Bicara kes liwat Anwar 25 Jan

Perbicaraan kes liwat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ditetapkan bermula 25 Januari tahun depan selepas permohonannya untuk membuang kes tersebut ditolak oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur hari ini.

Tarikh perbicaraan kes tersebut, yang ditunda beberapa kali akibat beberapa permohonan penasihat PKR itu, dijadual selama sebulan sehingga 25 Februari.

Pagi ini, hakim Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah memutuskan bahawa hanya perbicaraan penuh dapat mengesahkan sama ada wujud atau tidak penembusan pada dubur pengadu kes tersebut Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan seperti dalam pertuduhan.

Peguam mantan timbalan perdana menteri itu berhujah kes tersebut tidak patut diteruskan kerana laporan perubatan menunjukkan tiada kesan penembusan pada pengadu.

Anwar, ketua pembangkang di Parlimen, dituduh meliwat bekas pembantunya itu di sebuah kondominium di Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur pada 26 Jun tahun lalu.

3 hakim ‘pengacau’ ditukar secara mengejut?

Sistem kehakiman negara ini makin hilang kredibiliti apabila tiga hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang berpengalaman serta berpegang kepada prinsip keadilan dan bebas dipindahkan secara mengejut dipercayai bermotifkan politik.
Menurut sumber badan kehakiman, tiga hakim berkenaan adalah Datuk Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin, Lau Bee Lan dan Mohamad Ariff Md Yusoff.
Hakim Alizatul Khair Osman, dalam penghakiman terbarunya menolak rayuan Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya (SPR) untuk menangguh keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang mengiystiharkan DUN Kota Seputih sebagai kosong dan  kes Anwar Ibrahim, Bee Lan pula dengan kes Krisis Perlembagaan Perak manakala Mohamad Ariff  dengan kes Anwar Ibrahim.
Tiga hakim berkenaan sebelum ini mengendalikan Mahkamah Tinggi bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas, Kuala Lumpur.
Tindakan ini dilihat sebagai usaha Barisan Nasional untuk membersihkan “pengacau” kepada usaha parti pemerintah itu memastikan kemenangan dalam kes-kes yang membabitkan kepentingan mereka.
Mulai Disember, mereka tidak lagi akan terbabit dalam kes politik kerana ditukarkan ke bahagian Mahkamah Dagang.
Akhbar rasmi PKR, Suara Keadilan edisi terbaru 30 November dipetik melaporkan pemindahan itu dilihat sebagai usaha Umno-BN menguatkan cengkamannya ke atas badan kehakiman dengan “membekukan” saki-baki hakim yang bertindak secara adil dan bebas dari telunjuk mana-mana pihak.
Sebagai ganti, parti itu mendalangi pemindahan hakim yang pro-Umno-BN. Antara hakim baru yang akan bertugas di Bahagian Rayuan ialah Datuk Mohamed Apandi Ali, bekas Bendahari Umno Kelantan sebelum beliau dilantik sebagai Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman pada 2003.
Peguam kanan Edmund Bon yang diminta mengulas mengenai pemindahan tiga hakim berkenaan, berkata beliau dan rakat sejawatan pelik dengan tindakan itu.
“Ketiga-tiga hakim berkenaan tidak pernah menjadi sasaran aduan atau rungutan daripada mana-mana pengamal undang-undang sepanjang perkhidmatan mereka di bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas.
“Apakah kriteria objektif yang digunakan untuk menukar mereka ke bahagian lain kerana tempoh perkhidmatan mereka hanya baru antara satu hingga lima tahun sahaja?” tanya Edmund.
Edmund berkata tanpa alasan lojik, pertukaran itu akan menimbulkan persepsi bahawa ada unsur politik di sebalik tindakan itu.
“Pertukaran mereka juga akan meningkatkan jumlah kes tertunggak kerana hakim baru terpaksa meneliti semula semua dokumen untuk memahami kes-kes yang diwarisinya.
“Jadi kalau hakim ditukar sesuka hati sudah tentu KPI badan kehakiman pun akan terjejas. Prinsip keadilan juga mesti ditegakkan walaupun dalam bidang pentadbiran badan kehakiman ,” kata beliau lagi.
Pada 16 November lalu Alizatul adalah hakim yang mengisytiharkan kerusi DUN Kota Siputeh kosong selepas penyandangnya Datuk Abu Hassan Sarif tidak menghadiri dua persidangan DUN tahun ini.
Sebelum itu hakim yang sama memutuskan untuk menolak permohonan Ketua Umum Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Datuk Seri Anwar untuk mendapatkan kebenaran semakan kehakiman bagi melucutkan kelayakan seluruh pasukan pendakwaan dalam kes liwat terhadap bekas pembantunya.
Bagaimanapun Hakim Alizatul menasihati Anwar mengemukakan kes itu di Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah dan bukannya di mahkamah beliau.
Hakim Lau dilihat bertindak berani dalam memutuskan Speaker Perak V. Sivakumar dari Pakatan Rakyat dan enam orang lagi mempunyai hak mencabar keputusan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya untuk tidak mengadakan pilihan raya kecil bagi tiga kerusi DUN di Perak.
Keputusan itu membolehkan Pakatan Rakyat terus mencabar kesahihan kerajaan negeri Barisan Nasional menerusi proses undang-undang.
Hakim Mohamad Ariff pula memutuskan mahkamah tidak ada kuasa untuk mencabar keputusan Speaker Dewan Rakyat berhubung penggantungan 12 bulan ke atas Ahli Parlimen Puchong, Gobind Singh Deo.
Namun beliau menempelak tindakan Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia membekukan gaji dan elaun Gobind, dan mengarahkan enoulmen Ahli Parlimen itu di pulihkan seperti biasa.
Pada 25 Mac lalu, Mohamad Ariff juga menarik diri daripada mendengar saman Menteri Besar Pakatan Rakyat Perak, Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin terhadap Menteri besar lantikan Umno, Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir.
Beliau sanggup bertindak demikian bagi mengelakkan persepsi negatif memandangkan beliau bekas ahli PAS dan penasihat undang-undang parti dalam beberapa petisyen pilihan raya sebelum menjadi Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman.
Menurut Edmund, antara fungsi Mahkamah Tinggi Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas ialah mendengar semua kes semakan kehakiman yang berkaitan Perlembagaan Negara dan undang-undang pentadbiran yang mempunyai kepentingan awam.
Ini termasuk kes yang melibatkan kementerian, agensi dan jabatan kerajaan serta badan berkanun seperti SPR, Suruhan Jaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia dan Polis Di Raja Malaysia.
“Bahagian ini amat penting kerana ia mengendalikan kes-kes yang mempunyai hubung kait politik,” kata Edmund.
Justeru, campurtangan politik akan memastikan pelantikan hakim-hakim di bahagian berkenaan harus disesuaikan dengan kepentingan pihak pentadbir.

Razaleigh: Law says Petronas must pay royalty to producer states

 

KUALA LUMPUR: Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (picture) said that Petronas is legally bound to pay oil-producing states the 5% directly based on the Petroleum Development Act.

“The states’ right to 5% of profit derived from the extraction of any petroleum resources is based on a quid pro quo according to which the states vested entirely and in perpetuity all their rights and claims to petroleum resources to Petronas,”  said Razaleigh at his blog, razaleigh.com.

The former Finance Minister said that the government’s decision to withhold oil royalty payments to the Kelatan state government violates the agreement signed between each state government and the national oil corporation under the Petroleum Development act.

He questioned whether the corresponding Vesting Deed by which Sabah and Sarawak vested all their rights in their petroleum resources to Petronas remains in force if the Federal government continues with their decision of offering “compassionate payment” to Kelantan.

“This casts serious doubt on the Malaysian Government’s respect for the sanctity of contracts and the rule of law,” he said.

It is noted that Razaleigh helped craft and negotiate the Petroleum Development Act. Currently, the federal government pays 5% oil royalties to Sabah and Sarawak, but both Kelantan and Terengganu receive “wang ehsan” or compassionate payment , although Terengganu was receiving royalty before PAS took control of the state following its victory there in the 1999 general election.

It is reported that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said that Kelantan had no right to claim royalties as the oil extracted in the relevant region was beyond three nautical miles off its coast.

In the meantime, Razaleigh is reported to be still considering whether to head an oil royalty
caucus proposed by Pakatan Rakyat’s opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

The parliamentary caucus will draft amendments to the Petroleum Development Act to ensure that oil-producing states, such as opposition-controlled Kelantan, receive their just share of royalties.

Kes saman Anwar tangguh Khamis

Mahkamah Persekutuan hari ini menangguhkan kes saman Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (gambar) terhadap bekas Perdana Menteri Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dan kerajaan persekutuan sehingga Khamis ini.

Penangguhan ini dibuat selepas seorang daripada tiga anggota panel  hakim memutuskan untuk menarik diri daripada mendengar ked itu.

Hakim Datuk Hashim Yusoff secara sukarela memutuskan menarik diri selepas peguam Anwar, Karpal Singh membangkitkan kemungkinan akan ada unsur bias.

Hashim adalah antara panel hakim yang mendengar kes rayuan Anwar di Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap kes liwat pada 2003. Mantan Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu mengemukakan saman ganti rugi di atas pemecatannya daripada jawataan awam sedekad lalu. Beliau hadir di mahkamah hari ini.

Anwar ketika ditemui media memberitahu keputusan Haashim itu ‘amat luar biasa. Beliau berkata hakim berkenaan sudah tiga kali menawarkan diri untuk menarik diri, yang mana ada petanda berlaku bias.

Anwar seeks to amend Petroleum Act

KUALA  LUMPUR:  Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim (picture) is presenting a Private Member Bill  proposing to amend the Petroleum Development Act.
He is seeking an amendment to Section 10 of the act so that states will have their royalty rights spelt out clearly.
The amendment is by way of  inserting a Section 10A which defines “offshore” as a portion of open sea that falls within the limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Federation and measured in accordance with relevant laws adopted by the Federation at a particular time.
The bill states that:
+ The current controversy surrounding the issue of royalty from oil extraction activities offshore the states of Malaysia arises due to the ambiguity surrounding the word “offshore” in the Petroleum Development Act 1974
+ The word “offshore” is used three times in the act; however, it is not defined anywhere in the act
+ Because the act was drawn up to lay down, among other things, the terms of reference for the surrender of rights over hydrocarbon resources from the states to the Federal Government, it is only logical that “offshore” refers to all petroleum activities carried out in a state at the particular time the act was drafted, i.e. including those oil fields off the Terengganu shore beyond the 3 nautical miles argument
+ The 3-nautical-mile boundary only came to the picture by way of inference, due to the ambiguity of the definition of the word “offshore”; the BN government falls back to the definition of territorial waters contained in the Emergency Ordinance Act 1969 to draw a distinction with the boundary to which “offshore” (mentioned in PDA 1974) shall be limited to.
The amendment intends to clarify the word “offshore”  so that it reflects “the true intent and the spirit of PDA 1974 when it was drawn up and the mutual understanding between the states and the Federal Government when the former agreed to surrender their claims over hydrocarbon resources,” according to the bill.
“It will also help avoid ambiguity in the future so as to provide a clearer fiscal regime to the oil and gas industry as the current tussle between the Federal and state governments sends a negative signal to future investors in the offshore oil and gas sectors.
“Normally one of the most important features that an oil and gas company looks for before investing is the clarity, stability and trustworthiness of the legal framework concerning the ownership of hydrocarbon resources.”
The bill says the federal government has been “twisting and turning the spirit of PDA 1974 by utilising the legal loophole arising from the non-definition of the word ‘offshore.’”

Razaleigh mahu kaukus diwakili semua parti

Bekas Menteri Kewangan Tengku Razaleigh mahu kaukus mengenai royalti minyak
Kelantan dianggotai semua ahli parlimen dari negeri-negeri yang mengeluarkan petroleum.

Beliau yang juga bekas Pengerusi Petronas yang membantu membuat perjanjian
antara kerajaan negeri dan Petronas membabitkan bayaran royalti lima peratus,
berkata beliau akan membuat keputusan untuk mengetuai kaukus itu sekiranya
syarat itu dipenuhi.

Tengku Razaleigh yang terbabit sejak awal penubuhan Petronas berkata, beliau
tidak terdesak untuk membuat keputusan tersebut, tetapi mengharapkan kaukus itu
diwakili oleh semua anggota parlimen dari negeri-negeri yang mengeluarkan
hasil petroleum.

"Saya nak tengok supaya perwakilan (yang sertai kaukus) lebih menyeluruh.
Kalau boleh. Itu yang saya nak sebelum saya bagi kata putus. Saya nak tengok
supaya ia tidak ada kaitan dengan politik.

"Elok ada perwakilan yang seimbang daripada semua anggota Parlimen
dari semua negeri khususnya daripada negeri yang mengeluarkan petroleum.
Kemudian baru adakan kaukus. Tiada keperluan segera," katanya kepada pemberita
ketika ditanya mengenai keputusannya berhubung pelawaan untuk mengetuai kaukus
tersebut di lobi Parlimen di sini, hari ini.

Semalam dalam blognya, beliau yang lebih mesra dengan    
panggilan Ku Li mendesak Kerajaan Persekutuan membayar royalti 5% kepada
Kerajaan Kelantan dan jangan mencampuri urusan royalti yang sudah jelas dalam
perjanjian di antara kerajaan negeri dengan Petronas
Sebelum ini, Tengku Razaleigh dilaporkan berkata sedang menimbang pelawaan
Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk melantiknya menjadi pengerusi
kaukus.

Namun beberapa hari selepas itu Timbalan Perdana Menteri Tan Sri
Muhyiddin Yassin pula mahu beliau (Razaleigh) meneliti semasak-masaknya sebelum
bersetuju mengetuai kaukus petroleum yang ingin dibentuk oleh pakatan
pembangkang itu.

Mengenai saranan tersebut Tengku Razaleigh yang juga Anggota Parlimen Gua
Musang berkata, soal tersebut tidak timbul sebenarnya kerana sebelum ini pernah
wujud jawatankuasa di mana parti pemerintah dan pembangkang bersama-sama
menubuhkan jawatankuasa bersama demi kepentingan rakyat.

"Soal fikir masak-masak tidak timbul. Sebelum ini sudah ada jawatankuasa,
gabungan antara kerajaan dan pembangkang. Jadi tidak timbul isu kerajaan boleh
duduk dalam jawatankuasa yang ditubuhkan pembangkang ataupun tidak. Jadi itu .
bukan isu, yang penting ialah kepentingan rakyat itu kita dahulukan," katanya,
memetik laporan Bernama .

Ketika ditanya pendiriannya berhubung bayaran wang yang diumumkan kerajaan
kepada Kelantan yang sepatutnya royalti bukannya wang ihsan, Tengku Razaleigh
berkata, perkataan wang ihsan tidak pernah ada dalam perjanjian, sebaliknya ia
dipanggil bayaran tunai.

BTN dan MCA: Muhyiddin dua kali kena boikot

Isu kecurangan dan penyelewengan Biro Tata Negara (BTN) Jabatan Perdana Menteri benar-benar menggugat kewibawaan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Muhyiddin Yassin. Pertama sekali beliau terpaksa mempengerusikan mesyuarat khas kabinet untuk mengakui bahawa memang ada kepincangan dalam program BTN.

Arahan supaya akur kepada hakikat bahawa program anjuran BTN memang memecahbelahkan perpaduan antara kaum di negara ini khabarnya datang daripada Perdana Menteri, Najib Razak, menerusi panggilan telefon dari luar Negara.

Ini mencalar prestasi Muhyiddin kerana apabila kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat Negeri Selangor minggu lalu mengumumkan akan memboikot kursus sivik anjuran BTN, Muhyiddin segera menafikan bahawa aktiviti BTN bermatlamat indoktrinasi politik, apatah lagi supaya persertanya berkiblat pandangan politik Umno-BN. Malah kata Muhyiddin tugas BTN ialah untuk menanamkan semangat patriotisme di kalangan rakyat.

Langkah Selangor diiringi oleh keputusan kerajaan Pulau Pinang untuk turut memboikot program BTN. Sehubungan itu menderu rakyat, khususnya yang pernah menyertai kursus BTN dan mereka yang pernah terbabit dalam program BTN tampil untuk mempertikaikan kenyataan Muhyiddin.

Maka apabila Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Nazri Aziz memberitahu sidang media hari ini bahawa kabinet bersetuju merombak kurikulum BTN, makin rabaklah imej Muhyiddin. Ini kerana jika ia benar keputusan kabinet, maka tentu Muhyiddin sendiri yang mempengerusikannya.

Malah untuk mengurangkan darjah “malu” Muhyiddin, Nazri melempiaskan kepada media (tentunya arus perdana) kerana telah “salahfaham” kenyataan Muhyiddin ketika cuba mempertahankan BTN minggu lepas.

Nazri berkata, Muhyiddin tidak bermaksud seperti apa yang dilaporkan media. Aneh. Apakah Muhyiddin sendiri tidak terfikir atau tidak boleh berfikir betapa laporan media arus perdana itu tidak merakamkan maksud beliau sebenarnya?

Mungkin ini akibat kegopohan Muhyiddin sendiri. Apabila sesuatu kenyataan mengenai BTN datang daripada pihak saingan politik (kali ini kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat Selangor), beliau mungkin melihatnya sebagai satu peluang untuk meraih dividen politik untuk dirinya; sama seperti beliau melihat krisis MCA boleh melonjakkan imejnya sebagai bakal Perdana Menteri yang tegas dan berkebolehan melandeni isu dengan berkesan. Akhirnya, mesyuarat berdamai dan bersemuka di kalangan pemimpin MCA yang bertelagah yang dianjurkannya gagal kerana ada yang “memboikot”nya.

DAY 2 – 25 MARCH 2003 (Part 2)

He told me, "If you can say that he made sexual advances at you, we can make some money." I got very upset. Then he said, "Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him."

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Fernando then read out the evidence of Jamal Abder Rahman who, on Monday, 3 April 2000, during the course of Anwar’s trial, testified as follows:

Fernando: Did you provide limousine services to Dato’ Seri Anwar?

Jamal: Yes, every time he visited Washington DC.

Fernando: Did you yourself drive these VIP’s around?

Jamal: Yes.

Fernando: In September 1998 did you go to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington?

Jamal: Yes, I did.

Fernando: Did you meet a Malaysian diplomat by the name of Mustapha Ong?

Jamal: Yes.

Fernando: During that meeting what transpired?

Jamal: He asked me to go to New York for business.

Fernando: When?

Jamal: The following day, at 6.00 am.

Fernando: In your limousine?

Jamal: No, in my private car, a Cadillac.

Fernando: What transpired during the journey?

Jamal: We drove off and just before the Delaware Bridge, he asked me if Dato’ Seri Anwar had made any sexual passes at me. I told him, "You must be joking!" Then he said, "You can make some money."

He told me, "If you can say that he made sexual advances at you, we can make some money." I got very upset. Then he said, "Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him."

I said, "Look here Mr Ong, leave me alone; I don’t care about Malaysia, I don’t care about nobody right now. We are going to New York for business. Let’s finish the business and I don’t want to hear the subject no more!"

When we drove on New York, he tried to convince me further and in the meantime I was thinking to myself, do I know two Anwar Ibrahim? He (Ong) told me, "There is a videotape in Malaysia everybody by now knows Anwar Ibrahim from the videotape; why don’t you say so."

I said if you have a videotape, why the heck do you want me for?" He replied, "So that the Americans will know too!

When we arrived in New York, I dropped him off at a diplomat’s apartment. I think it was on the 13th street, East Side. The Malaysian diplomat came down holding a very small booklet and passed it on to Mustapha Ong and they were talking in Malay. I did not understand them. Ong put his hand on my shoulder, trying to convince me to spend the night there. I refused. I wanted to go back to Washington. Mustapha showed me the booklet and asked, "Why dont’t you sign this and we can make up to US$ 200,000. Don’t be crazy."

I said: "You are looking at the most crazy man in the world. That’s me." And I told him: "You change the name from Jamal to Mustapha Ong and say that Anwar Ibrahim made sexual passes ... made love to you. Say anything and you make the money!" I then said, "Have a good day!"

I left and went back to Washington DC ... straight. Then I went to see the Malaysian Ambassador, one Dato’ Dali.

I told Dato’ Dali what transpired during the journey. He was very upset. He said, "Jamal, I assure you I have nothing to do with it. The Embassy has nothing to do with it." And he was very upset; I could see the fire on his face. He said, "You should have slapped him on the face." I said, "I should have done that."

He told me to forget the whole thing. Three months passed and the whole thing kept coming to my mind. I wanted to get if off my chest. I went to see one Sheikh Thahar, a friend of Dato’ Seri Anwar.

He is the president of an Islamic University in Northern Virginia. Leaders from all over the world go to see him. He is a friend of Faruqi (a world-reknown Islamic scholar). I made three attempts to see him but was not successful. Then I made a phone call. I told him I wanted to see him. He said, "What for." I told him, with respect to Dato’ Seri Anwar. "How fast can you come?" he said.

Subsequently I drove down from Washington and met him at 2 pm. I told him what happened. He told me, "Why don’t you see the Malaysian Ambassador." I told him I had seen him (the Ambassador) three months previously. He said, "I will get in touch with you tomorrow". The next day, he phoned me and asked me if it was okay with me, I could make an affidavit before a lawyer about what happened.

Then I said to him, "What you want me to do, I will gladly do." I went with his son to see a lawyer and told the lawyer what happened and he wrote it down. The lawyer asked me if I was prepared to take a lie-detector test. I said, "If you want me to take a lie-detector test, I take a lie-detector test, if you want to put me to sleep I’ll go to sleep."

Fernando: Did you sign an affidavit?

Jamal: Yes. Then I left.

Fernando: Then what happened?

Jamal: I think Sheikh Thahar got in touch with somebody in Malaysia subsequently. Then Sheikh Thahar asked me, "Are you willing to go to Malaysia if you can." I said, " I am willing, if I can." Sheikh Thahar thought I was afraid. I said, " I am not afraid of anyone. I have fear only for God."

Fernando: Did Sheikh Thahar say anything about religion?

Jamal: He said, "If you shut out the truth, you are the devil’s brother!"

Fernando: Did Dato’ Seri Anwar make any passes at you or sodomise you at any time?

Jamal: No sir, he did not, he never did and never will!

Fernando: So this man wanted you to fabricate this evidence, did he not?

Jamal: I think so.

Fernando: On the way to New York from Washington, did Ong ask you to meet anybody or propose to meet anybody?

Jamal: Yes, he did.

Fernando: What did he say to you?

Jamal: He asked me to meet somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff so that I can collect the money but I refused.

Fernando: Why did he want you to see somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff?

Jamal: I understood, by that, if I say what they wanted me to say, I will get the money.

The Bala Interview Part 3 of 3

Let truth be told: the truth behind BTN

The Deputy Prime Minister says one thing. The BTN website says another. No, let not the words come out of my mouth. Let it instead come out from the ‘mouth’ of the BTN website (http://www.btn.gov.my/). Let the course module speak for itself. If you are not clever enough to read between the lines and catch the subtle message in this BTN website, then you are not smart enough to be a Malaysia Today reader.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Part 9: RPK Speaks His Mind - The Special Position of the Malays and the Federal Constitution

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar lashes out at court and police

Anwar vs Dr M: Hearing on Thursday

By Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 30 — The Federal Court today postponed hearing Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s suit against Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the federal government for his 1998 sacking to Thursday.

This was after one of the three judges on the Bench agreed to withdraw from hearing the case. Judge Datuk Hashim Yusoff volunteered to recuse himself after Anwar’s lawyer, Karpal Singh, said they had reservations there may be bias.

Hashim had in 2003 sat on the Court of Appeal panel in Anwar’s first sodomy case. The former deputy prime minister, who is suing for damages over his sudden sacking from his government posts a decade ago, was present in court today.

Anwar (picture) later remarked that Hashim’s recusal was “very unusual.” He told reporters that the judge had offered to step down three times, which he noted was very suggestive of admitting bias.

Hashim’s replacement will only be announced on Thursday. The other two judges in the case are Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff and Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong.

BNM siasat pemindahan RM10 juta oleh MB NS

Bank Negara (BNM) sedang menyiasat seorang pengurup wang tempatan yang didakwa terbabit dalam pemindahan RM10 juta ke London oleh Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan, Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan pada 2008.

BNM mengesahkannya semalam tetapi enggan mengulas lanjut kerana siasatan masih berjalan.

"Sebagai sebahagian daripada prosedur siasatan, pihak bank akan memaklumkan kepada pihak berkuasa yang berkenaan hasil siasatanya yang di luar bidangkuasa Bank Negara untuk tindakan mereka selanjutnya.

"Sebaik sahaja siasatan siap, BNM akan merujuk perkara itu kepada pejabat Peguam Negara," katanya dalam satu kenyataan kepada Malaysiakini.

Sebelum ini, pengarah strategi PKR, Tian Chua mendakwa Mohamad mungkin telah melanggar undang-undang pembankan negara kerana didakwa memindahkan RM10 juta melalui seorang pengurup wang.

Tian Chua juga mendedahkan bahawa Mohamad telah menggunakan perkhidmatan Salamath Ali Money Changer Sdn Bhd untuk memindahkan wang tersebut ke London.

Semalam, BNM berkata Salamath Ali telah melanggar Seksyen 30 Akta Pengurupan Wang 1998 dan lesennya telah dibatalkan pada 26 Oktober.

Mohamad yang juga ADUN Rantau, menjadi sasaran pembangkang sewaktu sidang dewan undangan negeri yang sedang berjalan.

Bagaimanapun, beliau enggan memberi penjelasan berhubung perkara itu.

Wakil rakyat pembangkang juga menggesa Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) supaya menyiasat perkara itu.

Pemuda BN demo, bakar foto Guan Eng

Sekumpulan kira-kira 100 penyokong Pemuda BN berkumpul di depan bangunan DUN Pulau Pinang dan membakar foto Ketua Menteri Lim Guan Eng bagi membantah kerajaan pimpinannya.

Ia dianjurkan sebagai membantah kerajaan negeri yang didakwa "tidak cekap dan teragak-agak membuat keputusan" bagi menyelesaikan masalah rakyat dan juga gagal menunaikan janji pilihan raya umum 2008.

Dikepalai oleh ketua Pemuda Umno Pulau Pinang, Norman Zahalan, tunjuk perasaan itu bermula kira-kira 12.15 tengah hari dan berakhir hampir sejam kemudian ketika sidang DUN Pulau Pinang sedang berlangsung hari ini.

Penunjuk perasaan menaikkan sepanduk anti-kerajaan berhubung dakwaan tidak cekap mengendalikan beberapa masalah seperti Kampung Buah Pala, Rumah Hijau Mak Mandin dan juga projek kontroversi menebus guna tanah.

Sukatan kursus BTN dirombak

Kabinet bersetuju merombak sukatan program kontroversi Biro Tatanegara, yang dipertikaikan Pakatan Rakyat, supaya sejajar dengan slogan 1Malaysia.

Bercakap kepada media di Parlimen hari ini, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz berkata keputusan jemaah menteri itu dibuat bagi menjadikan kursus itu lebih merangkumi pelbagai kaum dan tidak menjadinya sumber perpecahan.

"Jadi saya bersetuju ia sewajarnya dirombak agar kurikulumnya selari dengan konsep 1Malaysia kerana kita telah membelanjakan terlalu banyak wang (untuk menjayakannya)," katanya.

Tambahnya, beliau percaya arahan untuk merombak kursus BTN telah disampaikan kepada ketua setiausaha negara.

Kerajaan Selangor minggu lalu memutuskan untuk melarang kakitangannya dan pelajar di pusat pengajian tinggi miliknya daripada menyertai sebarang program anjuran biro bawah Jabatan Perdana Menteri itu.

Ia berhujah program BTN menyebarkan sentimen perkauman dan menyuntik kepentingan politik BN dalam program-programmnya.

‘BTN taught me the Chinese are the Jews of Asia’

 

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 27 — I am one of the privileged few to have attended a local public university and learned the meaning of hate, thanks to the ever popular Biro Tata Negara.

All undergraduates were forced to attend this programme or else they would not be eligible for graduation.

The BTN under the Prime Minister’s Department brought in “intellectual” speakers who were supposed to enlighten the students about the meaning of being a Malaysian but instead it felt more like a communist propaganda camp brainwashing those attending about the importance of “Ketuanan Melayu”.

The camp would usually take place during the weekends. Students would have to register early in the morning and the programme would last the whole day.

The organisers were always on their guard, asking participants to show their student identification cards each time they entered the hall, fearing the presence of outsiders.

In the hall, students were asked to turn off their mobile phones.

During the lectures, questions were planted among the audience and the students were advised not to ask any other questions.

One speaker began with the history of Malaysia and how much the country had gone through, always emphasising the May 13 riots.

He stressed the point of how much the Malays had sacrificed and how the community should be united especially from outside threat — the Chinese community.

He said that the Chinese community were “the Jews of Asia” and were just itching to take over when Malays were disunited and broken.

The speaker also revealed a greater Chinese conspiracy where the Chinese Malaysians were working together with Singapore to topple the Malay government.

“Do you want to become like the Malays in Singapore?” he asked.

He also went so far as to criticise Malay girls for dating boys from other races.

He added that they should not be cheap and embarrass their families.

Once, a student told the speaker that as Muslims, we should also respect other races who are also Muslims.

“All Muslims are Malays so it does not matter if they are Chinese or Indians. If they are Muslims then they are Malays,” the speaker replied.

This is why I was relieved when I learned that the Selangor government had moved to ban its civil servants, employees of state subsidiaries and students at state-owned education institutions from attending any BTN courses with immediate effect.

However I believe racism in varsities does not end at BTN because classrooms have also become victims of ignorant scholars.

My friend was verbally abused during his sociology class when he did not agree with the points made by his lecturer.

“You must be DKK,” the lecturer told him.

“What is DKK?” he asked.

“You must be darah keturunan keling (descendents of Indians),” the lecturer said, pointing to his dark skin.

My Saudi friend was also shocked by the comments made by his lecturer in his Islamic civilisation class.

“We should save our Orang Asli from the Chinese people. They are like the Palestinians and the Chinese are Israel. We must fight the Jews,” the lecturer told his students.

The lecturer even failed one of his students in his oral exam when he quoted a Western scholar in his presentation.

“You should be ashamed of yourselves. You are a Muslim and should only use Islamic scholars,” he scolded the student.

I was personally saddened when my Islamic law lecturer compared Christianity to Head & Shoulder’s 3 in 1 shampoo in referring to the religion’s Holy Trinity.

I feel that racism has been institutionalised in our country and that BTN is only the tip of the iceberg.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin defended BTN yesterday and claimed that it was not racist but is line with the 1 Malaysia concept.

I have to humbly disagree and would like to suggest maybe the ministers should bring their overseas children home and let them have a taste of what BTN is.

The truth about BTN — Mohd Azrul Abu Hassan

NOV 27 — Since Biro Tata Negara has been a hot issue of late, thanks to a Selangor ADUN (state assemblyman) friend who brought up that matter, I would like to offer my personal experience and be as impartial as possible. To date, I’ve gone for two BTN courses as part of the pre-departure course under PNB and Mara. To be honest, I had mixed feelings about them.

I will talk about the food first. Did I just say food? That was not a blatant typo but the food at BTN is just AMAZING! I do not know if it has got to do with the hectic jungle trekking or the marching practises but the food is simply fantastic. They may be simple dishes like ikan kembung goreng or sayur campur but somehow even the steamed rice has some magic in it.

The “Pakcik Komandos”, I must say, are the unsung heroes in BTN programmes. They may look like they can eat you alive, but they are the nicest people around. They are very helpful, polite and really funny too. Their spontaneous jokes might have some repeated ones (just like other stand-up comedies anyway) but they really made me laugh my flatulence off.

The programme itself, when done together for the whole group, is actually really good. It promotes unity, indoctrinating participants about the history of Malaysia, nationalism and patriotism (I do not know if the two are any different). During my second BTN in Negri Sembilan, Namawee was the star of the show.

Namawee, you can rap all you want mate, but rapping out our national anthem is somewhat disgraceful. Use “Rasa Sayang” or “Anak Ayam” if you may. They worked for Too Phat.

The difference between the two BTN courses I attended is actually the age group. The first course was attended by pre-U students while the second one mostly comprised post-graduate students. The level of maturity of the participants in the two courses was obvious but still I could find a “gila kuasa” Penghulu making a fool of himself. (I will not elaborate more).

The second course gave us some real life stories in which I found really helpful. They included Namawee’s “Negarakuku”, the Kampung Baru incident, corruption statistics (with the then-ACA being the most corrupt) and others. Then we were separated into smaller groups of 10 to 15. Now comes the bad part.

It was really weird when the groups were distributed, the non-Malays (including Sabah and Sarawak Bumiputeras) were grouped together in one or two groups. I was quite angry not to be part of the non-Malay group so that I could mingle with them more. (And, of course, the girl I fancied went to that group as well). Later, I realised why the distribution is like so.

From the two courses I attended, both facilitators that I got were downright RACISTS! In the first course in Balik Pulau, there were two Chinese girls in my group but that didn’t stop the fascist facilitator from bashing the Chinese and Indians as “bangsa pendatang” and making racist comments. Since I had enough of him, I planned to question his motives but I didn’t want to embarrass him in front of the group and so I asked him one plain question right after the scheduled brainwashing class.

He was commenting on the way how “DAP-Cina” will administer the federal government. DAP was labelled as a communist party that will only anger the Malays because of its principles. And so, I asked him: “Kita sekarang ni di Balik Pulau. Kenapa saya lihat kawasan di Balik Pulau ni seakan tidak maju? Dan rata-rata penduduknya orang Melayu. Kenapa Umno biarkan Gerakan ‘tindas’ orang Melayu dan orang kampung di Balik Pulau dari segi pembangunan?”

Do you know what he answered?

“Kita sedang pantau mereka. Umno sedang pantau mereka…”

What is that supposed to mean? Pantau? Is that the best you can do? Just now you were talking your racist head out like the world is yours and now you are telling me the best you can do to the Chinese Penang government is to monitor their progress? Just because they are part of BN?

Why can’t you say the same about DAP?

I think he got a taste of his own medicine. He wanted to be ultra-Umno, ultra-Malay but deep in his heart, he knows that, being a big-headed veteran, we are all Malaysians after all and he shouldn’t play the racist card as he will end up answering tough questions like that with stupid answers like so.

I did nothing but shake my head and a slight smirk on my face. BTN is such a good way to promote unity and to remind us of the sacrifices our forefathers made in order for us to enjoy peace and harmony in Malaysia. However, these fascists who are roaming around freely trying to “convert” the participants into being anti-non-Malays have tainted the BTN image. They shouldn’t be allowed to even step foot on Malaysian soil at all!

Then, there was one question that the group had to answer, the one big fat question that all participants will be talking about after the course. I knew right from the start that the answer was going to be:

“C: Give the project to the government-friendly consortium although it has poor knowledge and expertise about the project.”

It is because I know A and B had the keywords “Opposition” and “Foreign Company” respectively, and after all we only just had a so-called “healthy” one-way discussion with The Fascist so I urged the group to just pick C so that we could all go for an early lunch!

Apart from my own experience, I was told by a friend that her Muslim friend was asked one question that goes “If you have to choose one, would you pick the country first or your religion first?”

Being a boss for some time in a multinational company, she answered: “Islam first”.

“Are you sure?”

“Yes, I will pick religion over country.”

“Why? Without our country, there will be no Islam!”

“No, I will choose Islam over country at all cost. I am a Muslimah.”

Muslimah indeed, not your Dina Zaman-like “Muslimah”.

And then The Fascist started sobbing and crying. When I heard that I was like?

“What? This is new! Now they are rejecting Islam over BN? Ya Allah! Crying some more?”

So yeah, I’m not saying that all facilitators are like that. I would say most of them are like that. Depends on which group you are in. I bet the facilitator in the non-Malay group would be more 1 Malaysia.

It’s sad… because I want to see more of the Komandos and the great people among the participants. Hey, I made many friends from the BTN courses (and many annoying ones too). The fact of the matter is, BTN is great when the racial card is not played. I am not sure if we are provided booklets to hate the Opposition nowadays, as reported by some (there weren’t any during my time), but if the BN people think BTN is their greatest weapon, they are just plain wrong.

We may look like kids. But we are not. People grow up, you know?

And so do Malaysians.

Bringing back Dr M to lead Kedah

UMNO has been embarrassed by a court ruling that one of its state seats in Kedah is up for grabs  because the incumbent representative had been absent twice in a row from state assembly meetings

Furthermore, the party is in shambles and even with the able stewardship of Umno vice-president Shafie Apdal in Kedah, the party has still not come to terms with last year's election losses.

The allegedly erratic wakil rakyat Abu Hassan Sarif has filed an appeal to challenge the High Court decision that he is no longer the Kota Siputeh assemblyman and that his state seat is up for grabs.

But many Kedahans are not hopeful of an Umno or Barisan Nasional revival at the by-election, if there is one, or at the next general polls, scheduled to be held in 2013.

At the moment, they see their state as being stable under the Pakatan Rakyat  administration, led by state PAS commissioner Azizan Abdul Razak, albeit a minor dispute concerning the stand taken by the DAP over a pig slaughter house several months back.

Comfortable with Azizan's leadership

It is said that even some Umno people are comfortable with Azizan, Kedah's 10th mentri besar and the first from PAS.

Veteran journalist A Kadir Jasin also conceded that among the Pakatan-held state governments, the Kedah administration is the 'most steady' and least controversial except for the abattoir incident.

"With the image of the PAS-led state government untarnished, it would be an uphill task for the Barisan to defend the Kota Siputeh seat, in the event a by-election is held," he said in his blog.

Abu Hassan had defeated his PAS challenger Ismail Wan Teh by 495 votes; polling 8,160 votes against his opponent's 7,665 votes.

It is understood that PAS may be fielding Ismail again while the Barisan is not likely to give Abu Hassan a second chance as it does not want to be dealing with another 'tainted' candidate.

While a random poll, if it is carried out at this time, may suggest that PAS is the favourite to win the by-election, it would be a mistake for the party to under-estimate Umno, which is already moving on the ground to drum support against Azizan's administration.

For instance, one of the criticisms against the mentri besar is that his administration had failed to draw investments and, therefore, not bringing in much-needed money to the state coffers.

No longer in the limelight

Umno, though no longer hogging the media limelight in Kedah, now works silently and treading carefully when its campaigners enter Pakatan strongholds. Countering talk that Kedah Umno is now being led by a Sabahan, party members drive home the point that Shafie's  father-in-law is a prominent local man from Sungai Petani.

Nevertheless, the questions still asked are: Is Umno a united party? Is Shafie well-accepted? Would Kedahans prefer another person to lead Umno? Who do they want?

As normal in Umno politics, there are 'warlords' and there are 'cliques' and 'camps'. And while Shafie is a seasoned politician and seen as a trustworthy leader, he is not able to stop these cliques and camps from rejecting his leadership in Kedah.

Amid this disarray, a certain name has surfaced; a man seen as capable to re-energise the party and to re-group the conflicting factions under one umbrella. He is Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister, elderly statesman, leadership icon and a no-nonsense critic  of Pakatan de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim.

It is not that his supporters want to bring  him into the mainstream to make him a wakil rakyat - certainly not to contest in Kota Siputeh  -  but more as a  unifying factor to take on Azizan and the Pakatan leadership.

In other words, according to some party watchers, his role is to bring Kedah Umno "back on track."

Rallying support for leadership

This does not mean that Shafie has to be removed from his post as Kedah liaison committee chairman. Even in an advisory capacity, Mahathir's presence is seen as pertinent to back Shafie and to rally party members from all corners of the state under a single leadership.

While such formula would not be without its glitches, it is seen as the best idea at this juncture to prepare the party for the expected onslaught in the run up to the 13th general elections, when it comes.

Moreover, Mahathir is a familiar face and one who knows ever nook and corner of his home state. Not a man, woman or schoolgoing child has not heard of the icon who was Asia's longest-serving leader when he helmed the country for 22 years until October 2003.

Despite incessant attacks from critics, Mahathir is also much respected by his opponents and by record-breaking aspirants who admire his 'Malaysia Boleh!' spirit.

Kedahans in Umno is banking on his guardian light to once again bring the shine to the party. - Malaysian Mirror.

Selangor denies leaking landslide report

THE Selangor government says it has no idea how the classified report on the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide ended up on the Internet.
Pledging a probe into the matter, Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim said the leak should not have happened.
He said the state government had sent back the document to the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) after doubts were raised if the report could be declassified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).
Asked about the  appearance of what seems to be the official stamp of a Selangor executive councillor on the the leaked documents, Khalid said the state government “will look into it.”
“We never released the document,” he said. “We will look into whether the stamp really came from us. However, I do not think it came from the state because we are still waiting for the approval from the federal government to declassify the document,” he said.
Khalid reiterated his regret over delays by the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Cabinet in approving the declassification of the document.
“MPAJ recently sent another letter” to PWD, he said. “Now we have sent four letters. Then PWD said that we have to send the letter to the Cabinet (instead).”
The document was made available on Saturday by Rapidshare, a popular file sharing website. It has since been deleted.
The 86-page document attributed the landslide to water leaks from a pipe which destabilised a slope.
Khalid had earlier announced that the state government would declassify the report but held it back after the federal government warned that the Menteri Besar would be contravening the OSA.
Leaking an OSA document is a crime punishable by a mandatory minimum of a year’s jail sentence.

Deputy Minister Murugiah asked to resign

The People's Progressive Party (PPP) will be serving a notice to Senator T Murugiah Monday to ask him to vacate his deputy minister's post within 14 days, said its president M Kayveas.
Speaking to reporters after attending PPP functions here on Sunday, Kayveas said the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department should resign as he had obtained the post when he was still a member of the party, reported Bernama.

Murugiah was sacked from the party on May 16 this year.

The one-time protege of Kayveas had a falling out with his party president early this year after releasing some controversial statements on certain issues relating to his ministerial work and the Indian community.

Things came to a head when Murugiah called for a PPP assembly with his group which elected him president. But the ROS ruled later that Kayveas was still the legitinmate party president.

Will he join another party?

Left out in the cold, the deputy minister is said to be exploring several options to keep his political career alive. One is to join another BN component party and a second is to form a new party. Yet another is to team up with the opposition Pakatan Rakyat.

Murugiah is the only deputy minister from the PPP. It makes sense for the PPP to request Murugiah to vacare his post as he is no longer a PPP member.

But the final decision on a Cabinet position rests with the prime minister. As Murugiah is seen as an effective and hardworking guy, the PM may just decide to retain him if he joins another BN party. Another deputy minister's post can be given to a replacement from the PPP.

Kayveas also said the party would be holding an open contest for all Malaysians to design a new logo for PPP.

First, second and third prize winners will respectively receive RM5,000, RM3,000 and RM1,000 while RM500 will be given to three consolation prize winners.

Details on the contest will be made availabe at www.ppp.org.my beginning Dec 7. - Malaysian Mirror

Bukit Antarabangsa: Did Shaziman lie in parliament?

1. Someone, whom I did not know but appears to have the connection in Parliament, sent me an email with a copy of the Dewan Rakyat proceeding transcript (Hansard) which is (No 48, Monday 9th November 2009). Reading the Hansard is not like reading a thriller novel. There is really not much thrill in it. In fact, it is one boring piece of document. Unless there is something specific that is being looked for, I guess no one bothers to read it. I was asked to focus on page 180 onwards with regards to Bukit Antarabangsa. I guess this person knows about my passion on the happening in Bukit Antarabangsa and that is why he (or she) sent me the Hansard.

2. In a question posed by Azmin Ali (MP Gombak) with regards to the existence of the BA Hazard Map, the minister said, “Untuk Ahli Yang Berhormat hasil kajian Pelan Induk Cerun 2009 adalah seperti berikut, kajian pelan induk langkah-langkah pembaikan cerun negara telah mendapat persetujuan oleh Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri pada 26 Mei 2004 untuk dilaksanakan bagi mengatasi masalah bencana tanah runtuh yang kerap terjadi.

Kerajaan juga telah meluluskanperuntukan sebanyak RM6.5 juta bagi pelaksanaan kajian tersebut yang mana kajian ini akan menentukan polisi, strategi dan pelan tindakan serta hala tuju Cawangan Kejuruteraan Cerun, Jabatan Kerja Raya bagi merangka strategi jangka pendek dan jangka panjang pengurusan cerun.

Kajian ini telah siap pada Disember 2008 dan telah dibentangkan kepada Jemaah Menteri pada 14 Januari 2009. Cadangan Pelaksanaan Teras Strategi dan pelan tindakan dalam kajian Pelan Induk Cerun Negara ini telah dipersetujui oleh Jemaah Menteri pada 12 Ogos 2009.

Laporan tersebut sedang dalam proses cetakan akhir dan akan dimasukkan ke dalam laman web Kementerian Kerja Raya dan Jabatan Kerja Raya di mana ianya boleh dimuat turun secara dwibahasa oleh umum. Proses tersebut dijangka dapat diselesaikan pada penghujung tahun 2009. Hasil daripada kajian ini 10 teras strategik telah dikenal pasti dan disokong dengan 77 pelan tindakan bagi memastikan supaya cerun-cerun di Malaysia dapat diurus dengan baik dengan koordinasi pelbagai agensi pelaksana dalam kerajaan dan juga penglibatan pihak swasta. Berkaitan dengan Pelan Induk Cerun Negara, Cawangan Kejuruteraan Cerun (CKC) JKR telah ditubuhkan mulai 1 Februari 2004 bertujuan untuk menangani masalah cerun runtuh dengan lebih berkesan.”

3. It took me quite a while to figure out on what was wrong with Dato Shaziman statement in parliament on the 9th November 2009. In the last one year, since the landslide happened, I have been meeting various people, attending conference and talks to various experts. I realized that the facts that is presented in parliament is somewhat different that what is known publicly.

4. Firstly, I agree with Shaziman that the government spent RM6.5 mill to do a Landslide Risk Assessment in Ampang Ulu Kelang area. On the 14/2/2009, during a seminar organized by Malaysian Board of Engineers which I attended, Dato Dr Ashaari, the Head of CKC,KKR mentioned that the government spent RM5 million and the report is ready since early 2008.

5. I am not too bothered with the amount mentioned but what I am concerned about is the fact that Shaziman said that study was completed in December 2008 and it was presented to the Cabinet on the 14th January 2009. He also claims that the report is in the final stages of printing and it will be published in KKR website in by the end of the year (2009).

6. This is a blatant lie. Dato Dr Ashaari said publicly during the seminar that the report is ready in early 2008 and Shaziman said it was completed in December 2008. In the early days of the landslide, I got to know Miss Ivy Chang of the NST Property Times. She said then, that prior and during the landslide, the Ulu Klang Hazard report was already on the IKRAM website and it was taken down immediately after she wrote something about it in her column in the NST. In her report dated 6/2/2009, she wrote about the possibility of some cover up taking place. She also mentioned that the report was ready. This is contrary to what Shaziman is saying in Parliament.

7. He inferred that the report was not ready December 2008 instead of January 2008. Is the government trying to cover up because we have said many times that there are possibilities that the government knows about the impending tragedy. In my previous write up where I managed to sight the Landslide Report Vol 1 (when it was declassified and before it was classified again), I mentioned that there are pictorial evidence that the government knew about the impending risk as early as Jan 2008. Nothing was done.

8. Why Shaziman did said the report was completed in December 2008 and not in Jan 2008 as confirmed by Dato Ashaari, Ivy Chang in her news report and the BA landslide report? Is the government trying to cover up that they knew about the risk the people face and did nothing about it?

9. It is quite clear that Shaziman lied in Parliament based on the various media reports, statements made by Dato Ashaari and other supporting evidence. He should be hauled to the Parliamentary Select Committee for lying. I seek the cooperation of other MP’s to raise this matter again in Parliament. We must get the facts right. Accountability must be given the highest priority.

Reference:
(1) 9112009 Hansard Dewan Rakyat
(2) Signs of Cover-Up at Bukit Antarabangsa – Ivy Chang NST 6/2/2009
(3) Dr Rafick Post 14/2/2009 – Board of Engineers seminar
(4) Dr Rafick Post 3/4/2009-To residents of Bukit Antarabangsa – The Dec 6th landslide, did the government know?
(5) Dr Rafick Post 26/2/2009 – Bukit Antarabangsa: Letter to the Editor – NST
(6) Dr Rafick Post 20/11/2009 :Bukit Antarabangsa landslide: Did the government know that it will happen?

Anwar wins suit against NSTP

KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has won his defamation suit against the New Straits Times Press (NSTP).
The High Court here ordered the media owner to pay RM100,000 in damages and RM20,000 in costs to the opposition leader over a 2002 article which alleged that he had links to Western interests and had RM3 billion in foreign accounts.

Lawyer: Najib ‘Linked’ To Bala’s Disappearance

Any reasonable person would draw the conclusion that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is somehow linked to the disappearance of P Balasubramaniam, according to the private investigator’s lawyer.
“The facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute,” said Americk Singh Sidhu (left) in an interview with Malaysiakini.
“As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim (Razak), Najib’s younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala’s disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?” asked Americk.
Balasubramaniam recently emerged from hiding to reveal that he had met Nazim, an architect, the night before he made a dramatic reversal and recanted his first statutory declaration in which he alleged that Najib had close ties with murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Balasubramaniam also claimed that he was offered RM5 million by one Deepak, a businessman close to Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, to retract his first statutory declaration.
Najib had repeatedly denied speculations that he was behind Balasubramaniam’s retraction.
In the interview, Americk recounted how he was introduced to Balasubramaniam, on his reaction to the retraction of Balasuubramaniam’s first statutory declaration and his subsequent meeting with the former police officer after he emerged from hiding a year later.
The lawyer also revealed that the video recording of his interview with Balasubramaniam three months ago was secretly taken as an “insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago”.
“He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it,” said Americk.
According to him, while Balasubramaniam may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 for giving conflicting statutory declarations, he could nevertheless defend himself against the charge as it “would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second statutory declaration under duress”.
But those who allegedly instigated the swearing of the false second statutory declaration – Deepak, one ASP Suresh and lawyer M Arunampalam – are also liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy, added Americk.
“In so far as Nazim is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false statutory declaration.”
The following is the first of a two-part interview:
Malaysiakini: When did you first meet Bala?
Americk: I first met Bala sometime in April or May 2008. I was having some early evening drinks with some lawyer friends of mine at ‘Fogles’, which is a delicatessen/bar at Plaza Damas. We were later joined by ASP Suresh and Bala.
One of the lawyers I was with, M Puravalen, introduced me to them. I had no idea who they were before that. I had not been following the Altantuya case very closely so I had not realised that Abdul Razak Baginda had a private investigator assisting him and this was Bala.
I then started enquiring about this whole saga out of curiosity.
Puravalen had been involved in the Altantuya case as he was the first counsel Abdul Razak Baginda had engaged before he was discharged and a new counsel engaged, and so he enlightened me as regards the more salient facts.
I am not sure how ASP Suresh featured in all this but he appeared to be a good friend of Bala’s and appeared to have his interests at heart.
Eventually some of the other lawyers left and the restaurant started closing so we decided to move on to ‘The Backyard’ pub in Sri Hartamas, which is only a short distance away from Plaza Damas. There were four of us … Bala, myself, ASP Suresh and Valen.
We were drinking and still discussing the whole Altantuya murder case as I found it fascinating. Sometime later (Subang MP and lawyer) Sivarasa Rasiah walked in. I know Siva as he is also a friend, but we are not very close. We asked him to join us. He also listened to what Bala had to say and after that suggested Bala get someone to record everything.
Somehow I was chosen to do this as everyone felt I was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter as I was someone neutral. I agreed and that was when I made an appointment for Bala to come to my office so that I could record all he had to say.
The recordings occurred about two or three times over a period of about two months and lasted a few hours each time.
How did you feel when Bala came out with the second statutory declaration? Did you attempt to contact him?
I received a call from a member of the press at about 9.30am on July 4, 2008 asking me why my client, Bala, had called a press conference for 11am that morning at the Prince hotel.
I was a little surprised as I had no idea what this was about so I proceeded to call Bala, who did not answer his phone. I then proceeded to make further enquiries only to find out that Bala had purportedly been represented by another lawyer, one Arunampalam who had spoken to the press at that press conference on behalf of Bala and had said that Bala was retracting the contents of his first SD as he had been forced to sign it under duress.
When I came to know of this press conference and what transpired thereat, I was absolutely flabbergasted. Bala and I had spent two months and many hours over the first SD to ensure it was absolutely correct and for him to deny the contents in the space of 24 hours did seem incredible to me.
Bala had anticipated that he would be arrested by the police after releasing the first statutory declaration and he told me so. This is why he had handed over his mobile phone to me for safe keeping before he left my office the evening before as he did not want the police to download information from it.
We were therefore preparing for his arrest and then to go to the police station he was being held at to represent him. I never expected him to have been ‘hijacked’ by the personalities involved, and I am sure, neither did he.
It is also worth mentioning here that this lawyer, Arunampalam, was not engaged by Bala to represent him at the press conference at the Prince hotel despite the fact that Arunampalam has said Bala called him and asked him to do so. This is a blatant lie.
Bala does not know this man and had never met him prior to that press conference. In fact, it is well-known that Arunamalam does legal work for Deepak and this can be substantiated quite easily.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bala was forced, coerced, threatened and intimidated into signing the second statutory declaration.
Bala subsequently disappeared for one year. When did you meet him next?
Bala called me around July 19, 2009. I was at that time in a little village called Llanwarne on the Welsh border staying with some friends of mine. My wife was also with me. I was surprised to hear his voice as I hadn’t heard from him since he left my office with ASP Suresh in the early evening of July 3, 2008.
He started off the conversation by apologising to me for any trouble he had caused. He said he was returning to Malaysia on July 28 and wanted to see me. I informed him I was only returning to Kuala Lumpur on Aug 2 and landing in the early hours of the morning. He gave me a contact number to call and I said I would call him after I landed to arrange a meeting.
At approximately 9am on Aug 2, 2009, I called the number Bala had given me and we arranged to meet in about two days’ time. We left the exact time and place to be decided later.
On Aug 4, we finally arranged to meet at my apartment in Ampang Hilir at about 1pm the next day. As Bala wanted to tell me everything that had happened to him since I saw him last, I thought it would be best to have some witnesses present and so I called my counsel, Manjeet Singh Dhillon and another lawyer, Amarjit Singh Sidhu. They both turned up at about 12pm and we waited for Bala to arrive.
Bala eventually turned up a little later than expected as he was having difficulty locating my apartment. He arrived with two other Indian gentlemen who were introduced to us but I cannot recall their names.
He then spent about three hours telling us exactly what had happened to him. During this time he was constantly questioned by myself, Manjeet and Amarjit.
We had arranged for a concealed audio visual device to record this conversation as we felt Bala may have needed some insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago. He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it.
Were you convinced by Bala’s story? What documentary evidence did you have?
After approximately three hours of conversation, we were more than convinced that what he was telling us was the truth. It took quite a long time to unravel the details as Bala was recalling events which had taken place over a year ago coupled with the fact that there were so many details.
At that stage, Bala did not reveal any documentary evidence as he was still very apprehensive of the entire situation but he did tell us details of all the evidence he had from bank account statements, passports, flight tickets and photocopied cheques paid to him.
We therefore asked him to produce this evidence and he assured us he would.
What was your advice to Bala at the meeting? Was there a follow-up meeting after that?
After digesting everything we were told, we felt it was necessary to record the events which had taken place in a suitable, chronological and coherent format as we were concerned the matter was rather serious.
We advised Bala to hand over all documents to us to enable us to further verify his story. He promised us he would but said he would have to go to his wife’s bank (EON) to get her statements for the past year and that other documents were still in India. He did however have copies of his family’s passports and copies of the cheques Deepak had signed. He eventually produced these documents to me by hand, by post and by fax.
We advised Bala to behave normally with Deepak and ASP Suresh and not to let them know he had seen us. He told us he would be returning to India shortly and would contact us again. From then on, all contact with Bala was by phone and email.
As a lawyer, do you think Bala has committed any offences?
Technically, he may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 by swearing a false declaration. By this I mean the second SD, not the first SD. However under the circumstances, he would have a good defence to a charge of that nature as it would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second SD under duress.
Making a false second SD technically exposes Bala to criminal prosecution. It would equally make the ones who instigated the swearing of the false second SD [Deepak/ Arunampalam/Suresh], liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy.
If we refer to section 3 of the SD Act 1960, this states that SDs made under the Act are such declarations as are referred to in sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, and where false would be punishable under that Act.
Section 199 of the Penal Code reads:
“Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any court, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.”
This provision is then followed by Section 200 of the Penal Code which states that whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Even if we limit ourselves to these provisions alone, offences are clearly shown to have been committed by Deepak, Suresh and Arunampalam. Bala may well have a defense of duress but that would be a matter of evidence.
In so far as Nazim (Razak) is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false SD.
Note also that under section 10[b] of the ACA 1997, it is an offence to corruptly give to any person an inducement in such circumstances as those in which Bala was induced to make the false second SD. Deepak, Suresh and Nazim could well be prosecuted under these provisions.
With the evidence that you and the other lawyers have seen from Bala and based on Bala’s own explanation, do you think the PM (Najib Abdul Razak) and his wife (Rosmah) are personally involved in this (matter)? Or was it done on their behalf by someone?
If you mean Bala’s disappearance, then the facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute.
As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim, Najib’s younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala’s disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?
I think this is the conclusion any reasonable person would come to.