Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

Najib’s administration risks ‘flip-flop’ label in Cabinet tiff over law reforms Posted: 09 Jul 2013 08:04 PM PDT He pointed out that former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has now said that the Sedition Act should not be repealed, saying that if Najib does not go ahead with the law's abolition, it would give the "perception that Dr Mahathir is running the country". Ida Lim, MM Open discord among Cabinet members over the prime minister's pledge to roll out laws to broaden civil liberties is risking Datuk Seri Najib Razak's administration being tagged a "flip-flop" government, political analysts have said. Hardliners within Umno, the Barisan Nasional (BN) government's anchor party, appear to be influencing the prime minister (picture) to reverse his pledge to repeal the Sedition Act, and to maintain preventive detention clauses in other security laws that critics say is choking the growth of democracy here. Members of Najib's Cabinet have been issuing conflicting statements over the abolition of the colonial-era sedition law while Home Minister Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has been pushing to provide the authorities preventive detention powers lost following the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance, barely a year after it was removed. Dr Andrew Aeria, an academic from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas), said events of late paint a picture of a government that allegedly "lacks credibility and inconsistency", stressing that "your word is your bond". "If they do an about-turn now, basically you are telling everyone that you are a government, a Cabinet that can't be trusted to keep its word," he told The Malay Mail Online. "If you keep flip-flopping, the question is who is running the country?" he asked. He pointed out that former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has now said that the Sedition Act should not be repealed, saying that if Najib does not go ahead with the law's abolition, it would give the "perception that Dr Mahathir is running the country". "You are the prime minister in the Cabinet, you can't do this kind of flip-flopping; if you keep flip-flopping, this is not good for investors," Aeria added. Last July, Najib announced that the Sedition Act would be replaced with a National Harmony Act. But Ahmad Zahid has since said the law will not be repealed, with Cabinet colleague Datuk S. Subramaniam adding that the prime minister was only making a suggestion. Wan Saiful Wan Jan, the founder of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), said the recent developments reinforces the people's perception of Najib's administration as a flip-flopping government, while saying that the Cabinet lacks a united stand over such issues. "It's a worrying trend when a minister says something and another minister says something else...The government is clearly divided," the chief executive of the political and economic think-tank told The Malay Mail Online. A day after Ahmad Zahid said the government was only looking at amending the law instead of repealing it, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz came out to insist on Monday that the Cabinet had decided to abolish the Sedition Act. Wan Saiful attributed the reason for the apparent clashes to the Umno elections later this year, saying leaders were now jockeying for spots ahead of the internal polls. "They may be debating specific legislation, but really they are positioning themselves for Umno elections, who can be more radical, more bold than the others," he said. Although it was pointed out that the Barisan Nasional (BN) administration also included other component parties, the analysts noted that Umno remained the dominant force when it came to setting policy. But Wan Saiful also said that Umno conservatives were not the only ones in the way of Najib's reforms, saying that the police would back laws similar to the Emergency Ordinance, while some would defend the continued existence of the Sedition Act ostensibly to ensure the protection of the monarchy from insults, among other things. "All these groups, they are not necessarily hardliners in Umno," he said, adding that Najib has to convince everyone to support the legal reforms. Wan Saiful said the recent debate over the Sedition Act also revealed the Prime Minister's grip on power as being challenged by others, saying the events can be both beneficial and unhealthy. "Yes, healthy because definitely the powers of prime minister needs to be checked and balanced. "It's also unhealthy because they are debating this publicly and the counter-proposals to what Najib has been deciding is actually not progressive," Wan said. Political analyst Shaharudin Badaruddin similarly suggested that the shift in position could be caused by pressure from hardliners within the government or the ruling party as well as the Umno polls. READ MORE HERE   Open discord among Cabinet members over the prime minister's pledge to roll out laws to broaden civil liberties is risking Datuk Seri Najib Razak's administration being tagged a "flip-flop" government, political analysts have said. Hardliners within Umno, the Barisan Nasional (BN) government's anchor party, appear to be influencing the prime minister (picture) to reverse his pledge to repeal the Sedition Act, and to maintain preventive detention clauses in other security laws that critics say is choking the growth of democracy here. Members of Najib's Cabinet have been issuing conflicting statements over the abolition of the colonial-era sedition law while Home Minister Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has been pushing to provide the authorities preventive detention powers lost following the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance, barely a year after it was removed. - See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/najibs-administration-risks-flip-flop-label-in-cabinet-tiff-over-law-reform?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.1dNKsvsE.dpu

You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• Ku Nan: Cops just scapegoats for corrupt enforcers
• Five lawyers, activist win suit against government over arrest
• Police to come down hard on Red Bean Army
• Former senior cop sues six mainstream newspapers
• Ku Nan: Opposition are ‘shit stirrers’
• MCA in a dilemma over president Soi Lek
• Changing shades of Transparency International bad for Malaysia
• Don't try me in absentia, says Clare Brown of Sarawak Report

Ku Nan: Cops just scapegoats for corrupt enforcers Posted: 09 Jul 2013 08:33 PM PDT (The Malay Mail) - The corruption menace involved "not only the police", Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said today, suggesting the force was being blamed for bribery involving other enforcement agencies. Graft watchdog Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2013 survey showed that 76 per cent of local respondents considered the police corrupt, compared to 69 per cent who saw politicians as guilty of graft.   The force was also viewed as the most corrupt of all local institutions, scoring four out of five on the extent of corruption. "It's not fair that you say the police are most corrupt," Tengku Adnan told reporters at Parliament here today," said the Federal Territories minister. "It could be my enforcement officer Bandaraya (city council), could be enforcement officer Majlis Daerah (local council). It's not only the police, you must remember." Tengku Adnan also stressed that the dip in public confidence in the government's efforts to battle corruption was a "perception problem". "We're fighting a perception war," he said. The Global Corruption Barometer survey showed that 30 per cent of Malaysian respondents believed Putrajaya's graft-fighting efforts were effective, compared to 49 per cent that felt the same in 2011. "Main thing is if there's no giver, there won't be any taker. The giver should stop," added the Umno secretary-general. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Paul Low, however, pledged yesterday to bring the survey's findings to the Cabinet, saying: "The GCB results have made it clear that it is now a global menace that must be recognised and addressed before it is too late." Today, Tengku Adnan said the government was "putting all efforts to ensure this corruption is eradicated". The Putrajaya MP added that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was educating citizens against giving bribes. "The enforcement officers need to be educated," said Tengku Adnan. "If I speak to DBKL, I advise them 'please refrain from all untoward practices'," he added, referring to the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) officers under his purview. On the GCB survey, Malaysian respondents rated the police and politicians four and 3.8 respectively on a scale of one to five, with one considered "Not at all corrupt" and five being "Extremely corrupt". Akhbar Satar, president of the Malaysian chapter of Transparency International, reportedly said yesterday that the government's failure to catch "big fish" in high-profile graft cases may have affected Malaysians' confidence in the war on corruption. The 2013 Global Corruption Barometer is the biggest ever conducted by the Berlin-based watchdog, with 114,000 people respondents in 107 countries in the opinion survey on corruption and the institutions considered the most corrupt.   Read more here: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ku-nan-cops-just-scapegoats-for-corrupt-enforcers?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.UuQ4foxl.dpuf   The corruption menace involved "not only the police", Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said today, suggesting the force was being blamed for bribery involving other enforcement agencies. Graft watchdog Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2013 survey showed that 76 per cent of local respondents considered the police corrupt, compared to 69 per cent who saw politicians as guilty of graft. The force was also viewed as the most corrupt of all local institutions, scoring four out of five on the extent of corruption. "It's not fair that you say the police are most corrupt," Tengku Adnan told reporters at Parliament here today," said the Federal Territories minister. "It could be my enforcement officer Bandaraya (city council), could be enforcement officer Majlis Daerah (local council). It's not only the police, you must remember." Tengku Adnan also stressed that the dip in public confidence in the government's efforts to battle corruption was a "perception problem". "We're fighting a perception war," he said. The Global Corruption Barometer survey showed that 30 per cent of Malaysian respondents believed Putrajaya's graft-fighting efforts were effective, compared to 49 per cent that felt the same in 2011. "Main thing is if there's no giver, there won't be any taker. The giver should stop," added the Umno secretary-general. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Paul Low, however, pledged yesterday to bring the survey's findings to the Cabinet, saying: "The GCB results have made it clear that it is now a global menace that must be recognised and addressed before it is too late." Today, Tengku Adnan said the government was "putting all efforts to ensure this corruption is eradicated". The Putrajaya MP added that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was educating citizens against giving bribes. "The enforcement officers need to be educated," said Tengku Adnan. "If I speak to DBKL, I advise them 'please refrain from all untoward practices'," he added, referring to the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) officers under his purview. On the GCB survey, Malaysian respondents rated the police and politicians four and 3.8 respectively on a scale of one to five, with one considered "Not at all corrupt" and five being "Extremely corrupt". Akhbar Satar, president of the Malaysian chapter of Transparency International, reportedly said yesterday that the government's failure to catch "big fish" in high-profile graft cases may have affected Malaysians' confidence in the war on corruption. The 2013 Global Corruption Barometer is the biggest ever conducted by the Berlin-based watchdog, with 114,000 people respondents in 107 countries in the opinion survey on corruption and the institutions considered the most corrupt. - See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ku-nan-cops-just-scapegoats-for-corrupt-enforcers?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.UuQ4foxl.dpuf

Five lawyers, activist win suit against government over arrest Posted: 09 Jul 2013 08:10 PM PDT (Bernama) - Five human rights lawyers and an activist today won their suit against the police and the government over their arrest, detention and malicious prosecution during a walk to mark World Human Rights Day on Dec 9, 2007. The court awarded R. Sivarasa, N. Surendran, Latheefa Beebi Koya, Eric Paulsen, Amer Hamzah Arshad and activist Johny Andu @ Abu Bakar Adnan each with RM10,000 in damages, and ordered the defendants to pay a total of RM60,000 in costs to all the plaintiffs. On Dec 8, 2010, they filed a civil suit against then-Dang Wangi police deputy chief Superintendent Che Hamzah Che Ismail, inspector-general of police, home ministry and the government over their arrest, detention and prosecution. In allowing their claim, High Court judge Datuk John Louis O'hara held that their arrests and detention by the defendants were unlawful. O'hara said he had the opportunity to view the video and photographs taken from what transpired and took place during the incident. "From the video, I find that first defendant Superintendent Che Hamzah had given conflicting, confusing and contradictory instructions over the hailer for the plaintiffs to disperse," he said. Futhermore, he said, Che Hamzah was not decisive in his words over the disperse orders. In his decision, the judge also found that the defendants had denied the plaintiffs' right to the legal access after they were arrested. However, he found that the prosecution on the plaintiffs at the criminal Sessions Court was not made in bad faith and it was the Attorney-General's prerogative power under the Federal Constitution to prosecute them. "The Attorney-General is doing his job and exercises his duty to prosecute them... this is not malicious prosecution," he said, adding that the plaintiffs had correctly named the parties in the suit. On Dec 10, 2007, the six were charged with being in an unlawful assembly and failing to adhere to police orders to disperse, allegedly committed a day before (Dec 9, 2007) in front of Kamdar building in Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman. On April 16, 2009, they were acquitted and discharged by the Sessions Court, without being called to make their defence on those charges. Following that, they filed the suit seeking for a declaration that their rights under the Federal Constitution were violated and also claimed their arrest and detention were unlawful. They also sought general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages and special damages, interest and cost. In the suit, the six claimed they participated in and/or organised a peaceful rally and march, in conjunction with World Human Rights Day which was celebrated worldwide on Dec 10, every year. They contended that they were subsequently allowed to continue to participate in the march within 10 minutes, but before the 10 minutes expired, they found that they were surrounded by a large group of police personnel. They alleged the police then gave orders to disperse but while attempting to do so (to disperse), they were arrested. After the proceedings, counsel Edmund Bon, representing the six, told reporters that today's ruling was a great victory for democracy and human rights.

Police to come down hard on Red Bean Army Posted: 09 Jul 2013 05:41 PM PDT The Red Bean Army and its ilk will face criminal and civil action for spreading lies about the police through the Internet, says the Home Minister.  Anisah Shukry, FMT The police will use the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998; the Penal Code; and Facebook to counter the 'Red Bean Army' and others who use the Internet to defame the men in blue, said Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. "There are two ways to take action against cases of defamation. One, criminal action, two, civil action," the Home Minister told the Dewan Rakyat today during question session. "In this case, seeing as the libel [about the police] is made through social media, we will take action using the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and Section 504 of the Penal Code. "And because we must counter libel spread through social media with social media, we will use Facebook to fight them." But he said that the 416,500 Facebook fans and 113,000 Twitter followers for the Police force's official pages were still not enough. "But we will stick with this approach to counter defamation against the police," he said. Ahmad Zahid said this in response to Ikmal Hisham Abdul Aziz (Tanah Merah – BN) question on what action the police would take against the Red Bean Army – an alleged group of opposition-funded cyber troopers – and its ilk for reportedly spreading lies about the police on the Internet. "It is unfortunate that there are some quarters in this country who do not know how to be grateful, who purposefully mock and discredit the police force, particularly through social media such as Facebook and blogs," Ikmal had said earlier. "Does the police force intend to set up a special team to investigate the slander hurled against them, and to answer every allegation thrown their way through the social media…including the endless slander from the Red Bean Army cyber troopers?" His question elicited loud groans from Pakatan Rakyat MPs, who, despite having denied the existence of such an army multiple times, have been subjected to daily taunts over the Red Bean Army since parliament convened two weeks ago. READ MORE HERE

Former senior cop sues six mainstream newspapers Posted: 09 Jul 2013 03:16 PM PDT (Daily Express) - A former senior police officer has filed a defamation suit against six mainstream newspapers alleging he was a "victim" of a smear campaign. Former Commercial Crimes Investigation Department chief Datuk Ramli Yusuff filed the suit against six media publishers - New Straits Times, The Star, Berita Harian, Utusan Malaysia, Daily Express and Borneo Post - at the Kuala Lumpur High Court recently. He also named the editors and reporters of The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd, Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd, Berita Harian Sdb Bhd, Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Bhd, Sabah Publishing House Sdn Bhd and See Hua Marketing as defendants. According to the statement of claim, Ramli said his name was tarnished following reports in 2007 over the development of an area in Lahad Datu, Sabah. He said the articles referred to him as the "senior officer who had amassed RM27 million and had failed to declare his assets". Ramli said there was no other officer who was being investigated for abuse of power at that time. He alleged that the articles implied he was a corrupt officer, had abused his power, had failed to declare his assets, had amassed RM27 million and had gathered it through illegal means. One of the articles had also implied that he was akin to a "godfather", a term often used to refer to any infamous leader of the underworld. Ramli said the articles had tarnished his reputation and character, ridiculed him and had lowered his esteem in the eyes of the public. He denied owning such assets and being involved in any corrupt practices. Ramli also claimed the reports had caused him to suffer anxiety and that he had to call for a press conference, contrary to normal police procedure, to clear his name. Ramli is seeking an amount of general, special exemplary and punitive damages, interest, cost and relief deemed fit by the court.

Ku Nan: Opposition are ‘shit stirrers’ Posted: 09 Jul 2013 01:48 PM PDT Tengku Adnan today also said he was in support of introducing a new law to replace the Emergency Ordinance (EO) as a means of deterrence. Tarani Palani, fz.com Another minister has alluded that the Sedition Act 1948 should be maintained. Speaking to reporters at the Parliament lobby today, Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said the law was needed as they were many "shit stirrers" now.   "We have got (many) shit stirrers now. The opposition are the shit stirrers. They will stir until things turn chaotic," he said.   Tengku Adnan said Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious society where relations have to be maintained.   "Our forefathers taught (us) how to be tolerant. We need to teach the younger generation (this as well)," he said.   Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had announced last July that the act will be repealed for greater democratic society and that the National Harmony Act will be put in place to manage race relations.   Despite this public announcement, some government leaders have openly called for the act to be retained, one of them being Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.   To add to the confusion, Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr S Subramaniam said the previous cabinet had not made any decision on whether the legislation should be maintained, repealed or amended.   However, Tourism and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Aziz, who was previously the de facto law minister, has said that the cabinet was still committed to repealing the act.   Tengku Adnan today also said he was in support of introducing a new law to replace the Emergency Ordinance (EO) as a means of deterrence.   "We need another plan because since we abolished the EO and the Internal Security Act ISA, we have been worrying with what has been happening.   "We need laws not just to punish but to deter. Deterrence is better than punishment," he said.   The BN secretary-general said Najib and the cabinet would review the proposed new law to ensure that it does not encroach upon citizens' democratic rights.   He, however, added: "People want freedom, we have given freedom. But sometimes freedom also makes live hard for some people".   On the question of whether detention without trial will feature in the new law, Tengku Adnan said it will be left to the Attorney General's Chambers to decide.

MCA in a dilemma over president Soi Lek Posted: 09 Jul 2013 11:42 AM PDT   Can MCA's political doldrums be reversed?  (The Malay Mail) - After the ninth general election in 1995, there were 100 Yang Berhormat in the party, comprising 30 MPs and 70 assemblymen. In GE10 (1999), the MCA secured 28 out of 35 parliamentary seats and 68 out of 77 state seats contested, delivering a total of 96 elected representatives. This was topped in GE11 (2004) with 31 MPs and 76 assemblymen. With the automatic qualification of the elected representatives as delegates, the following year's party annual general meeting was a riotous gathering of central delegates, a deluge of elected representatives (including Senators), ex-MPs and assemblymen, municipal and district councillors, political secretaries and the sort. The party never had so many members holding public positions. By GE12, however, there were only 46 elected representatives — 15 MPs and 31 assemblymen. Today, the elected representatives only number 18 — seven MPs and 11 assemblymen (7-11). In a space of nine years, the party's wakil rakyat dropped from 107 to 18 — a mere shell of 16.8 per cent. Now, the party makes news over its disputed interpretations of "declining all government positions". The latest is the explanation by its president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek on the party's nod over Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen's acceptance as chairman of the Malaysian Tourism Promotion Board (MTPB). Dr Chua says the 2012 resolution does not cover recommendations made from outside the party. It was clarified that the MTPB chair was proposed by the current minister and agreed to by the prime minister, hence it kept with the resolution. Similarly, the Johore exco episode. Tan Sri Lim Ah Lek, former deputy president and long-serving Pahang state exco member (1974-89) and cabinet member (1989-99) said the right thing to do as a loyal Johor subject and party chief was to seek an audience and request time to reverse the party stand. Simply put: call an EGM and explain why the party should rescind the contentious resolution. Lim reminded that Dr Chua's recommended expulsion by the disciplinary committee in August 2009 had been annulled by an extraordinary general meeting, requisitioned by his supporters, two months later. An EGM can be requisitioned by the president or by one-third of the CC or one-third of the AGM delegates. Lim opines that perhaps this EGM route was not exercised because it does not provide any "direct benefit". Besides, leaving the resolution intact would continue to constrain his rivals' influence. Political analysts insist that a minimum of 10-15 years would be necessary to rebuild the party's support, provided there was tremendous political will, energy and financial resources.   Past and current leaders and keen observers believe Dr Chua would most likely offer himself, this December, despite his announcement to the contrary. This same lot also believes he wouldn't be there for the long haul. The constitution limits the tenure of the presidency to a maximum of nine years. Dr Chua is 66 years old and has been president since March 2010, leaving him a maximum of five-and-a-half years to lead the party. So what is his game plan? Meanwhile, the aborted Matang Holdings sales did nothing to endear the party to the community it professes to serve. The activated disposal of a block of office lots in Megan Avenue and the eight-acre Bangi land is causing anxiety among long-serving members. Megan Avenue has a sales price tag of RM20.6million. It was purchased at RM14.6m. The question is: "does the party need to sell"? On the Bangi land, why the urgency? Why should the party agree to sell it for RM5.5m cash? In addition, a Cyberjaya building valued at RM2.5million? The party is in no "forced sale" situation as far as its financial position is concerned, quite unlike its political position. The party needs critical attention in the latter position. Where is our priority, asks a retired deputy minister? It is common knowledge that during Tan Sri Lau Yin Pin's time as treasurer-general (2003-08) — serving under president Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting — he cleared party debts of  RM200 million. He even realised 100 per cent party ownership of Wisma MCA by buying up the remainder 20 per cent. The headquarters is estimated to be worth RM150 million. With the sprucing up, rental income annually was about RM2 million. Datuk Alex Wong, a long-serving party man, ex-Senator and CC member, was clearly exercising restraint in offering his views: "Looks like the party is kaput (finished). I don't know what the present leadership is doing. Anyway, I don't think I really want to know!" On the asset sale agenda, he could only say that the party should have adopted the formation of the Central Board of Trustees (CBOT) strongly proposed by Lau before he stepped down. The proposal was expected to be executed when Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat became president. It calls for the CBOT to be wholly in charge of party assets. Members are to be elected by central delegates and the board accountable directly to the AGM. An audit committee under the CBOT would ensure that available funds are properly utilised for the party and the community's benefit. The president is to have no authority over party assets. An obviously miffed ex-CC member said principal officers of the party may think they are "covered" under section 18 © of the Societies Act, which stipulates ".... on any matter relating to the affairs of the party shall be final and conclusive and such decision shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any ground, and no court shall have the jurisdiction to  entertain ..." He argues that there is the Trustees Act 1949 to contend with. Of course, the jewel in the crown is the around 41 per cent stake or 300 million shares in The Star and the tens of millions of ringgit in annual dividends. So, would Dr Chua be the candidate to reverse the MCA's political doldrums? Tan Sri Lim and a number of 60+year-old gentlemen (who have direct, indirect and sentimental links with the party) almost in unison responded with: "Dr Chua must step down immediately", for any hope for the MCA.

Changing shades of Transparency International bad for Malaysia Posted: 09 Jul 2013 11:39 AM PDT   (TMI) - When you can't manage leadership in an organisation, how can we manage the fight against corruption? Perception is everything and the presence of officials from government agencies Pemandu and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) at a Transparency International press conference yesterday set tongues wagging and drew the ire of a veteran anti-graft crusader. Outgoing TI-M secretary-general Josie Fernandez said that the independence of any non-governmental organisation was important. "Once independence is compromised, we lose the citizens' voice against corruption... what was the NKRA, Pemandu and MACC doing here? Is this an NGO press conference or government press conference," she said after TI-M released its latest survey on corruption. In addition to the press corps, Datuk Nordin Hashim, a director at NKRA, Ravindran Devagunam, a director from the government's performance management delivery unit and  several communications officers from MACC were present at the press conference – a rarity even in Malaysia where there is often a symbiotic relationship between NGOs and government agencies. The Malaysian chapter of TI has been in turmoil since its former head, Datuk Paul Low left in May to become a senator and a member of Prime Minister Najib Razak's Cabinet. He was replaced by Datuk Akhbar Satar, a former MACC officer while Prof Datuk Mohamad Ali Hasan and Lio Kheng Min were appointed as deputy president and secretary-general respectively. Fernandez  disagreed with the manner in which the current leadership was chosen, noting that the selection was done by eight exco members. The last annual general meeting ended in turmoil with Fernandez being asked to leave after disagreeing with the manner the current leadership was chosen. "The decision on leadership should not be left to a few people. All the members should be involved in the voting process. That was how it has been previously," she told The Malaysian Insider. "When you can't manage leadership in an organisation, how can we manage the fight against corruption? "Because of Paul's sudden appointment and unexpected departure, there's a vacuum. He should have set the next line of leadership. There should have been discussions on this." The tussle for the secretary-general's position will be decided on July 20 at an extra-ordinary general meeting. But of more immediate concern is whether TI-M remains a non-partisan body, or whether it has become an establishment body. Not helping matters for the watchdog body is the criticisms being leveled against Low as a minister and to a lesser extent, his replacement at TI-M. Since being appointed minister in charge of integrity, good governance and human rights, Low has been attacked by DAP's Tony Pua and other critics as an apologist for the administration. He did not do himself any favours last night when reacting to the survey results that showed that the public's confidence in the government's anti-corruption effort had dropped sharply in 2012. Low said that corruption is a global menace and not unique to Malaysia. The latest poll also showed that the police and political parties were perceived to be the two most corrupt institutions in Malaysia. Low's reply: "The Malaysian finding is consistent with the worldwide results where 36 countries viewed the police as the most corrupt...." These answers are in sharp contrast to his statements when commenting on graft surveys in his capacity as TI-M president. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/changing-shades-of-transparency-bad-for-malaysia/

Don't try me in absentia, says Clare Brown of Sarawak Report Posted: 09 Jul 2013 11:23 AM PDT   (The Star) - Sarawak Report founder Clare Rewcastle Brown has described as unfair attempts to push through a case in the Malaysian courts in her absence. "My position is that I do not accept the 'out of jurisdiction' order granted to try the case in Sarawak as being appropriate, especially as it was done in a state I am not even allowed to enter," said Brown, who was denied entry to Sarawak at the Kuching International Airport last Wednesday. "I do not think it is fair to push the case through and win it in my absence because of my failure to defend myself and then to try and enforce such a judgement in the UK," said Brown, the sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. She has been a verhement critic of Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Taib Mahmud and has published numerous reports of alleged corruption under his administration. The Sarawak-born Brown is facing a civil suit over her article published on May 1 titled "Dirty Dayak Datuks — BN's Crony Candidates". Taking legal action against Brown are Kapit MP Datuk Alexander Nanta Linggi, Tan Sri Datuk Amar Leonard Linggi Jugah, Greame Iaan Brown, Asian Plantations (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd, Keresa Plantations Sdn Bhd and Rajang Wood Sdn Bhd. The state government's ban on Brown from entering Sarawak to defend herself in court has attracted global media attention.  To the international media, Brown has described the plaintiffs as members of a transnational corporation, which is on the British and European stock exchanges. The suit, filed a day after the article was posted at Sarawak Report, sought, among others, to have the article removed. Hearings are on going in Sarawak.  On Monday, although the defendant was not in court, she was represented by See Chee How, PKR's Batu Lintang assemblyman. So far, a duplicate of an injunction against Brown has been struck out while a date in August has been set to hear Brown's application to strike out the entire lawsuit.  The plaintiffs had applied for two injunctions against the alleged defamatory article. In an email interview with The Star, Brown said the plaintiffs had also hired lawyers in the UK. "This strengthens the point that they are conceding that that (UK court) is the appropriate jurisdiction," she said from London where she has returned to. "My lawyer has informed me there is a hearing in August to consider our application to have the whole case struck out in Sarawak and the 'out of jurisdiction' order removed." Brown recently won the International Press Institute award for her work on Radio Free Sarawak. When held at the Kuching airport last week, prior to deportation, Brown made a YouTube video accusing individuals of colluding with the political establishment to abuse their powers in order to silence their critics. Other notables barred from Sarawak include activists Maria Chin Abdullah, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, Wong Chin Huat, Ong Boon Kiong and Kua Kia Soong.

You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• PM Says One Thing, Ministers Say Another!
• A case against the minimum wage
• Questions on two-party system
• How to leak and not get caught

PM Says One Thing, Ministers Say Another! Posted: 09 Jul 2013 08:26 PM PDT The real reason the Government would want to retain the Sedition Act – and Zahid should really be honest about this – is to use it to silent political dissent. And this has been proven in practice over the decades. Only last month, it was again selectively used to prosecute six people – Opposition politicians, activists and student leaders – while pro-Government individuals who made seditious statements got away scot-free. Kee Thuan Chye How ridiculous it is that the prime minister says one thing and his home minister says the opposite. Last year, Najib Razak announced that the Government would repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with the National Harmony Act, but now Zahid Hamidi says the Cabinet has decided to only "amend and review some aspects of the Act, not to abolish it"! Another minister, S. Subramaniam, is neither here nor there about it when asked about the matter. He takes the typical noncommittal MIC approach by saying that the idea of repealing the Act was a "suggestion" by Najib. "He has to bring it back to the Cabinet and state his suggestions," Subramaniam says. Only a suggestion? Subramaniam was a member of the Cabinet when Najib announced the repeal in July 2012 and yet he says it was only Najib's suggestion? Is it because he dare not tell the truth? Meanwhile, Tourism Minister Nazri Aziz contradicts Zahid and confirms that the Cabinet did indeed agree to repeal the Sedition Act last year. He even says the Attorney-General's Chambers is looking into framing the replacement law. Unlike Subramaniam, he is unequivocal about it. "It's a public commitment made by the prime minister. I don't see why any minister would go against it," he adds. It was indeed a public commitment. Najib's announcement of the repeal of the Act and its replacement with the National Harmony Act was reported extensively in the media, and political observers – me included – commented on it. We certainly didn't imagine it. Surely, Najib would have made the announcement only if he had got the agreement of his Cabinet. If not, his action would have been highly irresponsible. So, what gives? Nazri showed charity to his fellow Cabinet member when he was asked by reporters about Subramaniam's comment. Nazri replied, "It was made last year, maybe he doesn't remember. Maybe it's (because of) so many cabinet meetings." Oh? Really? But the matter was publicly announced, so how could any Cabinet member fail to remember? A case of Alzheimer's affecting the health minister? Or selective remembering a la Mahathir Mohamad? As for Zahid, why would he contradict Najib? Is he trying to undermine the latter as the build-up begins for the Umno general assembly in November when elections will take place and Najib could be challenged for his leadership of the party? Is Zahid also working overtime to try and retain his vice-presidency in the party, knowing that the position will be hotly contested? He says he doesn't want the Sedition Act abolished because people can start questioning the four taboo issues – the special position of the Malays, the sovereignty of the Malay rulers, the position of Malay as the national language, and the position of Islam as the religion of the federation. That sounds like the thing to say to impress the Umno delegates who will be voting in November. Let us also not forget that a by-election is coming up on July 24 for the Kuala Besut state seat in Terengganu. Harping on Malay issues could well score points for the incumbent Umno. But Zahid disingenuously chooses to ignore that these four issues are already protected under the Federal Constitution. Article 181, for example, guarantees the sovereignty, rights, powers and jurisdictions of each Malay ruler within their respective states. Other Articles take care of the other three. In any case, there should be no harm in questioning these issues if we are to be a true, healthy and mature democracy. Placing a ban on it has only deprived Malaysians their constitutional right to freedom of speech. Besides, what can questioning do? Bring about the removal of these guarantees? Who is going to sanction it? Who would dare to? It's not going to happen even in the distant future. The real reason the Government would want to retain the Sedition Act – and Zahid should really be honest about this – is to use it to silent political dissent. And this has been proven in practice over the decades. Only last month, it was again selectively used to prosecute six people – Opposition politicians, activists and student leaders – while pro-Government individuals who made seditious statements got away scot-free. Really, Zahid doesn't serve the Government cause well to speak as he does. And Subramaniam doesn't inspire confidence among the public for his wishy-washy conduct. Both of them can't seem to get their facts right, and they sow confusion with their befuddling statements. What kind of ministers do we have? It reflects badly on Najib for selecting ministers like these. Speaking of Najib, why has he said nothing since in response to Zahid's statement? He may be overseas now, but the least he could do is make a statement to clear the confusion. Unless, of course, he is considering flip-flopping on the idea. Especially now that the general election is over and he doesn't need to win votes. Is that the reason why the A-G's Chambers is taking so long to come out with a draft of the replacement National Harmony Act? After a year and still nothing to show? Is this going to be yet another government janji yang tidak ditepati (promise unfulfilled)?   Read more here: http://my.news.yahoo.com/blogs/bull-bashing/pm-says-one-thing-ministers-another-101023396.html

A case against the minimum wage Posted: 09 Jul 2013 02:28 PM PDT What determines the level of productivity and hence the wages? asks the writer.  By Medecci Lineil, FMT I was very pleased to read last week's headlines all carried a variant of minimum wage and its logic that are usually ignored in mainstream discussions. However, the discussion has become for the most part, ignoble. It is obvious that the minimum wage advocates including the Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and Human Resource Minister Richard Riot do not pursue their own logic. There is more emotion in the discussion because it is a bit more personal experience. To apply the faculty of reason requires understand; to experience emotion does not. Ludwig von Mises puts forth an account of economic laws based in logic not experience. To understand the reality requires looking beyond the data and into the core of the complex structure of production and its overall health. It requires thinking about the money wage, real saving, productivity, subjectivism and human labourer. None of these can be obtained by simply watching data and numbers appear at the bottom of your LCD Samsung TV screen and pretty economic research papers. Sadly, it is the emotions and the notion of "letting the facts speak for themselves" that appeal are now made. When we engage in poor reasoning and faulty economic logic in support of a noble cause, we can end up doing much more harm than good in the pursuit of liberty and economic freedom. In seeking solutions, the logic of economic and the dynamics of human history are largely neglected. As a result, many government attempt to solve these problems by means that will not accomplish the desired ends. People are not familiar with the rules of logic. It is one of those subjects that people shy away from, feeling that it's too complex to understand. What people do not realize is that they employ logic every day. Logic is often applied to human problem in an attempt to determine truth and since truth is the foundation of liberty, free men must apply the rules of logic rigorously. But first, what is logic? From one of the most widely used text of Copi and Cohen in Introduction of Logic (1994) "Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning" While famous British economist and logician, William Stanley Jevon viewed logic is the method of thinking. He described logic as "briefly defined as the Science of Reasoning" he went far argued "The laws of thought are natural laws with which we have no power to interfere and which are of course not to be in any way confused with the artificial laws of a country, which are invented by men and can be altered by them" Correct reasoning, fundamental propositions are grasped intellectually, true knowledge, self-evident about reality and not empirically, therefore known to be a true a priori; foundational truths of praxeology such as the action principle. For example, Mises points out that when we see a person trade one good for another, we simply have to assume that they value the received good more than the one given away. We do not have to run millions of experiments to see that people value the good received in an exchange over the good given away. We do not have to run any at all because the good received in exchange is valued more than the good given away is something that is true. Like Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant argues that "Every event has cause under constant laws" is a claim we know to be true because it is a condition for knowledge. For Mises and Austrian school, human action takes the acting person in whatever surroundings he finds himself as its most crucial starting point, in this regard, the subject of individualism, productivity and money wages. Defining problems logically In Malaysia, the minimum wage policy is implemented to ensure that the basic needs of workers and their families are met, to reward and protect them from exploitation and to incentivise firms to move up the value chain by investing in technology and boosting productivity. Let us define this problem logically. First, wages received have been termed very low compare to national productivity rate over years, the wages are the amount of money earned by a labourer within a given time period excluding any reference to the goods and services which that money would purchase. This is the most popular premise I believe. Second, wages are very low according to the quantity and quality of the goods and services obtained by the labourer. The labourer then bought two packets of sugar now buys only one. To be more specific, it is the falling of purchasing power with his money wages. Third, wages have recorded slower growth compared to labour productivity growth. The main reason why the minimum wage is adopted in Malaysia and leading the labourer and capitalist are always directly opposed to one another. And fourth, wages are low and very labour intensive (unskilled labourers). Minimum wage encourages firms to invest in automation and newer technologies that can enhance productivity capacity rather than relying on low cost foreign workers. Let me also start deducing the problems here; for the first and second problem, understanding of money and its value is very important. I encourage the readers to read my previous articles on this matter. Remember, it is important that knowledge of money starts from the view if individual and not of society. For it is the subjective value of individuals that determine all human actions and in market transactions. It is not the money men want; it is the money's purchasing power that greatly affected by the quantity of money available and the demand for it. When the government and Bank Negara increase the quantity of paper money, the result is that the purchasing power of the monetary unit begins to drop and so prices rise. This is called inflation. The essence of inflation is not a general rise in prices but an increase in the supply of money which in turns sets in motion a general increase in the prices of goods and services. Real wages fall, undermining production of real wealth, eroding money's purchasing power, eroding real savings and causes a misallocation of scarce resources. There has never been any serious argument against the economic interpretation of the relationship between prices and the quantity of money, or the exchange between money and other goods and services. The root of inflation has been camouflage and utterly confused by special interests and government to preserve the culture of political dependency. They then pride themselves on being the only true friends of labourers, social justice and logic. The productivity of labour I also read a number of news items where mainstream economists say an increase in economic activity is almost always seen as trigger for general rise in prices which they erroneously label inflation. But why should an increase in the production of goods and services lead to general increase in prices? If the money stock is intact, then we will have a situation of less money per unit of a good – a fall in prices. Effective policy to help poor people, don't you think? The solution is to leave the money to the market regulated by profit and loss. Do not leave the money regulated by Bank Negara and Putrajaya. Here is another explanation; government budget deficits divert funds from the purchase of capital goods and the payment of wages by business firms, their effect is sooner or later to reduce the total costs of production in the economic system and equivalently to increase the aggregate amount of profit in the economic system. Those costs of production, of course must be deducted from sales revenues in calculating profits. So government budget deficits are part of the explanation of profits rising relative to wages. This is not a joy we should celebrate. That is an illustration of the dichotomy identified by David Ricardo that often exists between monetary value and physical wealth. Money profits up, capital goods expenditure being down that will reduce in the supply of capital goods for use in further production. In real life, tools, machines, and other capital goods wear out or become obsolete one by one. Real wages in the future will suffer from less production and prices being higher than they otherwise would have been. Let me proceed with deducing the third problem. A lot of people think that when labour productivity increases or is expected to increase, say 3%, wage rates should also be raised by 3%. Most unions argue about the productivity of labour and they demand increases of the wages to the extent of labour productivity. I have problem with this concept. Every human being is different and has a different work quality in working hours. To some extent, they are connected to all the occupations on the job market. They are different types of labour in a production process with different degree of exertion undergone in different employment / industries in the same country during working hours. Employer has no power to set wages The established annual holidays in Malaysia are 50 national, school and state and ranks in the top 10 countries with the most public holidays in the world. These holidays are confined to a certain portion of the Malaysian population like the labour, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Dayak, Orang Ulu and others. Again the productivity is limited to the unpredictable weather like rain, flood, draught, haze and natural disasters. No common measure of the toils undergone by a miner and a tailor or those of a shop man and an iron founder – vary indefinitely in intensity. So it is obvious that the rate of wages given all these differences. The increased wage rates (real money wage) in the expanding economy are not primarily due to the workers themselves but the capitalist entrepreneurs who have invested in capital goods. It is also not necessarily mean that the increases of wages over the years caused by his own improvement. It is primarily due to the increasing of capital goods provided by the capitalists. If wages were really set by employers, why is it that employees such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Mesut Ozil, Gareth Bale, Brad Pitt, Liam Neeson, Bradley Coopers, Kim Hyuna and Korean pop stars all earn mega money? No, the reason they do is because their productivity enhanced by capital goods (stadium, stage decorations, Dolby sound surround movie theatres, concerts, high definition equipment). The employer has no power to set wages. What determines the level of productivity and hence the wages? Given the explanations above, this is based on how intelligently people work and the amount of and sophistication of the tools and capital equipment they are given by their employer to work with. We have examined the money and its purchasing power and productivity based on deductive logic in favour of raising real money wage. Now let us deducing the last one, minimum wage often substitute machinery of unskilled workers or foreign workers. Actually, David Ricardo, the most influential British classical economist is the author of the proposition that a rise in wages (increased cost of workers) will encourage capitalists to substitute the machinery for workers and vice versa. It generates technological improvement and raises the productivity of workers. In forcing the reluctant employers to raise wages, the policy makers become the pioneers of progress and prosperity. However, the interpretation of Ricardo's proposition that machinery is substituted for workers is purely misleading. READ MORE HERE

Questions on two-party system Posted: 09 Jul 2013 11:32 AM PDT Does the uniqueness of Malaysia simply defy the logic of FPTP? Wong Chin Huat, fz.com  SINCE 2008, "two-party system" has become a defining phrase in Malaysia's political discourse. Most opposition supporters desire it while most BN supporters dread it.    Few have gone beyond the dichotomy of yes or no and asked if a two-party system would work for Malaysia or if it can be brought about by a change in government.    (For ease of discussion, I will use the term "two-party system" throughout, rather than "two-coalition system" or "two-bloc system", which may be more accurate but is also clumsier. In political science, if parties form permanent coalitions and do not compete against each other, then they are not too different from formalised factions within parties, hence, Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat can be seen as two parties.)   Why two-party system?   Vis-à-vis multiparty system, the two-party system is desired by many, including beyond Malaysia, for two reasons.    First, its means single-party governments, which in turn means "responsible government", as the single ruling party has to assume full responsibility for its performance.    In contrast, if a coalition government fails, the partners can always blame each other. Even when a coalition government collapses, some parties with substantial seats may find their way to the next coalition government. And if the government lets the voters down in a two-party system, the voters get to "kick the rascals out" – party alternation is wholesale and complete.   Second, it encourages moderate moderation. Since there are only two parties, the winner has to win the middle ground. Therefore, to not alienate the centrist voters, the two parties are forced to take moderate positions and meet in the middle.    The extremist members of the two parties cannot pull the parties to the flank, because they cannot pose an effective threat – supporting the other party is further against their interests.   In Malaysia, single-party government means political stability – ad-hoc coalition would likely see the partners bickering before the next election. And political stability in turn derives from moderation.    A two-party system is seen as the ideal model because Malaysians – including both the opposition and civil society – have learned to believe in the virtue of the multi-ethnic permanent coalition model of the Alliance/BN.    Hence, a substitute for the BN must not be better than it, but also somewhat looks like it.     Despite or because of FPTP?    Conventionally, following the propositions by French political scientist Maurice Duverger, the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system in Anglo-American democracies is thought to tend to produce two-party system, while the Two-Round System (TRS) in France or the Party List Proportional Representation in many other European countries tends to produce multi-party system.   We are then with the right electoral system since 1955. But why didn't we see a more permanent two-party format until 2008?    After being purged from Umno, both Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (then already in prison) united the Opposition parties for the 1990 and 1999 elections respectively.    However, both the Gagasan Rakyat-Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah and Barisan Alternatif were effectively dead before their second elections. How do we explain this?    This happened despite FPTP or because of FPTP?    The former implies that there is something wrong with our society while the latter implies that there is something wrong with the electoral system – at least it is incompatible with our society. Read more at: http://www.fz.com/content/questions-two-party-system#ixzz2Ybe4PsdW

How to leak and not get caught Posted: 09 Jul 2013 11:26 AM PDT If you hope to leak national security information and avoid prosecution, don't do it solo, as Snowden (and perhaps Cartwright) did. Bring a posse of like-minded leakers with you to muddy your tracks.  Jack Shafer, Reuters If U.S. prosecutors ever get their hands on Edward Snowden, they'll play such a tympanic symphony on his skull he'll wish his hands never touched a computer keyboard. Should U.S. prosecutors fail, U.S. diplomats will squeeze — as they did in Hong Kong — until he squirts from his hiding place and scurries away in search of a new sanctuary. But even if he finds asylum in a friendly nation, his reservation will last only as long as a sympathetic regime is calling the shots. Whether he ends up in Venezuela or some other country that enjoys needling the United States, he'll forever be one election or one coup away from extradition. Even then, he won't be completely safe. "Always check six, as we said when I used to be a flyer in the Air Force," said NSA whistle-blower Thomas Drake recently. "Always make sure you know what's behind you." Solitary whistle-blowers like Snowden, Drake and Daniel Ellsberg draw targets on their backs with their disclosures of official secrets, either by leaving a trail from the heist scene, being the most logical suspect, or because they admit their deed. Escaping prison time, such whistle-blowers have learned, depends on the luck of prosecutorial overreach (Drake) or self-destruction by the state, which derailed the prosecution of Pentagon Papers liberator Ellsberg. The solitary whistle-blower, usually a career government employee, isn't really a leaker, as Stephen Hess explains in his enduring typology of leakers. Typically, the whistle-blower seeks revolutionary change, not piecemeal reform. He doesn't share information with journalists to purchase their goodwill or to loft a trial balloon or to give himself an ego boost. He's motivated by principle, not self-interest or Machiavellian intrigue, and seeks to correct what he considers an intolerable wrong. And in most cases, his whistle-blowing results in career suicide if not jail time. Most leakers — mindful of the fate of the pure and solitary whistle-blowers — scale the size of their leaks to avoid detection. Rather than giving the whole puzzle away to reporters, they break off pieces for distribution, in hopes that it can't be traced back to them. Or, if crafty, leakers dispense pieces of the puzzle that aren't especially revealing and therefore not precisely classified, but provide hints about the location of the next puzzle piece. Investigative reporters who excel at fitting a mosaic together benefit the most from this class of leaker. The best way to escape detection, however, is to leak as part of a flock, a flock that may or may not fly together. The best recent example of this kind of leaking can be found in two excellent stories about the NSA's machinations published earlier this week, the New York Times's "In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of NSA," and the Wall Street Journal's "Secret Court's Redefinition of 'Relevant' Empowered Vast NSA Data-Gathering." Read more at: http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/07/09/how-to-leak-and-not-get-caught/

You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

Remembering #709 : The Mega Con called Bersih Posted: 09 Jul 2013 02:16 PM PDT Yuktes Vijay Two years back, Malaysians gathered, held hands, walked, yelled slogans, braved tear gas and withstood police beating. All this was for the promise one Ambiga Sreenevasan assured us, a proper democracy process in Malaysia. A fair and clean election. Alas, no one knew that it was indeed an Opposition ploy, an idea of Pakatan Rakyat to instill hatred and anger. I speak as one of those who participated in the rally, for Anwar first and democracy second. The sad part of the rally is that it will always be remembered for the "nego-nego" drama by Azmin and Anwar. It was never a signal to negotiate. It was a signal to breach the barricades and to "Occupy Dataran". This is not a baseless accusation, in fact none of my previous letters ever carried one. If some actually took off their PR tinted glasses, they would see the truth and logic in my statements. Thangam, the man who broke the barricade is an Anwarista to the core. I know him from the times in Court for the Sodomy II. Such was his devotion to Anwar that he would arrive in Court before the guards themselves and leave only when Anwar waves him a goodbye. You guys honestly think such a man would have defied the orders of Anwar and Azmin to break the barricades himself? This is a man who would ask how high if Anwar asked him to jump. Think! This rally was known for its police brutality. However, how many here know what actually transpired? At 6pm or so, I was at the front barricade with a few guys from SAMM. Recognised the t-shirts. They started kicking and breaking the barricades and cursed the police officers. It was then the police reacted and started hitting the protestors. I was one of them who felt victim. Why did I not sue the police when I was with the top legal eagles in the country? Dato Param, Sankara Nair…Names ring a bell? Even if it was not them, I could have used Lawyers for Liberty. Afte rall, since joining BN, I was told that my injuries were fake and I did it for publicity. What bigger publicity than this? I did not even attend the Suhakam or Bersih inquiries. Even when Sivarasa Rasiah called me to attend the EGM of Bar Council in Sunway to tell my side of the story, I did not go. Why would someone who craves publicity as claimed by Opposition avoid the chance of being in the news? Many are under the impression that I left Anwar because I was bought over. To a certain extent yes, there is some truth in it. Partially only though. I was "bought over" by one man whom I call boss today. His simplicity and humbleness is of no secret. But my boss is the reason why I joined BN, not leave Anwar. I left Anwar during the time when he was charged in Court along with Azmin and Chegubard. The actions of Anwar and his team of lawyers to deceive the Court, in fact readily plan and eventually submit a fake document, for the sole purpose of political mileage is an insult to all Malaysians. A contempt of Court and an act punishable under s193 of the Penal Code. You expect me to stay after a fake document was submitted in Court to prolong the process and get a certain former prosecutor in Sodomy II into the team for the sake of media coverage and for Anwar to tell the world how this proves Sodomy II was fabricated. Surely, I will be subjected to name callings. I have evidence. E-mail correspondences.   This is merely one e-mail. I have more evidence. But what is the use? Is Ambiga going to support me, virtue of being former Bar Council President? Are Lawyers for Liberty going to ditch Pakatan Rakyat for this offence? Will Karpal Singh stop representing Anwar for his role in insulting the judiciary? Does this change the opinion of young lawyers that Pakatan Rakyat is not angelic afterall? What action will Bar Council take? Can I trust the AG? Let me tell you what happens. They will label me an A*Sh*&e for doing this, conveniently ignoring the offence and wrong before their eyes. Why? No ones like being proven wrong do they? See, rallies are a done to prove a point. It is not our job to help someone realize his dreams of becoming PM. The blackout rallies were uncalled for. If there were indeed blackouts and Banglas, why there were no single election petition amongst the 42 (if memory serves me right about the number) filed in Court had mentioned those reasons. Rafizi says it is hard to win petitions due to its standard of proof is high. He is right but guessing that Banglas can't suddenly possess an American green card and don't tell me amongst the 40k Banglas that PKR claims voted, they were incapable of catching one? My experience with PR taught me one thing which is everything they say or do is not for the benefit of the people. It is to realize their dream of Putrajaya. Hey stop turning the gun at me. Remember freedom of speech and opinion is embedded in the Constitution. How is that for a taste of your own medicine, PR?

Me a bumiputra? No thank you Posted: 09 Jul 2013 11:52 AM PDT   Tunku Abdul Aziz, what I need is equality, equal opportunity, justice and fair treatment by the government. I want to be respected as an individual Malaysian. That is all I need. Tota, Aliran  Tunku Abdul Aziz, the ex-DAP vice-chairman and now an ardent supporter of the Umno-dominated BN, in an interview with China Press (11 June 2013), suggested that in the interests of national unity, non-Malays should be accorded bumiputra status, nothwithstanding the provisos in the Federal Constitution.   The colonial policy of divide-and-rule was bad enough. British colonialists compartmentalised Malayan society into ethnic groups to serve their purpose. When we attained independence, the Federal Constitution granted equality to everyone with a proviso for special rights for Malays which have apparently become a permanent feature. Once the NEP was implemented, the Umno-dominated BN further divided Malaysian society. In addition to Malays, Chinese and Indians, a new term 'bumiputera' came into existence. From within the bumiputeras, another class, Umnoputeras, emerged. I talked to a good Malay friend – very well-educated, independent minded and a man of integrity and principles – about my opinion of non-Malays becoming bumiputras. He concurred with my thoughts and feelings on the issue. He is a true Malaysian, a self-made man who is averse to the NEP and bumiputera status. He warned me that as a bumiputra I run the risk of being lumped together with the Umnoputras, who have cleverly camouflaged the Umnoputra Agenda as a Malay Agenda and devised various strategies to enrich themselves, their families and their cronies and amass great wealth at the expense of the nation. He considers them looters, plunderers, predators and kleptocrats, who pillage the public treasury. He joked that as a 'bumiputera' I would be brainwashed into believing that I need to be protected from the womb to the tomb because I cannot compete with others. Because of this, I would develop an inferiority complex that may become part of my DNA. Read more at: http://aliran.com/14557.html

You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net