese Barbers. This association does not represent all Chinese or all barbers. It represents only its members. So to say that the association should not speak on behalf of all Chinese or on behalf of all barbers (the Malay and Indian barbers included) is silly. And in that same spirit to say that the Chinese Chamber of Commerce does not represent all the Chinese in Malaysia is equally silly. Of course it does not. If you are not a member of that Chamber then it does not and cannot represent your interest or your views.

Now, what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad tried to do in 1982 was to act as matchmaker between the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce so that both Chambers can work closely to resolve issues of concern to the Malay businessmen and women. If the business community can work together to resolve their issues, then the government can ease off and not get involved with what were clearly 'business issues'. And if the relationship works and there is close cooperation between both business communities, then the government can leave the businessmen and women alone and not force policies down their throats.

When it did not work, ten years later in 1992, the government organised a Bumiputera Economic Congress where everyone can get involved. This was not to be a Congress where the Malays make demands and hold the government to ransom. It was to be a Congress where everyone can come to a mutual agreement on what to do. This is not about what the Malays want. It is about what the Malays, Chinese, Indians and others jointly want. It was to seek a consensus of all the races and not listen to the demands of just the Malay business community, and only those who are members of the Malay Chamber on top of that.

The Malay argument was that after so many years of the NEP the Malay share of the corporate wealth increased from just 1% to 4% while that of the Chinese increased from 30% to 60%. The Chinese, however, argued that, in terms of percentage, the Chinese corporate wealth only doubled while that of the Malays increased four times. Hence the Malays saw four times the growth that the Chinese saw.

In terms of growth the Chinese are, of course, correct. The Malay wealth increased four times while that of the Chinese only doubled. In absolute figures, though, the Chinese are far ahead of the Malays at 60% compared to only 4% for the Malays.

Then there was another issue that the Chinese raised. Are you looking at Malay wealth based on par value at the time the shares were issued or at market capitalisation? At par value, say RM1.00 per share, the figure would be lower compared to market capitalisation, say, RM10.00 per share. Hence, are we comparing apples to apples?

The second point was: are you looking at Malay wealth based on what they currently still hold or based on what they were originally given, which had already been sold and at a huge profit on top of that. In other words, is your calculation based on current shareholdings or based on what has passed through the hands of the Malays? What the Malays currently hold in terms of stocks and shares may be only 10% or less of what they originally received. And the 90% or more, which the Malays have since sold, would have been sold at a profit, which is not reflected in the calculation of the corporate wealth of the Malays.

Hence, in short, what formula do we use to decide how wealthy the Malays are? And unless we can agree on that formula, and hence arrive at the correct bottom-line, how do we even begin to resolve the problem when we do not even know what the problem is.

(Now do you see why short articles do not work? There are many issues to an argument that need to be raised).

Now, remember that we are still talking about just the corporate wealth or corporate share of the Malays in comparison to the other races. But not all of us have stocks and shares or own companies listed on the stock exchange. Hence this debate, argument, disagreement, or whatever, does not involve all of us. What if you are a makan gaji (salaried employee), student, farmer, smallholder, fisherman, trishaw puller, food stall operator, etc? Whether it is 4%, 19%, 30% or 60% is of no concern to you. This is merely the concern of the Malay, Chinese and Indian Chambers of Commerce, and in particular to the members of those Chambers.

Yes, those are social issues that the social scientists need to address and which the Chambers of Commerce does not talk about. Do more Malays receive an education now than before? Do more Malays get to go to university now than before? Are more Malays employed now than before? Are more Malays living above the poverty level now than before? Do more Malays own homes now than before? Do more Malays own cars now than before? Do more Malays live in the urban areas now than before? Are there more Malay professionals now than before? And so on and so forth.

So there is more to the NEP than just stocks, shares and listed companies. But the story I told you in the previous two articles concerns the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce and even then specific to events in 1982 and 1992. But it appears like many of you just do not understand this. And this is why many of you posted comments that had nothing to do with the issue.

First understand what is being written and then comment. And the issue was regarding the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce and the events of 1982 and 1992 and what Dr Mahathir tried but did not work out mainly because the Malays and Chinese could not agree on the formula to apply and hence what the solution should therefore be.

And instead of trying to find the middle ground -- as in any 'peace process' there would always be a middle ground -- the Chinese chose to remain silent and not participate and allowed the government to do what it wanted.

That, in a nutshell, is the message I am delivering. However, those wearing blinkers would be hard-pressed to see this message.

Conjecture, imagination and suspicion

Posted: 19 Mar 2013 08:56 PM PDT

Long before 1970, the Chinese, led by Siew Nim Chee, the economic adviser to Lim Goh Tong, approached the Finance Minister, Tan Siew Sin, to propose a sort of economic policy to help the Malays. The Chinese realised that sooner or later there would be turmoil in the country if the economic imbalance between the Chinese and the Malays were not addressed.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Yesterday's article, The Chinese and Indians screwed up, was a good experiment in readers' mentality, comprehension skills, and IQ level.

Firstly, I cut my normal 3-4-page article to just one page in response to some readers who complain that they cannot understand long articles. If they feel that a 3-4-page essay is too long to understand, imagine what they would say if I wrote a 200-page thesis. This thesis would probably be lost on most of them.

Apparently, even if the article is a short one-page article they still do not understand what I am saying, as most of the 146 comments have proven. Hence it is not the length of my articles that is at fault but the brain of the readers that is to be blamed. Short article or long article, they still do not understand what they read.

Secondly, yesterday's article was in response to the whining, moaning, bitching, grumbling, lamenting and complaining regarding the New Economic Policy (NEP). When I revealed what happened in 1982 and then what happened again in 1992, most readers were caught off-guard. They were not aware about the 1982 and 1992 episodes. However, not wanting to admit their ignorance, they started posting comments that were way off the mark.

And most of these comments were not based on facts or eyewitness accounts but were based on conjecture, assumptions, guessing and speculation. I was there in 1982 and 1992 and was involved with what happened. Those who posted comments were not, but they still posted comments as if they knew what happened for a fact.

Thirdly, everyone assumes that the failure of the NEP was solely and entirely the fault of Umno and the Malays. Now that I reveal that the Chinese and Indians had been given an opportunity to correct the faults in the NEP and even end it and replace it with something else, but they did not do so, the readers deviate from the issue and raise all sorts of lame excuses such as the fear of Operasi Lalang, about Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad being a dictator, that even if the Chinese and Indians speak up no one would listen, and so on.

Let me tell you something else that most of you are probably not aware of.

Long before 1970, the Chinese leaders, led by Siew Nim Chee, the economic adviser to Lim Goh Tong, approached the Finance Minister, Tan Siew Sin, to propose a sort of economic policy to help the Malays. The Chinese realised that sooner or later there would be turmoil in the country if the economic imbalance between the Chinese and the Malays were not addressed.

Siew Sin, however, did not take up the idea and when May 13 erupted in 1969, those Chinese who were in the know and who had tried to do something actually blamed Siew Sin for the race riots.

That's right, while you blame Umno and Tun Razak Hussein for May 13, the Chinese who had attempted to avoid such a thing as May 13 blamed Siew Sin for not listening and for not doing what the Chinese had proposed.

Ironical, don't you think so?

When Dr Mahathir took over as Prime Minister, he tried to get the Chinese to 'take over' the job of reducing the economic imbalance between the Malays and the Chinese so that the government could end the NEP in 1990. The Chinese, however, thought that this is not their job to nurture the Malays. Let the government worry about the Malays. Why should the Chinese worry about it?

The Bumiputera share of the 'corporate pie' in 1970 before the implementation of the NEP was just 1%. Hence the target was set at 30% although the Bumiputera population was 60%. By the time Dr Mahathir took over in 1981, the Bumiputera share had grown to 4% -- or 19% if you include the 15% share of the trust agencies and GLCs. By 1990, it still remained at the same level as in 1981. In short, it had stagnated mainly because of the economic slump of 1985-1987.

The main question and bone of contention then was can the 15% share of the trust agencies and GLCs be added to the 4% personal share of the Bumiputeras considering that the trust agencies and GLCs belong to the government and therefore to the nation? For example, does Petronas belong to the country or to the Malays?

That was one main disagreement between the Malays and the government. The government says that the Bumiputeras own 19% of the corporate pie while the Malays insist it was only 4% -- since what is owned by the nation does not belong to the Malays individually.

Nevertheless, while the argument was about whether it is 4% or 19%, whatever the case may be it was still short of the 30% target.

In 1991, the Malay Chamber of Commerce wanted to organise the Third Bumiputera Economic Congress to discuss the NEP. Dr Mahathir summoned the Committee to his office to inform us that the government will take over the organising of the Congress.

I was in that delegation to the PM's office and was appointed as the spokesman. I was told to protest the move by the government to 'hijack' the Congress. However, there were no two ways about it. The government will take over and there was to be no further discussion on the matter. Furthermore, we were told that the government was going to invite everyone to participate in the Congress.

When we were told this we protested. I stood up to argue that how can we call it the Bumiputera Congress when the non-Malays were going to be part of the Congress and would decide on what the new post-NEP policy was going to look like? But Dr Mahathir's decision was final. The government will be organising it and the non-Malays were going to be part of it. Accept that or the government will proceed without the involvement of the Malay Chamber of Commerce.

We were mad as hell but could not do anything about it. Clearly the Malay Chamber had lost its monopoly on the NEP. The non-Malays were now going to have a say in what happens post-NEP. And that was when many of us in the Malay Chamber swung over to Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's Semangat 46.

Dr Mahathir and Umno had 'abandoned' the Malays and had opened up the new policy post-NEP to the non-Malays. This was a betrayal of the Malay cause; the way we saw it then. And Dr Mahathir was no longer regarded as the trustee of the Malays.

Surprisingly, Dr Mahathir had 'given the non-Malays a knife' but they did not use it. Dr Mahathir was in the mood to end the NEP and replace it with something else. We did not know what that something else was going to look like but surely with the non-Malays having a say in what it was going to be could not be something favourable to the Malays.

But the non-Malays did not pick up the knife offered to them. Dr Mahathir was clearly very angry. His response was that the government had given us the opportunity to sort this out amongst ourselves and since we had failed to do that then we have given the government no choice but to unilaterally decide what the new post-NEP policy was going to look like.

In 1990, Barisan Nasional won only 53.4% of the votes and 70.55% of the Parliament seats (and lost Kelantan to PAS-Semangat 46).

In 1992, the Third Bumiputera Economic Congress was held.

In 1995, Barisan Nasional won 65.2% of the votes (the highest ever: even better than in the 'historical' 2004 general election) and 84.38% of the Parliament seats.

The 'message' from the 1995 election result was that the people were happy. Hence I decided to leave the Malay Chamber of Commerce. It was futile to continue if the people were happy with the government and all our effort regarding what to do with the NEP, or post-NEP, had gone to waste.

Now you know why I get very vocal and abrasive with people who shout and scream about the NEP. And don't even try to give excuses as to why all this happened. I know what happened. I was there. You were not. And all your comments and views are based on conjecture, assumptions, guessing and speculation.

The Chinese and Indians screwed up

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 08:03 PM PDT

There is some chatter going on in the Internet regarding the New Economic Policy (NEP) so I thought that maybe I would address this issue. Some readers, however, have said they are incapable of reading my 3-4-page articles. Some say they only read the titles and then start posting comments based on the title. For the sake of these people who want to read brief articles, today I shall try to be as brief as possible.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In 1981, Tun (then Dato' Seri) Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Malaysia's Fourth Prime Minister.

Soon after he took office he invited members of the Malay and Chinese Chambers of Commerce for dinner at the Equatorial Hotel in Kuala Lumpur. He then placed five Malays and five Chinese at each table for ten and made us all sit alternate to one another.

Dr Mahathir then told the Malays that the NEP had run for more than 11 years and had less than nine years to go before it ended. And, as promised, it will end in 1990 because it is not fair to the non-Malays to extend it beyond 20 years. Hence the Malays need to be prepared to face this day.

Dr Mahathir also told the Chinese that they would need to work with the Malays and help them achieve the aspirations of the NEP so that the government can end the NEP in 1990 as planned. If the NEP ended far short of the target, then this might create a lot of dissatisfaction, which is not good for the stability of the country when one race harbours a grudge against another.

In 1991, Dr Mahathir proposed that the Third Bumiputera Economic Congress be held at the PWTC where the various races, political parties from both Barisan Nasional and the Opposition, Malay-Chinese-Indian Chambers of Commerce, associations, societies, movements, NGOs, etc., could sit down for three days to discuss the ending of the NEP and how the government should face the post-NEP era and address the various short-comings in the social reengineering experiment of 1970-1990.

(SEE MORE HERE: http://www.pmo.gov.my/ucapan/?m=p&p=mahathir&id=210)

At this Congress, which was held in January 1992, the audience was shocked by the public quarrel between Anwar Ibrahim, the then Finance Minister, and Rafidah Aziz, the Trade and Industry Minister. These two Ministers plus the other members of the Cabinet could not agree on a common policy.

The non-Malay members of the Congress, in particular the Chinese and Indians, did not put forward any proposals and attended the session merely as silent observers. They just listened to what the Malay participants had to say without contributing any ideas.

Eventually, the Congress ended without any concrete proposals other than the 20-point Memorandum from the Malay Chamber of Commerce (which Raja Petra Kamarudin presented to Tan Sri Sanusi Junid), which the government accepted as merely an Addendum to the main Resolution from the Congress proper, which was that the Congress left it to the government to resolve the issue of what to do in the post-NEP era.

For all intents and purposes, the Congress failed because the Cabinet Ministers, the non-Malay participants, the members of the Opposition parties, and the Chinese and Indian Chambers of Commerce, did not contribute any ideas and proposals that the government could consider and adopt as Malaysia's new policy post-NEP.

Malaysia at the crossroads

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)

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 26 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Umno Incorporated (part 1)

Umno Incorporated (part 2)

Umno Incorporated (part 3)

Umno Incorporated (part 1)

Umno Incorporated (part 2)

Umno Incorporated (part 1)

Pengikut

Trafik

Live Traffic

Mesyuarat Tingkap

Archive