No action against food shortage actually

Several years ago, I was working for about 2 years in the food industry. I had come to realize back then that the increase in price of rice is quite inevitable. Luckily, the government made 5 initiatives in order to curb the rising prices of rice. These initiatives are;

• Maintaining the controlled price of between RM1.65 and RM1.80 per kilo for the Super Tempatan 15% rice.
• Ceiling price for Super Special Tempatan 5% at RM2.80 per kilo and Super Special Tempat 10% at RM2.70 per kilo effective 1 June 2008. Note that the 5%, 10% and 15% percentile means how much percentage the quantity of broken rice in a kilo. That is why 5% rice is slightly more expensive than the rest as it has less broken rice in the mix.
• Price of imported rice are floated.
• Movement of rice across state borders is to be freed in stages.
• Raising the Guaranteed Minimum Price (GMP) for farmers from RM650 to RM750 per tonne.     
   

Apart from that, the national stock buffer will be increased from 92,000 tonne to 292,000 tonne. Will this solve the looming crisis of price increase? Probably yes. Will this solve the actual root cause of the problem? Sadly no. The root cause of the price increase is the shortage of food worldwide. But the government seemed to tackle different issue altogether.

I can see that the government had approached the problem from the consequential evidence, which is - people can’t afford to pay the expensive food.  What they should have done is to approach the cause of the problem - output of food supply is dwindling under the impact of increased demand (increased population + food consumption). So what did they do? By focussing on the consequence, they worked on the above initiatives which predominantly only tackling the pricing issue.

To me, one of the things that they should have done as in the case of this rice issue is to urge the local farmers to increase output of rice. From two seasons a year to 5 seasons in two years at least. Officially the farmers are currently producing paddy crops twice a year but I do know that most of them are only producing it once a year. The remaining idle months they spent doing something else. Let me tell you a secret; the farmers are a lazy lot. They scream and rant that BERNAS are squeezing them by only buying their paddy crops at RM650 per tonne. But at the same time, they actually are selling bad quality crops to BERNAS while their good quality crops are sold to the highest bidder in other private paddy mills not belonging to BERNAS. There were cases where BERNAS officials found debris, rocks and tree branches in a pile of paddy crops after it had been unloaded from the lorry right after disembarking from the weighing bridge. To accuse them of cheating will make the farmers run straight to the nearest ‘wakil rakyat’ and soon, BERNAS will be called all sorts of names in the Parliament for not thinking about the ‘welfare’ of the farmers.

BERNAS can’t afford to pay more than RM650 because to increase it, will make the price of rice too expensive for the end customers. Remember, a tonne of paddy crops will not necessarily be transformed into 100% of rice at the end of production. In a good batch of crop, only about 60% (this is called the ‘rice recovery rate’) of the whole tonne can be turned into pure rice. The balance 40% are actually the paddy’s inedible parts, its husk and other impurities. In a bad quality crop, BERNAS would be lucky even to reach 40% rice recovery rate.

Furthermore, the process of separating the paddy from its husk, cleaning, polishing the rice, sorting and packaging them costs another RM700 to RM800. Eventually, the total cost of producing local rice is between RM1,400 to RM1,450 per tonne. And what’s the price ceiling for the controlled local rice? Around RM1,300 per tonne. For every tonne of rice that BERNAS produces, they lose about RM100 to RM150. All in the name of social obligation. And how much does BERNAS produce rice locally? Around 1.3 million tonnes per year. That is why BERNAS who has an average sales of RM1 billion per year can only manage to gain profit before tax of about RM100 million per year or less.

Their production costs are eating 90% of their sales figure! And what saved BERNAS from being in the red? The imported rice. Inported rice from Thailand and other parts of the world is bought cheaply by BERNAS and sold at a higher price to the end users. But the import of rice is regulated by the government in order to protect the local farmers. Everytime BERNAS has to place and import purchase, they have to seek approval from the Ministry of Agriculture. That is why, import rice are limited to about 700,000 tonnes per year. If only BERNAS could at least break even on their local rice production, they can gain at least 30% more of their profit before tax.

The average annual demand for rice in Malaysia is about 2 million tonnes of rice. How do they arrive at this figure? Okay the average eating consumption of a Malaysian is about 80kg of rice per year. This is an average figure. It could be more or it could be less. Depends on whether a person likes pizza more or their ‘nasi campur’ more. But the difference won’t be that much. 80kg times the population of Malaysia at 27 million people gives you 2.16 billion kg or 2.16 million tonnes per year.

Approximately 2 million tonnes of rice per year will satisfy the demand of the Malaysian public. But why is there shortage? Easy. The foreign workers.

The accounted and the unaccounted (illegal) foreign workers. To date, the official count of foreign workers is slightly less than 3 million people including the illegal ones estimated around half a million.

Let me digress a bit by telling you a story of a friend of mine who went to China recently to visit some coal mines there. He visited a small village deep in the heartland of China. It was a small village by the Chinese’ standards because it only has a population of 12 million people in it! That wasn’t a typo. I kid you not. Now China has a ‘one child policy’ in placed since 1979. If a couple gave birth to a second child, they will be imposed huge fines upon the moment they wanted to register the newborn child. The fines were normally so heavy they had no choice but to leave the child unregistered all their lives. In rural areas, most families have children as many as they liked since they couldn’t afford to pay the fines for the second child anyway. The unregistered children may face problems in the future but they can still have adequate resources to live as they are geographically isolated and can afford to self sustain with the use of their own farmlands and making their own supplies etc.

Recently, they have millions and millions cases of young adults wanting to register themselves and had collected enough money to finally pay the fine and get themselves registered. For all we know, China, with the official population rate of 1.1 billion people could actually have 2 billion people instead!

Coming back to the topic at hand, foreign workers especially the Indonesians and Myanmars eat a lot of rice. The average eating consumption of Indonesians and Myanmars is 125kg of rice per year. With the huge surge of foreign workers in the country and the inability of the authorities to curb the rising number of illegal immigrants into this country, no wonder our food source is drying up as soon as it went into the shelves of hypermarts and sundry shops. This is a grave situation that the government had failed to see its many impact. Not just on the crime rate, but on our food supply as well.

Another matter which is the factor is the dwindling of cultivated lands. In Malaysia, each paddy fields are lined with dividers known as ‘batas’. This is purely territorial in nature. Historically, one paddy field owned by a farmer long ago could have reached the size of 10 acres each. But due to passing down inheritance to their descendants, the once huge paddy field is divided to give away to his many sons and subsequently divided further to his grandsons by the use of these ‘batas’. These dividers are eating up precious land area if you total them up together. An acre of paddy field can produce up to 5 tonnes of paddy crops in a season. But if an acre is strewned with so many dividers then the amount produced would be much smaller than 5 tonnes per season.

In Thailand (one of the biggest rice exporter in the world), there is no such thing as these ‘batas’. Each paddy field is so huge you can’t even see the edge of it if you’re standing at one side of the field. No dividers lining their fields in sight. Thus, the Thais can maximise their output. This was what BERNAS was trying to achieve some time ago but as usual, our territorial local farmers were so paranoid that they might confuse their own paddy fields to another if the dividers were to be disintegrated. Thus, they would rather keep their underutilised paddy fields rather than helping BERNAS to achieve greater output. They were too deaf to hear that an increase of output will eventually increase their income.      

I believe, taking everything into account from the above, those are the root causes of food shortage. Lack of reliable data to correctly calculate the demands of food supplies in the country vis a vis the rate of food production/output. The government should solve these illegal workforce problems, increase the output of farmers, motivate them to produce more before finally moving on to tackle the pricing issue. The food shortage will always be there regardless of the inititatives done to tweak the prices. In this, the government should be more focussed and should obtain more intelligent advice from the experts. Relying on just the Ministry of Agriculture to tackle this problem is not universally adequate. All areas should be covered and all ministries should chipped in ideas to solve the root of this problem.

Just my 2 cents…

 

Now you can blackmail your way to Parliament (Updated)

12 May 2008:

I have always stated that people need to judge the leaders very carefully before pledging their support and loyalty towards them. This support and loyalty could be an act of misplaced blind faith towards the wrong kind of leader.

In my previous post, I touched upon the issue of an apparent blackmailing activity by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim with regards to a certain defence lawyer - VK Lingam. One of the accomplice is Loh Gwo Burne. In that post, I had mentioned about this incident in the paragraphs below;

“In the recent interview with BBC HardTalk, Dr Mahathir mentioned that Anwar was blackmailing VK Lingam via the secret recordings made in 2001. At this point, the allegations of fixing the appointment of top judges in the country is not relevant to me. What is more telling was the act of blackmailing VK Lingam itself. The one that was taking the recording was non other than Loh Gwo Burne.

This political greenhorn, who is still learning to speak proper Bahasa Malaysia, became the MP of Kelana Jaya under the PKR ticket in 2008 general election. Although Gwo Burne stated that he recorded the conversation out of boredom, it was a full 14 minutes recording nevertheless. He could test his new found camera at the time to record everything else, but he chose to record VK Lingam’s conversation non stop for the whole 14 minutes. Furthermore, what astonished me was the fact that Anwar kept the original copy all this while. How did he get the copy? From Gwo Burne himself no doubt. 

Now, Gwo Burne is offering his seat for Anwar to contest in the possible by-election. That whole event was suspiciously conspired by Anwar. If blackmailing is Anwar’s modus operandi in obtaining power and gaining political mileage, we will see another round of surrendering our sovereignty to foreign powers.”

Today, Dr Mahathir spoke his thoughts about the same incident. He said that the objective of the recording was to undermine the credibility of VK Lingam who incidentally was the defence lawyer for Dr Mahathir against the defamation suit of Anwar Ibrahim.

SHAH ALAM: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has questioned the way in which the V.K. Lingam clips were released by his former deputy Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The former prime minister said the fact that the clips were released in batches was not mentioned in the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s hearing into the matter.

“Anwar did not give the full tape at one go. He released the tape in two parts,’’ he said. “That constitutes tampering of evidence because we do not know what he kept behind and how many more tapes he has.”

He said this was the work of Anwar, who wanted to undermine the credibility of Lingam as he was Dr Mahathir’s lawyer.

“He has succeeded in making Lingam not credible and now Lingam cannot defend me in the courts of law.

“I have always emphasised that when people make secret recordings, the intention is to blackmail. And I am afraid this Government has made a blackmail attempt successful,” he said.

Now do we need a leader who has no qualms in blackmailing other people? If we have a leader who blatantly condone or in fact partake in a blackmailing act, shouldn’t we dismiss this kind of person as a leader? Notice how Gow Burne made different stand in his statement during the commission hearing and also after the commission finalised their findings;

He initially said;

KUALA LUMPUR: The person, who took the controversial clip purportedly showing a lawyer brokering the appointment of judges over a mobile phone, said it was made by accident.

Loh Gwo Burne, the 34-year-old son of businessman Loh Mui Fah, said he was trying to take a picture of a vase when he realised his digital camera was on video mode.

“I then continued to record the conversation between Datuk V.K. Lingam and the other person on the other line.

“I was bored and fed up with the lawyer for constantly talking on the phone, as he was supposed to discuss legal matters with my father,” said the 12th witness on the sixth day of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the video clip yesterday.

When Thayalan pointed out that the camera seemed to be placed behind a book, as it seemed from the video, Gwo Burne said he was reading a magazine and a coffeetable book at that time, and that the camera was hung around his neck.

Whereas in The Star 10th May 2008 he said;

PETALING JAYA: The real work has only just begun with the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the V.K. Lingam video clip, said Kelana Jaya MP Loh Gwo Burne.

Loh, who recorded the video clip, said the findings should open the way for further investigations into whether there were other similar cases within the judiciary.

“This is just the flagpole at the tip of the iceberg. Who knows if there are others who are doing what V.K. Lingam did?” he said when contacted yesterday.

He was asked to comment on the findings of the report.

One has to question his intention in recording the incident. Was it just because he was bored, or did he have some other sinister, ulterior motive? Reading between the lines in his latest statement above, it seems that it was all along his intention to snare VK Lingam.

And just because he took part in the blackmailing process, he was selected as a candidate of PKR in the last general election and consequently became an MP for Kelana Jaya. What a prize to be won for helping a leader blackmailing others as a political mileage. But of course, the public were quite senseless and fickle in their selection criteria. We are fed with so much propaganda and political misdirections that the public became utterly incapable of wisely choosing their own representative to the government. If blackmailing is condoned by these kind of leaders, imagine what kind of dirty tactics and other acts of power abuse they can do to you, the public.

Hence, the blackmailing MP and his blackmailing mentor got their way in blackmailing the government and the public. Now I am not saying that what VK Lingam did was right. Pending the Commission’s findings made public, any act of trying to broker the appointment of judges and influencing the top leaders decisions in appointing judges is a huge offence by anyone’s standards. But the act of blackmailing nonetheless, is wrong. You do not make two wrongs to make a right. An evil deed is still evil regardless whether it’s a lesser or greater evil.

Am I the only one who sees blackmail as a selfish, despicable act? Also, am I the only one who think that the BN MPs are just a bunch of ignorant idiots who are not doing anything in highlighting this gross act? Dr Mahathir had even complained on the issue of tampering with evidence. But nobody seemed to take the cue. Oh well, stupidity had always been the cause of many governments’ and nations’ downfall. I pray that the people would choose their leaders wisely in the future.

Update 14 May 2008:

Loh Gwo Burne made a boo boo in his interview with The Star today :

KUALA LUMPUR: The VK Lingam video clip shown to the Royal Commission of Inquiry is only some 20% to 30% of what was recorded that night at the prominent lawyer’s house in December 2001.

“I downloaded the video from my private computer into several hard disks and compact discs. When I went to work in China in 2004, I took it along,” Loh told The Star.

“What has been made public is only about 20%-30% of what I filmed,” Loh said.

The Kelana Jaya MP said he had not viewed the videos that he had left in China for some time and therefore could not be precisely sure of what else they contain.

However, from memory, Loh, 34, said he remembered that Lingam had mentioned about how he had manipulated cases to his advantage by using certain lawyers against certain judges to make sure the judgments would be in his favour.

That night in December 2001, he started his camera to film a bowl or vase in Lingam’s house because he was bored to be kept waiting by the lawyer “who was forever on the phone.”

“But when Lingam started asking someone on the other line not to worry, that he would be chief justice soon, I knew I had a once in a lifetime opportunity to document something that may one day help prove something is seriously wrong with the judiciary,” said Loh.

As I said in the original article, Gwo Burne actually had lied during his testimony in the Haidar commission. Originally he said he was bored but now he came out saying the recording was intentional. In my opinion, the credibility of the witness is quite damaged. What more with his own revelation that the 14 minutes recording is only 20% to 30% of the original recording, That means, he recorded a whole 1 hour out of boredom. And what perplexed me is, how can the commission took into account only parts of the main evidence and not the whole of it? Was the commission even aware of the rest of the recording? And why was only 14 minute video recording was released by Datuk Seri Anwar and not the rest of it? Surely there would be some other compelling issues which could have been highlighted to the courts. I smell selective prosecution in the air. Maybe his own name was mentioned in the recording. Maybe some other powerful people were implicated. We can never know. 

Anyway, the commission should take into account and watch the whole recording before arriving at their conclusion. Either this was intentional or not, it is a clear case of implied malicious intent in the part of Gow Burne and also I think it is wrong to withold evidence. As for the commission itself, the acceptance of only parts of the evidence would create some reasonable doubt over the judgement itself. The burden of proof should be beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, the exclusion of the rest of the recording could greatly discredit the commision’s report.            

The CEO and the Pegawai Tadbir explored further

Pak Lah’s administration continuously trying to fight the criticisms hurled at them with much disarray. Supplementing the mistakes with weak and sometimes illogical excuses, one has to wonder whether who are the brains behind this malignant administration. It is a no-brainer (pun intended) that KJ runs the show. And lately, people from all walks of life are questioning the wisdom in most of the decisions made by the PM. Sometimes, we are stupified by his statements that came forth from his mouth.

I do not wish to repeat what had been said in this blog. But today, Tun Dr Mahathir sealed the manifestation of the people’s grievances/protests/complaints in a letter published in The Sun and copied in http://malaysiavoices.blogspot.com. This letter highlighted some of the points I had wrote in an entry a couple of days ago and another entry here sometime ago.

Why BN and Umno performed miserably
by Dr Mahathir Mohamad

DATUK Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the president of Umno, chairman of the Barisan Nasional and Prime Minister of Malaysia has blamed everyone else except himself for the miserable performance of the coalition in the 12th general election.
 
He has blamed the whole electorate for not wanting him to get a two-thirds majority; BN members and Umno members in Kedah and Perak for sabotage; Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah for BN’s defeat in Kelantan and myself for speaking against him and his government.
 
He is not too far wrong. There is a lot of truth in what he says. I know that many Umno members voted for the Opposition. I admit that what I said may have influenced some of them into doing the unthinkable
.
But the more important question is why did they do this. Umno members had always been loyal to the party. They would never vote for the Opposition, particularly PAS and DAP. Yet they did in the 2008 general election. How else could the Opposition parties win if they did not get the votes of BN supporters? The reduction in the votes for BN candidates very nearly matches the increase in votes for the opposition parties.

In the last 50 years and 11 general elections Umno members and the average Malaysian had never failed to support Umno or the Alliance/BN. Except for 1969 when the Chinese withdrew their support, the Alliance and the BN had won a two-thirds majority every time.

Neither Tunku Abdul Rahman (the 1969 general election excepted), nor Tun Razak, nor Tun Hussein Onn, nor yours truly had won less than two-thirds. Certainly we never had occasion to accuse Umno members of sabotaging their party. Yet Abdullah, by his own admission, has apparently been “sabotaged” by Umno members.

Umno members did not want their party to lose. But they needed to send a message to Abdullah and his coterie of “Yes Men”. They could not speak their minds because all avenues were closed to them. Delegates to the Umno General Assembly were chosen because they would not criticise the president. My son Mukhriz had commented that there was nothing new in the president’s speech in 2006 and he was called up by the Umno Youth Committee, was scolded and told to choose between his father and the president.
 
The Umno Supreme Council and the cabinet were full of Yes-Men who never voiced the dissatisfaction or the complaints of the Umno rank and file. Umno members were forbidden on pain of disciplinary action from listening to any talk by people not approved by the president. This includes me. The police and the state Umno called up people who invited me and told them to withdraw their invitations.
 
Since Umno members could not express their real opinion regarding the government at any time and in any place, the only way they could convey their disenchantment with it was through voting at the general election. Voting was relatively secret and no action could be taken against them. So scared were the Umno voters that they might be found out that they never revealed to each other or to anyone of their intention to vote for the Opposition. And so it was that no one accurately forecast the massive swing in favour of the Opposition.

Some Umno members could not bring themselves to vote for the Opposition. And so they deliberately spoiled their votes. There were more than 300,000 spoilt votes in all, a record. It cannot be that after 50 years and 11 elections the voters still did not know how to vote.

Maybe it was because of me that Umno voters acted the way they did. I did urge Umno members to vote for good candidates and not just vote for the party. Umno could have fielded really good candidates but despite the president assuring that all the candidates were clean and qualified, they lost. This was because the candidates were not good and they often replaced the giant-killers who had done well in the past. Most of the “parachuted” candidates were young and Umno members were angry because they suspected that these young candidates were chosen by one person. Do a survey and find out how many of these new candidates lost.

The leadership apparently believed that Umno members would vote for any candidate chosen by the party leader. The leadership, was grossly mistaken.

But so angry were the Umno voters that they voted even for opposition candidates who were educationally unqualified and inexperienced.

The present leadership of Umno and BN, in particular Abdullah, should face facts. The electorate did not reject or “sabotage” the BN for no reason. In 2004 they had not seen Abdullah perform. So there was no sabotage. But in 2008 they had already seen Abdullah reveal his true colours. They did not like it.

The first thing he did when becoming prime minister was to bring his family unofficially into the government. He can deny this but people know the activities of Khairy Jamaluddin and Kamaluddin Abdullah and their cronies, including those of the fourth floor. They often sit in meetings of government committees and when the prime minister met people.

Khairy’s winning the deputy Umno Youth post uncontested disgusted many people. Had it been a party veteran with years of service to the party winning uncontested, no one would object. But Khairy had been in Umno less than five years and had no record of service to Umno. How could he win uncontested?

Early in his term of office, Abdullah decided not to go ahead with the so-called mega projects initiated by me. That was his right. But what was not right and what caused people to think he was being vindictive was the suggestion that I was wasting money on my many “pet” projects so much so that the government no longer had money to continue with them. Actually people know the projects were necessary. Imagine Malaysia without the KLIA, Sentral Station, Penang Bridge, North-South Highway, double-tracking and electrification [Malaysia Alternative Voices : Double Track Project awarded to Gamuda costed RM14.5 Billion from Johor to Padang Besar in 2003 (when Pak Lah aborted the project but was reawarded on Dec 2007 to Gamuda for RM 12.5 Billion for Ipoh to Padang Besar - less than half the initial project length) - How many billions has the Government/Peoples lost as the result of Abdullah Badawi decision to postpone the project? - Personal View of Malaysia Alternative Voices, not TDM's view or opinion], the LRT and monorail for Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Cyberjaya, toll roads, Westport, Tanjung Pelepas Port, Formula 1 circuit, KL Tower, ports, etc.

I will not mention the things he did which affected me alone and are not generally known to the public. This is because the voting public could not have been influenced by this. 

But what is known is his reaction to my criticism regarding the APs (Approved Permits) and the decision not to build the “crooked” bridge in Johor. He and his ministers publicly abused me and at one stage wanted to expel me from the party. Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz was extremely rude.

People felt that he and his cabinet colleagues, many of whom were appointed by me were most ungrateful. People know that but for me Abdullah would not be the prime minister today. So were most of the others for they were made ministers by me. They used to be my strong supporters, kissing my hand and some cried when I stepped down. Now they turned on me and denigrated me in a most unbecoming way. I don’t really care but I think the people regard this behaviour as just bad.

The fear Abdullah instilled in his ministers, members of the Umno Supreme Council and other party leaders was such that none dared to stand up to defend me or to counter what Abdullah and his colleagues said.

If Singapore could not agree to build a straight bridge unless sand was sold to it, we could have gone on to build the “crooked” bridge which had nothing to do with Singapore. Irked by the refusal of Johoreans to sell sand and allow Singapore warplanes to fly over Johor air space, Abdullah disallowed the construction of even the “crooked” bridge. Why?

I am sure it was because the one billion cubic metres of sand he wanted to sell to Singapore was objected to by Johor. Someone stood to make RM1 billion or more over 20 years from the sale of sand. Singapore would like to have the sand at above market price even as the land reclaimed would be sold at S$3,000-S$5,000 per sq ft.

The objection by Johor was because mining the seabed sand would cause erosion of the shores, destroy fish breeding grounds and deprive Johor fishermen of their fishing ground. The royalty collected by Johor would be nothing compared to what Singapore could make from selling reclaimed land.

There were other things done by Abdullah which the people did not like. These include matters related to the issuance of APs, the sale of MV Agusta, the CIQ building in Johor Baru, the double-tracking of the railway from JB to Padang Besar, miniature mosques and crystal mosques in Terengganu, the Monsoon Cup, the various corridors and the extensive renovation of Sri Perdana.

There were many other unpopular things done by Abdullah which alienated Umno and BN members and the voters in general. If there is anyone to blame for the miserable performance of Umno and BN, it is Abdullah himself. This is the opinion of the vast majority of Malaysians. If they are allowed to speak freely, this is what they would say.

No matter how strongly he denies that he is the cause, no matter how many people he blames, he cannot explain why this catastrophe to the Umno, MCA, MIC and Gerakan and the BN had never happened under four previous prime ministers but happens only during this tenure. He cannot explain why the “sabotage” by Umno and the component party members in 2008 when in the past they had been very loyal and never failed to give the Alliance and the BN two-thirds majority in Parliament and control of almost all the states. If he refuses to go and tries to ignore the calls for his removal until the next election, the disgusted voters and party members will probably ensure the BN will be defeated at federal and state levels as the only way to end his premiership.

DAP and PAS will want to ensure that Abdullah remains until the next election because, as in 2008, the disgusted BN supporters will vote for the Opposition. This will be even more likely if PAS and DAP provide good government for the states under their care.

When that happens there will be no hope for Umno to make a comeback.

As I said, I admit some responsibility for the poor showing of Umno and BN. Had Abdullah won big he would continue with his disregard for the objectives of his Umno, for the well-being of Malaysia.

I would consider myself a betrayer of my country if I allow this to happen. And those sycophants who fawn before Abdullah will also be betrayers of their country, their people and for Malays, their religion even.

In the final analysis, the responsibility for the losses sustained by the BN is with the prime minister himself. If he wishes to redeem himself and help resuscitate Umno and BN, he should resign now and let others rehabilitate the parties. As long as he remains Umno president, BN chairman and prime minister, recovery would be impossible.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad
Kuala Lumpur

I have to agree with Tun’s honest assessment. In one of my blog entry, I commented to a reader as below:

Obviously the effort to subtly demonize the ex PM had prove successful. In the effort to cover up the current PM’s failure as a businessman and salesman of Malaysia, the public were made to believe the current situation we’re in is the cause of TDM. I strongly believe, Pak Lah screwed up a well organized nation he inherited. How? By screwing up the nation’s priorities. How? By developing the wrong kind of projects. Tell me, besides the wasteful Masjid Krystal and Perkampungan Hadhari in Terengganu, what other projects/infrastructures he had successfully built? Do you know what was the annual Malaysia’s budget since 2004? Around RM130 billions to RM160 billions. Where did it go? Even with much, much lower budget during his time, TDM managed to propel the nation efficiently through effective and smart nation building process.

I seems unbelievable that Pak Lah is feeling so self righteous about his performance. We were fed with so many of his failures, but yet, unable to voice our criticisms. Hence, the apparent surge in blogging community. In one of an entry in this particular blog, I lashed out to comment;

They can lie all they want but we know better what.. when Pak Lah took over, he said Malaysia has no money although Dr Mahathir strongly denied it. And then, instead of doing some prudent spending (as logic dictates if the country has indeed no money), he spent lavishly on buying private airbus, doing the stupid monsoon cup, launching corridors, etc. as well as raising fuel price to get more money. He was spending money like nobody’s business. And then now, after looting the country of its riches since 2003, he claimed the country has no more money. If you look at all the physical projects he proposed in 2004, non was completed. Don’t believe me? Look at the RMK9 projects. Even some of RMK8 projects were scrapped (coz he said very wasteful and we need to save the money - like the crooked bridge). But now how? Pak Lah is an idiot. Even that is an understatement.

In other matters, Tun also commented on the payment of ex-gratia to the judges from the 1988 judiciary crisis. He gave us the glimpse on the behind the curtain scenes which the public had not been privy of. He also confirmed my suspicions in my article which I wrote here.

The Ex-Gratia Payment

The Malaysian Government of Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi recently decided to pay certain judges ex-Gratia Payments.

Clearly the Government felt contrite over what had happened to these judges many years ago, and felt a need to make amends, but not quite enough to apologise as was suggested by the de facto Minister of Justice, Dato Zaid Ibrahim.

In fact if newspaper reports are to be believed the Cabinet rejected the proposal by the new Law Minister. Nothing was decided about the ex-Gratia payment.

But a dinner was held by the Bar Council which rumours say was paid for by the Government during which the Prime Minister announced two things which must gladden the hearts of members of the Bar.

The announcement were;

1) A commission would appoint judges

2) Ex-Gratia payments would be paid to Tun Salleh Abbas and the six judges who tried to frustrate the work of the first tribunal.

I will not elaborate on the Tun Salleh case reserving this for the future. But in my blog, the question was asked whether the ex-Gratia payments constitute contempt of the Tribunal.

Not being a lawyer I cannot really say with certainty but I understand the rules and procedures which apply to the courts do not necessarily apply to the Tribunal. So they may not be in contempt.

But the fact remains that the payments imply that the Government does not quite agree with the decisions of the properly constituted Tribunals. Perhaps it is because the quality of mercy was not exercised. Perhaps it is because the judges suffered from financial losses because of the findings of the Tribunals.

I would like to clarify here, and I stand to be corrected of course, that on appeal by the Attorney-General, I agreed that all the judges be paid their full pensions.

Again if I am not mistaken Tun Salleh Abbas was entitled to and accordingly draws two pensions; one when he reached the age of fifty-five and another at the end of his term as Lord President following his dismissal.

It is possible that as a former State Councillor he also draws a pension.
Maybe I should mention here that I am not so fortunate since I was never paid any pension when I attained the age of 55. Instead I only received my pension when I stepped down in 2003, at the age of 78.

The other judges were also paid their pensions and where they fulfilled the Malaysian pension scheme they too would receive two pensions.

I mention this only for the purpose of comparison. I am not seeking any pension or ex-Gratia or whatever payment from the Government upon reaching the statutory age of 65.

It was reported in the newspapers today that as Petronas Adviser, I am paid RM15,000 a month, not by the Government but by Petronas. I would like to state that this income is taxable and a sum of RM4,500 is deducted monthly.

I also serve as Adviser for Proton, the Langkawi Island Development Authority (LADA) and the Tioman Island Development Authority. For these three entities, I do not receive any form of payment nor do I seek any. If it is felt that the Government can ill-afford the allowance I receive the Government can always stop paying. I will continue to serve even if I am paid nothing.

It also shows the magnanimity of a statesman. How many of us actually being paid more than Tun himself in a month? A measly RM15K per month for an ex prime minister? And that does not include deductions on tax. I for one am ashamed that a leader of a country being given shoddy treatment by his successsors.

 

Government’s pissing me off (Update 06/05/2008)

I wrote on this blog the article below on 5th March 2008;

I am extremely pissed off with the government. Not only because of its wastage and corruption but more so by its sheer stupidity.

In the Star today, the big boss of SPR says they will cancel the use of indelible ink due certain quarters are going to abuse the ink. Okay, kita terima penjelasan tak konkrit dia ni. But then what pisses me off is that in the last paragraph, he stated that in order for the ink to be used, amendmends have to be made on the Article 119 of the Federal Constitution. It’s like a kick in the teeth.

Hello! You didn’t do your homework on this before you bought the ink ke??!! It’s like presenting to your boss about your project idea but then 6 months down the line, just after the project gonna be implemented and certain costs have been contracted, I
go and tell my boss, the job can’t be done coz I forgot about certain law that may jeapordize the project in the first place.

I would be sacked on the spot wouldn’t I? I’d be labelled stupid will I not?
Same goes for this Rashid guy. After spending RM2.4 million of taxpayers’ money, he still has the audacity to remain as the big boss of SPR? Muka tak tau malu ke? What the hell man?!

I’d say sack him! Why is the PM still keeping an inefficient person as the head of SPR? ARE YOU BLIND AND STUPID PAK LAH? Go and drink all that 48,000 bottles of ink la kasi pandai sikit…!!

Refer also to this here.

The ink was purchased at the cost of RM2.4 million whereby 47,000 bottles have already arrived from India. The Deputy SPR even said that the usage of the ink has to follow the election rules and procedures of the country which I guess, at that point of time, he had indeed done his homework.

But alas, like Pak Lah always said -

JANGAN BEKERJA UNTUK SAYA TETAPI TIDURLAH BERSAMA-SAMA SAYA!

Idiots.

UPDATE : No evidence indelible ink was brought in

KUALA LUMPUR: The police have not found any evidence that indelible ink was brought into the country from Thailand in the run-up to the recent general election.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said in a written reply to Fong Po Kuan (DAP - Batu Gajah) in Dewan Rakyat Tuesday that after studying the report that it had received and interviewing all the witnesses and complainant involved, the police found no such evidence.

“This is because not one witness has ever seen the ink. From their testimony, no individual, syndicate or certain parties have been identified to be involved in such activities.

“The statement made by the complainant and the witnesses were thus rumours and no individual has been positively identified or known to be involved.

“The investigation papers have been refered to the deputy prosecutor’s office on March 14. On March 31, the case has been classified as ‘no further action’,”he said.

The Election Commission had planned to use indelible ink in the general election. However, a few days before polling day on March 8, the plan was scrapped by the commission, citing concerns over a possible sabotage.

Syed Hamid said three investigation papers had been opened under Section 420 or 511 of the Penal Code by the Commercial Crimes Division.

“The police report was lodged by a few individuals who were concerned over the use of the indelible ink as this can be easily obtained in Thailand.

“They were worried that certain groups with interest would abuse the ink during the general election,” he said.

Why did he say ‘no further action’? I’d say, we haul the individuals who made the false reports to the courts and throw them in jail! And the police sure did a horrible job in reporting to the EC some information without even gathering concrete proof! I can still remember the IGP sitting beside the EC chairman during the news conference regarding this matter. Bersungguh sungguh dia bercerita about all those reports on potential abuses. Sigh. We are indeed being run by idiots. 

Anyway, making false police report is a crime isn’t it? I’m sure I read it somewhere… reading all this stupidity made me lose a lot of braincells.

 

The CEO and the Pegawai Tadbir

Before everyone labels this blog as anti anwar (which I think most people had already done so), let me say this once and for all, this blog is not about anti anwar or anti pak lah or even anti karpal singh. This blog is actually a blog that highlights any form of non efficiency, non effectiveness and any form of idiocy perpetuated by the Malaysian government and politicians. If the politicians make any stupid comments, they get some bashing from this blog. If they say something which was not well researched, be sure that they’ll be at the receiving end of an entry here. That has been the main theme of this blog.

On that note, here are a few snippets that may differentiate between a weak, clueless government and the more able and driven one.

09/10/1997 Trade promotion missions help to boost ties: Dr M

PRIME Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad says trade promotion missions headed by him have helped to improve Malaysia’s economic and trade relations with Africa, West Asia and Central Asia. Exports to Africa rose to RM2.049 billion last year from RM1.219 billion in 1994, West Asia to RM3.8 billion from RM2.3 billion, South America to RM2.6 billion from RM2.1 billion, and Central Asia to RM352 million from RM178 million, the Prime Minister told the Dewan Rakyat yesterday. - NST

A government with good governance shows strong determination in any of its decision. No flip flopping over the slightest critic.

Kawalan mata wang kekal - PM

”Ia juga tidak menyakitkan kita, jadi kenapa perlu diubah? Semua (ahli) perniagaan gembira,” katanya dalam majlis dialog sempena seminar sehari Ramalan Perniagaan Malaysia anjuran Strategic Intelligence (M) Sdn. Bhd. yang dihadiri oleh ahli ekonomi terkemuka, Profesor Paul Krugman, di sini hari ini.

KUALA LUMPUR 27 Ogos - Kawalan tukaran mata wang Malaysia akan dikekalkan kerana sistem kewangan antarabangsa masih belum direformasi, kata Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

Beliau berkata, walaupun keadaan sudah nampak tenang, risiko serangan lanjut masih ada kerana pedagang mata wang masih tidak dapat dikawal.

A great leader should be able to shape and induce inspiration to not only his nation, but also capable of swaying and persuading other global leaders to move towards greatness as well.

Hadapi cabaran bersama — PM ajak China tentang kuasa luar eksploitasi Asia Timur

BEIJING 19 Ogos - Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad hari ini mengajak Republik Rakyat China bersama-sama bangkit menghadapi pelbagai cabaran dalam abad ke-21, terutamanya daripada kuasa-kuasa luar yang mahu mengeksploitasi kelemahan.

Oleh kerana itu, kata Dr. Mahathir, demi kepentingan bersama dan juga Asia Timur pada keseluruhannya, China dan Malaysia mesti bangkit menghadapi cabaran kerana kejayaannya akan membawa banyak faedah kepada rakyat kedua negara dan negara serantau.

”Kemakmuran masyarakat Asia Timur dalam alaf baru ini merupakan satu usaha mulia dan setimpal dengan apa yang kita usahakan,” tegasnya.

Beliau berkata demikian dalam ucaptama di Forum Malaysia-China ke-3 yang diadakan sempena menyambut ulang tahun ke-25 hubungan diplomatik kedua negara di sini hari ini.

Serentak itu Perdana Menteri mengajak China bekerjasama dengan Malaysia dan lain-lain negara jiran untuk memastikan pemulihan ekonomi yang terjamin bagi Asia Timur.

Untuk mengelak berulangnya kehancuran ekonomi, Perdana Menteri mencadangkan supaya China dan Malaysia bekerjasama menyuarakan pendapat dan bersama-sama dengan negara-negara Asia Timur mendesak negara-negara maju berusaha mewujudkan satu bentuk kewangan global yang baru.

…and another one;

Amanat PM untuk APEC

(Di Bangkok, Thailand) Mesej Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad pada anggota Kerjasama Ekonomi Asia Pasifik (APEC) ialah: Wujudkan satu peraturan perdagangan global yang bukan saja bebas tetapi adil dan saksama kepada negara membangun, miskin dan lemah; dan: APEC perlu kembali ke matlamat asal - bincang isu ekonomi daripada menjadi forum keselamatan.

Jika ini dapat direalisasikan, APEC yang diwujudkan pada November 1989 atas sebab ekonomi akan dapat bertahan dan terus menjadi relevan bagi menjaga kepentingan negara-negara kecil daripada terus dijajah dan ditekan oleh negara maju serta kaya.

Negara maju melihat globalisasi merupakan ubat yang baik untuk pertumbuhan ekonomi negara-negara Dunia Ketiga khususnya.

Sebab itu, Dr. Mahathir ketika membincangkan isu globalisasi, cabaran dan ketidakadilan pada mesyuarat APEC-CEO, mahu agenda perdagangan turut datang dari negara membangun.

Menurut Dr. Mahathir: “Perdagangan yang adil tentunya bebas, tapi perdagangan yang bebas belum tentu adil.” Pembuat agenda WTO lupa agaknya, 70 daripada 146 anggota pertubuhan itu mewakili negara-negara membangun.

Barang diingat, apa yang ditekankan oleh Dr. Mahathir bukan untuk kepentingan Malaysia semata-mata. Perdagangan yang adil adalah untuk semua negara daripada negara kaya dan maju sehinggalah ke negara yang paling miskin dan lemah.

Sidang kemuncak di Bangkok ini juga penting sebab ia memastikan rundingan perdagangan WTO dapat disambung semula. Selama perbincangan dua hari ini, pemimpin APEC yang diketuai oleh AS mahu melihat rundingan perdagangan itu diteruskan.

Bagi Malaysia yang biasanya menjadi jurucakap negara membangun, rundingan itu bukan sahaja perlu diteruskan tetapi agendanya perlu baru yang mengambil kira kepentingan semua negara. Lebih daripada itu, perdagangan global yang dicadangkan itu perlu adil dan saksama.

Confidence in the economy is vital in attracting investments from overseas. Prosperous economy is achieved from high purchasing power, coupled with the feel-good feeling generated from the public as they are confident that the government knows what they are doing. A strong government needs the people’s trust in order move forward effectively.   

27/10/2000 Unjuran pertumbuhan ekonomi 7% adalah wajar

KUALA LUMPUR 27 Okt. - Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad berkata, unjuran pertumbuhan ekonomi tujuh peratus bagi tahun depan adalah wajar kerana ekonomi negara masih berkembang pada kadar yang pantas.

”Tahun ini kita jangka pertumbuhan 7.8 peratus (walaupun) pada asalnya kita membuat anggaran 5.8 peratus, jadi untuk capai pertumbuhan 7 peratus pada tahun depan bukanlah keterlaluan,” katanya kepada pemberita selepas pembentangan Belanjawan 2001 di Dewan Rakyat hari ini.

Menurut Dr. Mahathir, ekonomi Malaysia masih dalam keadaan baik dan berkembang pada kadar yang pantas.

”Dulu kita capai lapan peratus lebih, bahkan sembilan peratus selama 10 tahun berturut-turut.

”Berdasarkan prestasi tahun ini yang lebih tinggi, tentunya agak sukar untuk kita mencapainya (tahun depan) tetapi saya rasa ia boleh dicapai, melainkan jika ekonomi dunia runtuh,” katanya.

Media was free to say just about anything except for those that touches race and religion; 

CYBERJAYA 19 Jan. - Perdana Menteri berkata kebebasan diberikan kepada media massa dalam membuat laporan, sekalipun ia menonjolkan aspek negatif seperti yang sering diamalkan media asing.

Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad berkata, media asing misalnya kerap menonjolkan aspek negatif apabila melaporkan sesuatu ucapannya.

”Mereka sering menonjolkan aspek negatif daripada ucapan saya. Kita beri kebebasan…,” katanya ketika menjawab satu soalan wakil media asing, selepas mempengerusi mesyuarat Majlis Pelaksanaan Koridor Raya Multimedia (MSC) di sini.

Perdana Menteri juga berkata kerajaan membenarkan media membuat spekulasi mengenai sesuatu perkara, jika itulah yang akan meningkatkan jualan serta menambahkan pembaca akhbar mereka.
 

Fast forward into Pak Lah’s administration, we were initially surprised by his lack of apparent deliberation in certain issues. At first is was mistakenly recognised as his mild and soft character trait. But as 4 years went by in a blistering snail pace, we saw more and more inefficiency coming from his governing style. Take this issue for example. It could be handled easily if it was thought through carefully.

Naked woman incident a blow to country’s image

VALLETTA (Malta): The video clip showing a naked woman doing ear squats while watched by another woman in uniform has shamed the country, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

He said the incident had dealt a blow to the country’s image and pledged a thorough investigation into the issue.

No party should attempt to conceal any facts that might be uncovered as a result of the investigations, said a visibly-upset Abdullah, who called Malaysian journalists here to give his comments before rushing off to attend the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting yesterday.

Malaysian newspapers had front-paged the incident after Seputeh MP Teresa Kok showed the video clip at Parliament House on Thursday.

The 70-second video clip, said to have been taken with a cellphone-camera, had been circulated through the multimedia messaging service (MMS) over the past few days.

As the result of this debacle, 2 editors of chinese dailies were sacked, a minister had to apologise to China over nothing, and a redundant and meaningless independent commission were establish just to determine what really happened.

Take another example of a mind boggling stupidity;

Proton disposes MV Agusta for 1 Euro

Proton Holdings has sold it’s 57.57 percent stake in MV Agusta Spa to an Italian company Gevi Spa. Gevi Spa will assume MV Agusta’s debts and working capital requirements totalling 139.44 million euros, as announced today to Bursa Malaysia by Proton Holdings as part of it’s non-core asset divesting exercise.

Interesting to note that Proton originally acquired MV Agusta Spa last year on July 7 2004 for 70 million Euro, and finally sold it for a token sum of 1 Euro (RM4.48).

The sale was approved by Pak Lah, much to the chagrin of the Malaysian public. What more with the revelation from other sources a couple of months later.

Pak Lah’s inability to answer simple questions like the issues of awarding government projects to his son was quite phenomenal. As everyone remembered, he lied about his son receiving projects from the government. Next, he lied that he actually did not know about the projects that his son ever received. Then, he covered it up by misdirecting the issue altogether;

“The projects awarded to Dr Mahathir’s children were far bigger than what Scomi received,” he told reporters at his Hari Raya open house in Penang just now.

Abdullah said it’s also not true that his son’s company, Scomi Group, had no ship but won a contract from TNB to transport coal. Kamaluddin, he added, “has 180 ships owned by another company which was acquired by Scomi… (Dr Mahathir’s) children also received contracts, only it’s not highlighted.”

His inability to do simple financial equations like the cost/benefit ratio which was portrayed through the scraping of the ’Scenic Bridge’ was another fine example of his non efficiency and money wasting tendency. His reasoning? the country has no money, therefore we need to be more stringent. Later on, the public soon found out that the cost of scraping the bridge was much more expensive than to actually build it.   

On the other hand, media was stifled and made to toe the line. Criticism and opinions not agreed with were severely dealt with like what happened here;

KUALA LUMPUR: Blogger Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin is expected to be charged with sedition at the Kuala Lumpur Court in Jalan Duta today.

The 58-year-old confirmed he received a telephone call from a police officer last night informing him to be at the court at 9.30am.

“I was told by an officer to appear in court to be charged with sedition with regard to an article posted on my website.”

…and here;

Dalam mesyuarat BN Negeri Selangor, Pengerusi BN Selangor baru Senator Tan Sri Muhammad “Mike Tyson” Muhammad Taib memutuskan ahli UMNO dilarang sama sekali untuk menyertai Forum UMNO Pasca PRU12 anjuran portal politik MyKMU.net Selasa 1 April 2008 ini di Petaling Jaya.

Amaran dikeluarkan sekiranya ada ahli UMNO yang akan menghadiri forum tersebut, yang akan dirasmikan oleh Mantan Presiden UMNO Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad dan panel perbincangan pula terdiri dari Mantan Menteri Besar Selangor Dato’ Seri Dr. Mohamad Khir Toyo, Exco Pemuda UMNO Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir dan Ketua Penerangan UMNO Johor Dr. Mohd. Fuad Zarkashi, tindakan akan diambil keatas mereka.

In the aspect of the economy, we have this to show for the past 4 years;

Foreign direct investment into Malaysia down

KUALA LUMPUR: Foreign direct investment (FDI) into Malaysia dipped to US$3.97bil (RM14.69bil) last year, compared to 2004 when US$4.62 bil (RM17.09bil) in FDIs was recorded.

For the first time since 1990, Indonesia managed to overtake Malaysia in drawing in FDIs.

Inflows to Indonesia surged by 177% to US$5.26bil (RM19.46bil) last year.

As a whole, FDIs to South, East and South-East Asia reached a new high of US$165bil (RM610.5bil) last year, which was a 19% increase over 2004.

China, Hong Kong and Singapore were the largest recipients of FDIs in 2005.

The figures were released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) in its World Investment Report 2006 on Monday.

There was no denying that Malaysia was a real success story from the late 80’s all the way to the new millenium. The main recipe for Malaysia’s success was through the approach of its leadership. If I may, Dr Mahathir led the nation as its CEO. He believed that as the CEO of the nation, it was his job to maximise the wealth of its shareholders (the people). Hence, we saw a nation being propelled to become one of the fastest growing nation in Asia in the 80’s and the 90’s. Prospering the shareholders was critical in order to gain respect from foreigners and instilling pride within the nation. The economy ‘pie’ was enhanced and it grew big.

On the other hand, Pak Lah’s style is somewhat akin to an administrator. Perhaps due to his career background as a government officer, he approaches leadership with much hesitation and indecisiveness. This maybe due to the fact that he finally found himself in the topmost seat of power without anyone to report to, or to turn to in the face of a problem. He finds himself accountable and responsible in all of the government’s actions and in-actions. We sometimes may see him overwhelmed with fatigue and exhaustion caused by having to think continuously. 

What Dr Mahathir saw as a challenge to further improve his self-actualization, Pak Lah instead saw it as a chore and would hastenly establish a committee to delegate the problem. As the result of this flip flopping and weak leadership, the economy ‘pie’ shrunk. And worse, most of the wealth in this shrunken pie benefitted only a few cronies.

In the end, one has to know one’s limits when trusted with a certain responsibility. One need to honestly take stock of his capabilities and then humbly pronounce your course of action. My advice to Pak Lah is to step down and let other capable leaders manage the country. Maybe then, we will remember him fondly as the selfless PM whom had recognised his own weakness and had stepped aside for the good of the nation.       

At this moment, we are reminded of a ’pantun’ by an ex prime minister whom some of us love demonize;

“Tiap permulaan ada akhirnya,
Menjadi peringatan kepada hamba,
Kuasa dan jawatan bukan segalanya,
Berkhidmat kepada bangsa dan negara.”

- Dr Mahathir, closing speech Umno General Assembly 2003, few months before he retired gracefully.

Now if that wasn’t a clear case of humility, I wouldn’t know what humble means.   

 

For other related article, please read here.    

There’s something about Anwar alright (updated 30/04/08)

We shall start off with this pantun;

“Angkut angkut terbang ke langit,
sampai di langit dimakan merbah,
biar bertangkup bumi dan langit,
setia hamba tidak berubah.” 

Those were the words of an Umno Deputy President during an Umno General Assembly in the not too distant past. During the good old days some would have reckoned. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim verbalized his undivided loyalty towards his mentor, Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad by reciting this pantun at the end of the Umno General Assembly in 1996. The affection being shown at that time by the PM towards his successor was for all to see. Only the most clairvoyant among us can predict what could have been unfold in the next two years after the pantun was recited and immortalized in the annals of Umno history. 

“The prodigal son and the father figure”

This fiery pantun, which embodied an absolute and undying loyalty of a man towards his President no matter what may come, had been truly forgotten by Anwar Ibrahim as he became the fiercest critic to the very same person he held in very high regard several years ago.

In 1996, Anwar was seen as Umno’s heir apparent to Dr Mahathir. Now, in 2008, Anwar is still perceived as heir apparent and prime minister in waiting to the current PM albeit from another political party. Who is Anwar Ibrahim? How did he came about to be what he is today? A political reformer? The people’s saviour? An opportunist? A power hungry extremist?

In order to know a person, we need to know his character, his current idealogy, his belief system, his principles or as some may say it, his ‘centre of being’. We study this, and then we reflect on all his actions through the years we’ve known him during the height of his power, and only then we can gauge what kind of a man he is. As what Abraham Lincoln once said - “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”. 

Read the above pantun again. Has the earth and the sky flipped over each other?

From his May 2007 interview in BBC’s Hardtalk, we delve into the man which some touted as the next best thing in Malaysia.

The Anwar Ibrahim interview in BBC HardTalk            

The issue which was relentlessly hammered on to Anwar towards the end of the interview was his integrity and credibility in leading the fight against the blatant corruption within the Malaysian Government. As the interviewer pointed out, he was in the system itself for nearly 2 decades and did not do anything about it. Although Anwar insisted he fought against the tide, it were only in the forms of words. No actions were done by him. In fact, his tenure as the Finance Minister from 1991 to 1998 was best remembered by his subtle manouevring in forcing Dr Mahathir to resign as Prime Minister in the Umno General Assembly in 1998.

His message was conveyed in the form of his trusted lieutenant, Datuk Zahid Hamidi, the Umno Youth Chief at the time. Alleging that cronyism and nepotism were prevalent within the Umno top hierarchy, and insinuating to the Umno members that Dr Mahathir had too many cronies, it was time Dr Mahathir to pass on the mantle of power to a cleaner leader. However, the plan backfired. We can read to remember about this revelation in Business Times ( 23 June 1998 );

DATUK Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the Umno Youth chief, caused more than a bit of a stir when he spoke of `nepotisma and kronisma’ at the Youth assembly last Thursday, forcing the ensuing three-day Umno general assembly to debate issues associated with these alien terms openly.

The party found itself on the defensive because, as a member of the Umno supreme council, there were questions as to whether Zahid had raised the issues at its meetings chaired by the party president. It led to several significant things happening during the assembly.

It prompted the Government to issue several lists of names of so-called “Government cronies” who had been awarded shares or privatization projects. They included the Prime Minister’s son, the Deputy Prime Minister’s father and brother, Cabinet ministers and members of parliament, aside from hundreds of other names of “ordinary” Malays and Bumiputeras. Even Zahid’s name was in one of the lists.
 

The finality of the findings destroyed Anwar’s reputation as the leading reformer of clean governance as more evidence of his excesses were exposed that year. One such excesses was the purported loss of billions of ringgit in currency hedging by Bank Negara Malaysia. In January 2008, Dr Mahathir had already toying with the idea of capital controls but was shot down by Anwar. He favours the more risky currency trading. As the result, when the ringgit devalued further that month, he directed BNM to intervene;

KUALA LUMPUR 5 Jan. - Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) dibenarkan untuk campur tangan dalam pasaran tukaran wang asing bagi memastikan nilai ringgit dapat distabilkan.

Anwar yang mengulas mengenai kejatuhan ringgit hari ini yang mencapai paras terendahnya 4.0550/50 berbanding dolar Amerika, menegaskan BNM boleh campur tangan sekiranya keadaan itu sangat diperlukan.

Dalam hubungan ini Anwar menegaskan, kejatuhan ringgit sebenarnya disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor serantau seperti nilai baht, peso, rupiah dan won (Korea Selatan).
     

Please note that he stated the ringgit value fell due to external factors. Not due to Dr Mahathir’s fault as he had always screamed after he was sacked from the cabinet. Two days after making the statement above, the BNM used billions of ringgit to stop the further slide as stated in the report below;

KUALA LUMPUR 7 Jan. - Ringgit menjunam ke paras paling rendah terbaru pada 4.8800 berbanding dolar Amerika sehingga terpaksa dipulihkan hari ini melalui campur tangan Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM).

Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, dalam satu kenyataan petang ini berkata, ”operasi-operasi campur tangan” telah dijalankan untuk memastikan keadaan stabil bagi membolehkan pasaran tukaran asing berjalan dengan cekap.

In the end, BNM lost billions as the ringgit sank further. Some speculated the loss reached up to RM30 billion ringgit, similar to the loss he was accountable in 1993. Obviously, Dr Mahathir was furious. Anwar’s mistake was intolerable. But his next action in the coming weeks was even more unforgivable by Dr Mahathir. Anwar had invited the IMF to ‘help’ Malaysia’s ailing economy and the recent loss of wealth.

KUALA LUMPUR 9 Jan. - Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah mengundang Pengarah Urusan Dana Kewangan Antarabangsa (IMF), Michel Camdessus melawat negara ini minggu depan bagi membincangkan masalah ekonomi yang sedang melanda rantau ini.

”Dari situ kita dapat melihat pandangannya serta langkah-langkah proaktif yang sesuai untuk kita ambil,” kata beliau pada sidang akhbar selepas mempengerusikan Mesyuarat Majlis Kewangan Negara 1998 di Kementerian Kewangan hari ini. 

As the result of IMF’s prescription, the economy and people’s purchasing power broke down. The IMF encouraged the Minister of Finance to lift the prices of controlled food items and increase the banking interest rates. Dr Mahathir was wary with the IMF’s prescription. The people in our neighbouring countries Indonesia and Thailand were already rioting due to the expensive cost of living.

KUALA LUMPUR 19 Jan. - Malaysia akan mengkaji cadangan Dana Kewangan Antarabangsa (IMF) supaya kadar faedah tempatan dinaikkan, kata Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad hari ini.

Cadangan itu dikemukakan oleh Pengarah Urusan IMF, Michel Camdessus selepas menemui Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim serta pegawai-pegawai Perbendaharaan dan Bank Negara di sini minggu lepas.
  

But Anwar was adamant. He needed the people to riot on the streets. President Soehatro was already shaky. A new leader was needed to take over this country. He was going to blackmail Malaysia to become the next prime minister through the use of the destructive IMF treatment. In the end, the interest rates were increased. Some was as high as 18%. The non performing loan criteria was shortened from 6 months to 3 months. As the result, the credit crunch in the country was inevitable. By May 1998, President Soeharto resigned. But Indonesia sank further in oblivion for many years after that.

“The leader whom had unified Indonesia as the biggest Muslim country in the world, was brought down by new type of colonialism”

Seeing Anwar was unable to lift Malaysia from the currency crisis, Dr Mahathir appointed the more able Tun Daim Zainuddin as the Minister of Special Functions to help alleviate the Malaysian economy. Anwar was sidelined due to his culpability in managing the country finances. To illustrate this point into perspective, a CFO of a company must surely be sacked if he runs the company to the ground with his reckless methods. That was what happened to Anwar Ibrahim. But Dr Mahathir was still magnanimous in his actions. He was willing to forgive and forget if Anwar would simply lay low for a little while. But matters were not easily understood by Anwar. 

Compounded further was the allegations in a DAP convention by Karpal Singh and poison pen letters in the Umno General Assembly that Anwar Ibrahim was a homosexual. Karpal had even asked Dr Mahathir why is he keeping such minister in the cabinet. Dr Mahathir brushed aside these allegations initially.   

As a desperate act, Anwar employed a machiavellian tactic by using Zahid Hamidi as a tool to incite hatred towards Dr Mahathir in the Umno General Assembly in June 1998. The rest as they say, is history.

In the recent interview with BBC HardTalk, Dr Mahathir mentioned that Anwar was blackmailing VK Lingam via the secret recordings made in 2001. The allegations of fixing the appointment of top judges in the country is not relevant to me. What is more telling was the act of blackmailing VK Lingam itself. The one that was taking the recording was non other than Loh Gwo Burne.

This political greenhorn, who is still learning to speak proper Bahasa Malaysia, became the MP of Kelana Jaya under the PKR ticket in 2008 general election. Although Gwo Burne stated that he recorded the conversation out of boredom, it was a full 14 minutes recording nevertheless. He could test his new found camera at the time to record everything else, but he chose to record VK Lingam’s conversation non stop for the whole 14 minutes. Furthermore, what astonished me was the fact that Anwar kept the original copy all this while. How did he get the copy? From Gwo Burne himself no doubt. 

Now, Gwo Burne is offering his seat for Anwar to contest in the possible by-election. That whole event was suspiciously conspired by Anwar. If blackmailing is Anwar’s modus operandi in obtaining power and gaining political mileage, we will see another round of surrendering our sovereignty to foreign powers.

“Picture says a thousand words”

When he was inside the government, this was what he had to say;

BUKIT MERTAJAM 1 Feb. - Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menolak tanggapan sesetengah pemerhati Barat bahawa kemelut ekonomi dan krisis mata wang di negara-negara Asia disebabkan oleh pengurusan yang lembap, rasuah dan pelbagai gejala negatif lain.

Timbalan Perdana Menteri berkata, mereka memberi gambaran seolah-olah ekonomi terjejas kerana pengurusan yang lembap, gejala rasuah dan pertimbangan semata-mata untuk suku sakat serta kepentingan sahabat handai dan keluarga.

Anwar yang juga Menteri Kewangan berkata, kepincangan dan ketidakadilan juga berlaku di Barat dan salah satunya ialah ketidakadilan sistem perdagangan dunia.

”Sistem perdagangan dunia memberi kepentingan kepada negara-negara kaya dan negara-negara industri dan pada masa yang sama menggunakan institusi antarabangsa mempertahankan kepentingan mereka,” katanya lagi yang menganggap dakwaan yang dibuat amat kritikal.

But he changed his tune when he was booted out from the government. The man whom everyone in the Pakatan Rakyat idolizes as the only clean and liberally democratic politician, has always been the main protagonist of anti cronyism and nepotisme slogans after his sacking. But people forget that underneath the seemingly clean image lies several issues contradicting  and plaguing his reputation. As per the news in Berita Harian ( 8 December 1998 );

Bapa Anwar miliki saham 20 syarikat
KUALA LUMPUR, Isnin - Ketika Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan pengikutnya menuduh Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, mengamalkan kronisme, nepotisme dan kolusi, bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu membisu terhadap kepentingan perniagaan keluarga dan rakan rapatnya. Senarai Pendaftar Syarikat menunjukkan anggota keluarga Anwar dan rakan rapatnya adalah peneraju korporat yang penting.

And another speech he made in 1995 which greatly mirrored the situation in Pakatan Rakyat now;  

Anwar seru rakyat tolak Pas
HULU TERENGGANU, Selasa - Rakyat diminta menolak Pas kerana bersandiwara kononnya memperjuangkan kepentingan umat dan syiar Islam sedangkan pada masa sama membantu DAP melenyapkan kepentingan serta masa depan orang Melayu di Pulau Pinang, kata Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Timbalan Perdana Menteri menegaskan, sebagai contoh beliau mempunyai bukti bahawa calon DAP yang bertanding menentangnya bagi kerusi Parlimen Permatang Pauh, Abdul Raman Manap, adalah Timbalan Yang Dipertua Pas Bukit Mertajam.

Credibility and integrity throughout a political career is paramount in becoming a great and respected leader. Inconsistency in political principles tantamounts to losing both credibility and integrity. Anwar Ibrahim has not properly addressed this. Changing his stand without proper explanation and not supplementing any evidence towards any doubts about his own inconsistent character will prove to be a bane in gaining confidence from the rest of the nation. 

As Stephen Covey once said - “In the last analysis, what we are communicates far more eloquently than anything we say or do”.

A political reformer? The people’s saviour? An opportunist? A power hungry extremist?

You be the judge.   

 

BN now stands for Bloody Nasty

I thought when you have lost huge number of seats and popular votes in the recent general election, you should be more humble and smart in approaching the people to regain back the support. But for Barisan Nasional, it’s a resounding NO!

I really don’t get these people. I cringe everytime I read their stupid statements in the papers. It’s obvious that they are shooting their own foot with all these nasty moves. Just pure vendetta.  

Here are some of the things that I find very nasty for them to do to the people of Malaysia;

1. Azalina Othman cancelling all tourism MOUs with the Pakatan Rakyat states.

2. Barisan Nasional reprimanding Lee Kah Choon over his appointment in Penang Development Corporation and investPenang as a director. This led to his resignation from the Gerakan Party.

3. Balkis’ money (RM9.9 million) was siphoned out from their accounts and the society was dissolved.

4. The Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development funds are re-routed via MARA in the Pakatan Rakyat states just because it do not want the people to be ‘victimised’.

5. When the going gets tough, the tough eats less rice!

‘Eat Less Rice’ can be equated with the other equally moronic and simplistic solution by the government some time ago - ‘Ubah Gaya Hidup’. Now I am certain that BN gonna lose the next general election. For who in their right mind will vote for Bloody Nasty people? 

The Crisis of 1987 - 1988 : Is there a third side of a coin?

Pursuant to the blog article “The two sides of a coin : The Crisis of 1987 - 1988“, I think Pak Lah’s administration had made a grave mistake. It seems like in the haste of trying to be popular, Pak Lah and his advisers had caved in to the demands of a few minority.

A letter  to Malaysiakini by a senior lawyer, P. Suppiah of the Malaysian Bar, sheds light to the judiciary crisis:

The personalities involved in the entire episode are as follows:

* The then Yang Di Pertuan Agong (the King), now the Sultan of Johor

* Tun Salleh Abas, who was then the Lord President

* The prime minister (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Datuk Seri Dr),

* The then attorney-general, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, now Suhakam chief.

The whole episode started with Salleh writing a letter to the King dated March 26, 1988, copies of which were sent to the Malay rulers. On May 27, 1988 the prime minister in the presence of high-ranking government officials informed Salleh that the King wished him to step down (to retire as Lord President) because of the said letter.

Salleh on May 28, 1988 sent a letter of resignation: the next day he withdrew it and subsequently held a press conference. On June 9, 1988 the prime minister made a second representation to the King alleging further misconduct on the part of Salleh based on his undignified use of the press to vent his grievances – such as requesting for a public hearing of the tribunal and asking for persons of high judicial standing to sit on the tribunal.

On June 11, 1988, members of the tribunal were appointed pursuant to the Federal Constitution by the King. On June 14, 1988, Salleh was served with the list of charges against him. On June 17, 1988, Salleh was served with a set of rules to govern the tribunal procedure. On June 21, 1988, on the application of Salleh, a Queen’s Counsel was admitted for the purpose of defending him without any objection from the attorney-general.

Salleh was informed of the tribunal’s hearing on June 29, 1988 and was told he could be represented by his Queen’s Counsel. On June 29, 1988, counsel for Salleh appeared and informed the tribunal that Salleh would not participate in the proceedings. Salleh was making a series of press statements including an interview with the BBC showing unhappiness over the tribunal’s legality.

The tribunal held its proceedings in camera. Salleh was accorded the right to be defended by counsel. His counsel decided not to cross-examine any of the witnesses. The tribunal was made up of the following six persons:

* Acting Lord President, Abdul Hamid Omar (tribunal chairman), who was appointed a High Court judge in September 1968. In 1980, he was appointed a Federal Court judge. On Feb 3, 1984, he was made the Chief Justice of Malaya taking over from Salleh.

* TS Sinnathuray, a Singapore Supreme Court judge (tribunal member).

* Abdul Aziz Mohamed Zain, a former Federal Court judge (tribunal member).

* Mohamed Zahir Ismail, former High Court judge from 1975 to 1982 before assuming his post as a Dewan Rakyat speaker (tribunal member).

* Sri Lankan Chief Justice, KAP Ranasinghe (tribunal member).

* Chief Justice of Borneo, Lee Hun Hoe (tribunal member).

The allegations against Salleh were made known to him in writing (in respect of which the tribunal held its inquiry), and briefly they are:

First allegation: On the occasion of the conferment of the honarary degree of doctor of letters on him by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 in his speech he made several statements criticising the government which displayed prejudice and bias against the government: and these statements were incompatible with his position as the Lord President of the Supreme Court.

Second allegation: At the launching of the book Malaysia Law and Law, Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trend on Jan 12, 1988 in his speech he made several statements discrediting the government and thereby sought to undermine public confidence in the government’s administration of this country in accordance with the law.

In the same speech he made special reference to the interpretative role of judges and advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system not only in the interpretation of the civil law of Malaysia but in its general application.

In particular he advocated thus: “This system consists mostly of the Quran and Hadith (tradition of Prophet Mohammad S.A.W.). The interpretation of these two sources of law is done according to the established and accepted methodology. Volumes of literature have been written as commentaries and exegesis of the Quaranic law the Prophet Mohammad’s Hadith or tradition. In this situation, not only is the judiciary bound by Islamic law as propounded by jurisconsult (muftis, who give legal rulings on particular matters), but as Parliament and the executive too are certainly bound by these rulings.”

His attempt to restate the law generally along Islamic legal principles ignores the character of Malaysian society as one which is multi-religious and multi-racial with deep cultural differences. No responsible government can allow the postulation of such views by the head of the judiciary without causing fear and consternation among its non-Muslim population. Furthermore, his statement violates established principles of judicial interpretation widely accepted in the courts in Malaysia and in the Commonwealth.

Third allegation: He adjourned sine die the case of Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi Pasir Mas, Kelantan and Another (Civil Appeal No 220 of 1986) which involved the issue of a minor’s choice of religion. It was adjourned six times in the Supreme Court – Aug 18, 1986, Aug 25, 1986, Dec 1, 1986, July 30, 1987, July 31, 1987 and Aug 3, 1987. It related to the conversion from Buddhism to the Islamic faith.

Fourth allegation: In his said letter dated March 26, 1988 to the King and the Malay rulers, he stated that it was written on behalf of the judges of this country. This is false as there was no prior consultation with nor approval of all the judges of the country on the content of the letter before he sent it.

Fifth allegation: He, after his suspension as Lord President, made various statements to the media for publication and broadcasting which contained untruths and which were calculated to politicise the issue between the government and himself and to further discredit the government.

The tribunal commenced its hearing on June 29, 1988. Salleh was absent. But his counsel, namely Raja Aziz Addruse, CV Das and Royan were present. The attorney-general presented his arguments to assist the tribunal and set out the facts. In his submission, the AG stated that there was more than ample evidence and justification to recommend Salleh’s removal from office.

In all four witnesses were called and much written material connected with the allegations was made available to the tribunal for its members to rely on. The four witnesses were Sallehudin Mohamed, Sharon Abdul Majid (director-general of Fisheries), Saedon Daud (deputy director of Budget) and Haidar Mohd Noor (chief registrar) who gave evidence with regard to the adjournments of the conversion case mentioned in the third allegation.

The tribunal completed its report on July 7, 1988. In it, it stated that the tribunal was appointed by the King under Article 125(3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution to investigate and submit a report to the King in regard to the representation made by the prime minister that Salleh be removed from office on the grounds of his misbehaviour which show that he is no longer able to discharge his duties and function as Lord President properly and justly.

The tribunal in its report set out the background facts and its findings and recommendations. The tribunal under proof and findings inter alia stated that it endeavoured to follow the well-known principle and applied and followed in such matters and also in regard to the burden of proof and the standard of proof by similar tribunals in other jurisdictions. It dealt with each of the allegations and stated briefly in respect thereof as follows:

Allegations 1 and 2: The tribunal was satisfied on a consideration of the documents containing the speech that had been made by Salleh on the occasion he was conferred the honourary degree of doctor of letters by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 and also the speech made by him on Jan 12, 1988 on the occasion of the official launching ceremony of the book Malaysian Law and Law Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trends at the Shangri La Hotel Kuala Lumpur that the particulars set out in the said allegations have been established.

Allegation 2 (iv) and 3: In regard to allegation 3 the tribunal was satisfied in the absence of any explanation by Salleh that the adjournment was made upon improper and extraneous consideration when the case related to the conversion of a minor from the religion she professed (Buddhism) to the Islamic faith.

Allegation 2 (iv): The tribunal held:

i) that it was manifestly clear in the absence of an explanation from Salleh who made the speech that he was seeking to advocate in the guise of interpretation, the acceptance of the principles of Islamic law as propounded by the ‘muftis’ and to assert that such rulings bound not only the judiciary but also both the Parliament and the executive of the country

ii) that it must be borne in mind that Islam is the religion of the Federation, the Constitution of Malaysia by Articles 3 and 11 assures and guarantees to all persons complete freedom of religion by vesting in every person “the right to profess and practise his religion” in accordance with the law.

iii) that it must also be borne in mind that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. That being so, the assertion of principles as spelt out in the said speech by Salleh is likely to cause not only uneasiness but also fear and doubt in the minds of those who profess a religion other than Islam and do not subscribe to the tenets and principles advocated by Salleh in his speech.

iv) that it must also be borne in mind that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency. Therefore, it was ill-advised for Salleh as head of the judiciary to make an authoritative statement that “Islamic laws bind not only the judiciary but Parliament and the executive also”.

Allegation 4: The tribunal held that for Salleh to say that the letter to the King (copied to all the Malay rulers) was from “all of us” was an untruth and in the absence of any explanation the tribunal held that Salleh had done so in order to ensure that the said letter could carry greater authority and greater conviction than it would have had it been made only by a section of the judges.

Allegation 5: The tribunal was satisfied that in the absence of any explanation from Salleh that he used the media with the view to politicising the issue of his suspension and to gain public sympathy for himself.

The tribunal touched on the meaning of “misbehaviour”: to mean unlawful conduct or immoral conduct such as bribery, corruption, acts done with improper motives relating to the office of a judge and which would affect the due administration of justice or which would shake the confidence of the public in a judge.

The tribunal concluded: “Having regard to the views we have already formed upon the material before us, we are of the opinion, in the absence of an explanation being made by or on behalf of Salleh that he has been guilty of not only “misbehaviour”, but also of misconduct which falls within the ambit of “other cause”, which renders him unfit to discharge properly the functions of his office, as Lord President, as set out in Article 125(3) of the Constitution.”

Under recommendation, the tribunal said: “Salleh has been proved to have behaved himself in such a way as would destroy the public confidence in his impartiality, his honesty his integrity and in his ability to make decisions as a judge and unanimously recommended that he be removed from office, both as a judge and as the Lord President of the Supreme Court, which recommendation was accepted by the King.”

It further stated: “We very much regret that the respondent chose not to appear before us, even though every reasonable opportunity was afforded to him by us. We have, as has been made clear in this report, come to the findings which we have arrived at only upon the unchallenged and uncontradicted material placed before us. Needless to say that had we had the benefit of a plausible explanation from the respondent in regard to the several issues which were presented to us for our consideration, our decision may well have been different.”

Much later in a reply letter dated March 20, 1989 to the International Commission of Jurist, Hamid stated that though Salleh was the Lord President his judicial experience on the Superior Court bench was comparatively short having been appointed (when he was a solicitor-general) direct to the Federal Court (the predecessor of the present Supreme Court) as recently as 1979. Salleh was never a Judge of the High Court and had no experience whatever of trial court work at that level. On the other hand, he (Hamid) was appointed High Court judge in 1968 (11 years earlier).

What prompted me to write this letter is because the topic of Salleh Abas has cropped up in the papers recently with the de facto law minister holding the view that the government should apologise to Salleh for his being sacked as Lord President.

The present prime minister has also advocated in his speech at the Bar dinner last week (nearly 20 years later) that the government would make “goodwill ex-gratia payment to Tun Salleh”. I wonder whether it will be proper to use government’s money for such purpose.

It must be remembered that to this day no one knows what the defence would have been if Salleh had appeared before the tribunal and be subjected to cross-examination. Salleh did not do this as he said he ‘did not recognise’ the tribunal in his interviews. Even if one does not recognise a tribunal, one should appear before it and make the necessary submission and if the submission fails, one should still give evidence (under protest so to speak) setting out the defence.

His version, even if disbelieved by the tribunal, will always be there on the record for everyone to see. In fact the tribunal had stated categorically that if it had the benefit of a plausible explanation from Salleh in regard to the several issues which were presented to it for its consideration its decision may well have been different.

By his refusing to appear and give his version (especially in regard to his advocating the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in the interpretation of the laws as propounded by the ‘muftis’) he in fact had shot himself in the foot. It is no use crying foul when he did not exercise his right to be heard. What would he have done in a similar or other cases presided by him?

To my mind, it is still open to Salleh, for instance among other avenues, to ask for an appointment of another tribunal to review his case (whether there will be any objection to this from any quarters, I do not know) subject however to his agreeing to give evidence as to his defence. The record of the proceedings are still there. Even if this happened he will be running into difficulties because the four witnesses who gave evidence at the tribunal were never cross-examined by his counsel.

One thing for sure, by electing Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, the person who was found guilty of money politics and subsequently suspended from contesting in the Umno elections, as the de-facto Law Minister, really demeaning the words ‘credibility and integrity’. But you are what you are by the circle of friends you promote. Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, Tan Sri Muhammad Mohd Taib, Patrick Lim Soo Kit, Kalimullah Masheerul Hassan etc.    

I would also like to point out that Tun Salleh Abas became a PAS member and contested but lost in the 1995 General Elections under the Semangat 46 ticket. However, in the 1999 General Elections he won the state seat of Jertih in Terengganu under PAS’ banner. I would like the Bar Council explain to us why do they support a man who advocates the setting up of an Islamic country and propagate Syariah Laws as the highest law in the land while all this time the Bar Council champions Malaysia as a secular nation. It would be interesting to know what they can spin from this letter.

It is best to know that in 1988, it was the Malaysian Bar Council who had strongly agree with the suspension of Tun Salleh Abas. And Zaid Ibrahim, as the President of Muslim Lawyers Association at that time, condemned some of the disapproval voices within the Bar Council in questioning the legality of the Tribunal. But he still have the cheek to speak innocently during his speech at the lavish gala dinner celebrating the conferment of Datukship for the Bar President the 5 former top judges:

I am saying that it’s clear to everyone, to the world, that serious transgressions had been committed by the previous administration. And I believe that the prime minister is big enough and man enough to say that we had done wrong to these people and we are sorry.  

And of course, that dinner was hailed to be the turning point in redeeming the judiciary. But it was plainly an act of gaining support from a few minority. It tickles me that Pak Lah was trying to gain support from the leaders of the Pakatan Rakyat. This is a clear case of missing the point. What he should have done was to gain support from the majority public. I do not see those opposition leaders attended had cross over to the Barisan Nasional because of this effort. It was a waste of time and more importantly, money. 

He should tackle the issues of inflation, the rising cost of living of prices, blatant corruption among his family members and the deteriorating crime index first. Those are the main issues. If huge amount of money were spent to lessen the grievances of the minority group, then we the majority would really like to know how much was the ex-gratia payments made to those 5 top judges.

Finally, I pray that our PM had not played himself into the hands of some contemptible politicians.     

Rais Yatim ponders while Lee Kah Choon surrenders

Today, Rais Yatim mustered up courage just to echo what this blog had pointed out a couple of weeks ago;

Rais: Set up commission to probe reasons for drastic drop in support for Umno

PUTRAJAYA: There is a dire need for Umno, which suffered huge losses in the general election last month, to set up a commission to probe reasons behind the drastic drop in support for the party, touted to be the backbone of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN).

Umno supreme council member and Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, in making the call, said the party should also “change” the way it operated.

“If you can create a commission for judges and now you want to create the anti-corruption commission, why can’t you create a commission for Umno,” he said, adding that Umno should go forward now.

I don’t think Pak Lah will be happy with the result of the commission anyway. The remedy of the situation could be a bitter pill to swallow.

Up north in Penang, BN lost one of its valuable member because they can’t see the bigger picture th