Qantas cancels overseas check-ups

(The Sydney Morning Herald) - QANTAS has shelved plans to send two 737 planes to Malaysia for heavy maintenance checks.

The decision was made while the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) investigated the airline over a series of incidents in recent weeks, including the emergency landing of a Melbourne-bound jumbo in Manila when a two-metre by four-metre hole was blown in its fuselage.

The airline faced another maintenance problem yesterday. Flight QF107 was prevented from flying to Los Angeles because a screw needed to be replaced.

The airline's decision to send its 737s to Malaysia for maintenance checks has come under intense scrutiny after the first plane sent there two months ago came back with 95 defects. It was grounded in Melbourne on Thursday because of noise from an air-conditioning fault.

Malaysia Airlines issued a statement yesterday defending its checks and calling Australian reports on defects unsubstantiated.

Two other planes were earmarked for heavy "C" checks - a regular procedure lasting more than a week, in which engineers have to check most of the airplane's parts - in Malaysia.

But the airline's monthly maintenance schedule put out last week showed the planes were rescheduled to be checked at Tullamarine in Melbourne.

As a result, checks on two other planes that were to take place at Tullamarine will now take place at Avalon in Victoria, and two planes that were to be checked at Avalon will be sent to a third party, John Holland Aviation Services, in Tullamarine.

"We don't know why it changed, but it's likely tied to the fact that CASA are yet to finish their investigation [into maintenance procedures]," a source said.

The executive general manager of engineering at Qantas, David Cox, confirmed the maintenance work will now be done in Australia. "We only have overflow heavy maintenance work undertaken overseas," he said. "We explored options for checks on two 737-400 aircraft. Once space became available at our Tullamarine facility, the decision was taken to have the work done there."

A CASA spokesman said the decision was made by the airline and was not the result of an order made by the authority. He confirmed that the airline has regulatory approval to conduct maintenance checks at the Malaysian base but investigations into the aircraft that returned from that facility earlier this year were continuing.

"It's too early to say whether [the aircraft's grounding in Melbourne] was related to the maintenance check in Malaysia or not," the spokesman said.

The senior general manager of Malaysia Airlines, Mohammed Roslan Ismail, defended the checks in a statement yesterday, saying Qantas had 12 personnel attached to its maintenance team.

"All the highlights were rectified, to the satisfaction of the Qantas team, before aircraft delivery to Australia," he said.

"With regards to the 'string of faults' that were reported in the media, [Malaysia Airlines] investigated and established that these were unsubstantiated.

"This is based on the fact that all these aspects were originally checked and found to be free from defect during the maintenance check and test flight, with the concurrence from the Qantas team."

Anwar Ibrahim: "Shouldn't Saiful be charged too?"

There may be a number of possibilities arising from this damning challenge, namely if the charge has been Section 377B (consensual sex), then why hasn’t Saiful Bukhari Azlan been charged too for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature?

http://ktemoc.blogspot.com/

But before they [the angels] lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know [have sex with] them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. - (Genesis 19:4-11)

The above paragraphs are from the Biblical Book of genesis which talks about Sodom and Gomorrah, where the inhabitants were so depraved they would rather ‘know’ two strangers (jambu-looking angels) than Lot’s two virgin daughters. The sin (and Malaysian crime) of sodomy has its origin in those biblical cities.

Fast forward 4 thousand years to 07 August 2008 - 'If consensual, why charge me only?', the damning query from Anwar Ibrahim was published by Malaysiakini to the embarrassment of the Attorney-General who gave the instruction for the PKR’s de facto leader to be charged for an alleged offence of sodomy.

In the charge the prosecution had quoted Section 377B of the Penal, namely 'committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature' which means the sex was consensual, because the more sinister Section 377C says 'committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature without consent', meaning rape.

Malaysiakini reported that the DPP argued that "the interpretation of section 377B is open on whether the offence was done with or without consent as the provision is silent on the word ‘consent’."

Even as a legal layperson I would say that’s bullsh*t argument by the DPP because where Section 377C exists, the prosecution cannot and should not charge a person under Section 377B and insist on alluding to the possibility or existence of sex ‘without consent’.

Obviously, the prosecution has opted for Section 377B instead of 377C of the penal Code because it’s far more difficult to prove rape unless the police can come up with supporting evidence of physical force or even non-physical coercion.

There may be a number of possibilities arising from this damning challenge, namely if the charge has been Section 377B (consensual sex), then why hasn’t Saiful Bukhari Azlan been charged too for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature?

Possibility 1
The prosecution may well charge Saiful tomorrow under the same Penal Code Section. This may be done to neutralize Anwar’s very legitimate query. I imagine the prosecution saying: "Now, who said that we weren't going to charge Saiful? C'mon lah, man man lai mah."

But if Saiful was party to the government’s plot to condemn Anwar, then Saiful may well not accept being ‘shafted’ again (excuse the pun) with a criminal charge, and possibly spill the beans.

Possibility No 2
The prosecution may revise the charge to Section 377C but the difficulties then would be in proving Anwar had raped Saiful.

Possibility No 3
The prosecution may bulldoze its way along the DPP's argument that "the interpretation of section 377B is open on whether the offence was done with or without consent as the provision is silent on the word ‘consent’."

A bloody poor and weak approach.

Possibility No 4
Assuming there is a plot to screw Anwar politically, then it may well be that the plan has never been to jail him (either because of the difficulties of gathering the evidence or the adverse diplomatic as well as domestic political repercussions), but to drag him slowly and excruciatingly through a public court case and expose his intimate liaison with Saiful. In other words, use the court case to smear sh*t all over his reputation.

Possibility No 4 will be the most damaging to Anwar where he will win the legal case but lose the political one (with respect to the ‘heartland’).

OK, another issue that jumps to my mind has been the accusation that the alleged sodomy was either an UMNO plot (as described above) or a consequence of a falling out between two erstwhile ‘lovers’ (if the latter, as far as I am concerned, it's none of our business).

If it has been an UMNO plot to screw up Anwar, with Saiful as the alleged accomplice (as he has been accused by PKR), then for him to seek a medical examination with Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid at Pusrawi was lazy plotting or sheer stupidity.

Then, some have accused Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid of being an Islamic brethren of Anwar Ibrahim in some Islamic organization, thus his medical report or notes or whatever has been alleged as favourable to Anwar, but I won’t go into that for now.

By the way, there’s also a Dr Raffick who raised some doubts as to Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid’s assertion that there was no sodomy perpetrated on Saiful – see Malaysiakini Doc stands by 'no sodomy' findings where Dr Mohd Osman has asserted this by resorting to our well-known Statutory Declaration - the stock of Stat Dec forms must be running low by now.

I had blogged on one of Dr Raffick’s earlier analyses on Dr Mohd Osman’s medical report – see my post Dr Raffick dismissed RPK's intepretation of doctor's report. Since then I heard he has written another or perhaps even a couple more, but I leave that to you readers to go find out.

If it has been an UMNO plot, could UMNO’s implementation of the scheme against Anwar be so piss-poor as to have Saiful medically checked by a doctor of ‘unknown allegiance’, and faced the inevitable report that there was no forced banging? Couldn't the UMNO mastermind nominate a doctor out of a host of 'more reliable' doctors?

This has been the most puzzling item in the entire drama. Because of this, there is a strong argument to believe that Saiful went on his own accord to Pusrawi.

One could be easily led to believe that if there was any sex at all as alleged, it would have been consensual, where the aftermath had turned emotionally sour for the pair. What made Saiful believe he was ‘raped’ or sodomised without consent remains open for conjecture and salacious dissections.

Though I am not a Muslim, I've also thought Anwar’s refusal to swear an oath on the Qu’ran that he didn’t do it, hasn't done him much good. This is not so much a legal requirement but more of a socially-moral expectation. I believe Anwar should have taken the oath.

In other countries, consensual sodomy is not a crime but an issue protected from hoteyes and ears by the laws of Privacy. In Malaysia it’s not only a legal crime but a religious and socially-moral sin. The latter is the more damning of the two.

Maybe Anwar’s enemies seek moral rather than legal prosecution and persecution against him. By doing so, they could be avoiding the martyr-ising of Anwar Ibrahim, but instead advocating the muddying of Anwar Ibrahim’s name.

Anwar: Sodomy charges — again

"It will have no impact whatsoever on the by-election. There will be no legal bar against contesting, and we will proceed to focus on the key issues of the campaign," says Sivarasa, who is also vice-president of Anwar's PKR. "It is a matter of time before he becomes the next Prime Minister."

BusinessWeek.com
History is repeating itself in politically embattled Malaysia.

"This is malicious slander, and I'm not guilty," declared former Deputy Prime Minister and current opposition politician Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, 60, on Aug 7 in court after being formally charged for allegedly sodomising a former male aide, 23-year-old Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Anwar, who spent more than five years in jail before a court threw out earlier charges in 2004, helped power a strong performance by the three main opposition parties in national elections last February. The leader of a new opposition alliance, he recently announced his intention to run in a by-election on Aug. 26 for a seat in Parliament that had been held by his wife, Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Ismail, who resigned to pave the way for his formal return to politics.

Although current Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has repeatedly denied being behind the charges, many analysts see the allegations as politically motivated. (While homosexuality is not illegal in Malaysia, it is against sharia law that applies to the country's majority Muslim population.)

Anwar denies any wrongdoing, and his legal team has released a medical report issued by a hospital in Kuala Lumpur stating that the alleged victim showed no sign of being assaulted. R. Sivarasa, a lawyer representing Anwar, is confident of winning the case. "It will have no impact whatsoever on the by-election. There will be no legal bar against contesting, and we will proceed to focus on the key issues of the campaign," says Sivarasa, who is also vice-president of Anwar's PKR. "It is a matter of time before he becomes the next Prime Minister."

The ruling coalition has reason to worry about Anwar, who despite the latest charges is free on personal bond and can run in the by-election. Should he win, he will be well-positioned to lead the opposition alliance consisting of the PKR, Pas and the multiracial DAP.

"This will be the mother of all by-elections," says Tricia Yeoh, director of the Centre for Public Policy Studies in Kuala Lumpur, who believes that the international community will be watching closely what happens.

Political analysts say Malaysia is seeing for the first time a two-party system with a strong opposition. That could force the ruling coalition, led by Umno, to fight corruption and reform economic policies that have long given an advantage to the country's majority Malays, says Steven Gan, editor-in-chief of independent news website Malaysiakini.com.

The controversial New Economic Policy, launched by Umno in 1971 as an affirmative action programme for Malays, is often seen by its critics as a discriminatory economic policy against the minority Chinese and Indians.

Gan thinks that the implications of Anwar's return would extend beyond Malaysia. "If he wins, Anwar would provide a very moderate version of Islam, much more so than current Prime Minister Abdullah," he says. Although his opposition alliance includes the Muslim fundamentalist party Pas, Gan argues, Anwar has tempered the extreme Islamic rhetoric of the party's leaders since taking the helm of the coalition.

Long before the latest twist in this political saga, Malaysia's financial markets were in disarray. Two months ago bond markets were roiled when independent power producers defaulted on covenants attached to their bonds because of an unpopular windfall tax policy by the government. The Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange Index has dropped 22% this year, while the ringgit is trading at a six-month low against the US dollar.

Protest stops Bar Council conversions forum

Several hundred protesters demonstrated outside the Bar Council forum on conversions to Islam this morning, with some forcing their way into the hall as police called on the organisers to wrap up proceedings by 10am.

Witnesses said several protesters entered the building escorted by police, stood in the middle of the hall and stared at the several hundred participants attending the "Conversion to Islam: Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, Subashini & Shamala Revisited" forum.

The protesters had gathered since 8am and brought out banners criticising and condemning the forum which has received objections from both government and opposition leaders.

At 9.25am, Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan interrupted the forum to say the police have advised them to wrap it up by 10am as protest still going on outside the building. The forum began at 8.45am.

Ambiga closed the forum 3 minutes before 10am deadline. Protesters still trying to barge in. Pas Unit Amal members standing between them and the police, trying to stop them.

Protesters are leaving but some are trying to chase and harass participants coming out. Bar Council members are seen seeking the help of the police to prevent this.

The Mundane Face of the Global Caliphate

There are, presently, a plethora of Islamist organisations and mass movements who have taken the notion of the global Caliphate as their goal.

Farish A. Noor

Today there is much talk, accompanied by some degree of unnecessary speculation and fear-mongering, about the claims and ambitions of Islamists who seek to create a global Caliphate as the panacea for the ills of Muslim society worldwide. That such talk of a pan-Islamic global project would spook the spooks of the international anti-terror industry is, of course, not entirely surprising for nothing seems to agitate the public more these days than the idea of a couple of Muslims getting together and plotting the imminent take-over of the universe.

There are, presently, a plethora of Islamist organisations and mass movements who have taken the notion of the global Caliphate as their goal. Groups like the Hizb'ut Tahrir openly proclaim their vision of a pan-Islamic world; while mainstream Islamist parties ranging from the Ikhwan'ul Muslimin of Egypt and the Arab world to the Jama'at-e Islami of South Asia to the Pan-Malaysian Islamic party of Malaysia have also spread their networks and contacts beyond the host countries where they first emerged. International conferences bring together Islamists from all corners of the globe with the frequency we associate more with international governmental or business conferences; and the internet has already created a virtual Islamoscape where Islamists from every country on the planet may interact simultaneously in real time. In many respects, such a global pan-Islamic universe already exists, and it can be said that the pan-Islamic world is a virtual empire where the sun never sets.

Yet looking beyond the narrow concerns of securocrats obsessed with the threat of Islamic terrorism, we need to peer beneath the discursive carapace of this grand project and understand its true import and what it hopes to achieve.

In my discussions with Islamists from Pakistan to Indonesia, I have been struck by the common appeal of them all: They long to create a global pan-Islamic space where belonging to the same faith community is the only passport one needs to travel across the Muslim world unrestricted. In many respects, this is reminiscent of the travels of Ibn Battuta, the celebrated Muslim traveller whose journeys took him across Africa and all the way to Southeast Asia and beyond. Ibn Battuta was, of course a bad traveller and a fussy tourist who insisted all the time that he be served halal food and live in comfortable familiar surroundings that did not offend or contradict his Muslim sensibilities. What he sought then, and what Islamists today seek, are the same: The freedom to travel across the globe while remaining comfortable in the safe confines of a Muslim universe.

The global Islamist project can and should be seen in this light as well, for this is yet another aspect of its ambitions. Though it is sometimes couched in somewhat aggressive, if not militarist, terms of conquest and expansion, the yearning is fundamentally a mundane one.

What is it that these global Islamists seek? On one hand the project is restorative in nature: It seeks to restore to the Muslim world the cosmopolitanism and universalism that it once professed but lost with the coming of European imperialism. The Muslim world, we should remember, was global in outlook and its outreach, and Muslim merchants, scholars, diplomats and mystics travelled across the world with ease and regularity that was guaranteed by the presence of long-established networks, itineraries and a communicative infrastructure that were the sinews of this global system.

On the other hand the pan-Islamist vision is also one that is guided by the longing for safety and comfort, where itinerant Muslims feel the need to belong to a globalised world that is safe, or at least not hostile to them. In the same way that itinerant merchants and scholars of the past depended on letters of introduction and guarantees of safe passage that would allow them to travel with ease, likewise the global Islamists today seek the same assurances from an international order that ought to be protecting them. Hence the appeal to Muslim identity and a common faith and value system as the guarantee that their mobility would not be restricted.

This yearning for mobility, freedom of movement, the right to live and settle anywhere, all happen to be pragmatic, mundane and material concerns that are in fact universal and are symptoms of the globalised age we live in. The longing for an extended Islamoscape with an unbroken frontier that extents and expands continuously can and should be seen as part of the evolution of a Muslim consciousness and sensibility that is global in its scope and outlook, the pining for a global Muslim citizenship so to speak.

Already we see the first real material evidence of such a global network in the making around us: Talk of a global Muslim currency (the so-called golden Dinar) that was dismissed as pseudo-economic froth not too long ago has gained momentum and is being taken seriously by some of the more developed Muslim countries in the world. Likewise the idea of a common Muslim trading bloc, to demonstrate the combined purchasing power of the so-called 'Muslim dollar' and its market. The landscape of the Muslim world today is littered with hundreds of 'Muslim hotels' and resorts that cater to the culturally-specific needs of Muslims, whatever they might be. And there is even talk of the world's first 'Islamic car' – a project mooted by the governments of Iran and Malaysia – to help Muslims travel around the world in the comfort of a Muslim environment, albeit confined within the four doors of the passengers' cabin.

In many respects it is not surprising nor unexpected that Muslims today would have such global ambitions for we do live, after all, in a global age and where the very idea of global citizenship – underpinned by the values of cosmopolitanism and universalism – are in common currency. How does this global Islamic vision differ from that of other faith communities, who likewise wish to create a safe space for its adherents the world over; and crucially, how does this global outlook differ from the universalist claims and ambitions of global capital, that has brought us a host of safe spaces and safe networks of communication and movement from the ubiquitous Hilton hotels that are universally uniform to the phenomenon of a McWorld where the staple diet of urban denizens in many countries today happens to be Cheese Burgers with French Fries (or Freedom Fries, as they re-christened recently)?

Looking closer at some of the global Islamist networks that span the globe today, such as the Tablighi Jama'at (the world's biggest Muslim missionary movement), the network of Islamist parties with transnational or supra-national ambitions, Muslim guilds and trading groups, Sufi mystical networks and the like, we can see that they all share family resemblances with the more mainstream modes of globalisation that is capital-driven. This is not to say that Islamist networks can be likened to Mc Donalds or cast as a franchise business with branches to be opened around every street corner. But it does mean that much of the talk of pan-Islamism and the creation of global Islamist networks we have seen the world over thus far is not as alien or exotic as we might think. Fundamentally, the fundamentalists are concerned with something far more mundane and ordinary, which is to provide a service that meets a need that has become all the more prevalent in the late-Capitalist globalised age we live in: This is the sense of global citizenship and the feeling of belonging to a globalised world where one is no longer a stranger to the other. (By FARISH A. NOOR/ MySinchew)

Farish A. Noor is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.

Some seriously troubling questions in Malaysia

On Day 10 of the trial, Altantuya's cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg testified that after Altantuya returned from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet Burmaa, and showed her a photograph of Altantuya and her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, who is accused of conspiring in her murder, and "a government official" taking a meal together.


Kim Quek, Asia Sentinel (3 July 2007)

An unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. Karpal Singh, the lawyer for the victim’s family, attempted to ask a question about a “government official" allegedly seen in a photograph with the victim. At that point, both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer sprang to their feet in unison to block the question.

This resulted in a shouting match, with Singh on one side, the victim’s cousin on the stand, and the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.

Earlier, a similar division of forces occurred when a Mongolian witness – a girlfriend of the victim told the court that immigration entry computer records of the deceased and her two Mongolian companions, including the witness, had been mysteriously erased. When Singh asked the court to take proper note of this highly irregular event, both the prosecution and defense objected to the evidence as irrelevant, and insisted that it be expunged.

Now, isn't that a strange phenomenon? A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice for the deceased victim's family against the murderers, so how come the prosecutor is now ganging up with defense lawyers to oppose the victim's family lawyer? Is this a case of prosecutor vs. defense or a case of prosecutor plus defense vs. victim's family? Obviously, the prosecution and defense seem to have plenty of common interests. What are those common interests?

The answer may lie in the identity of that "government official" that allegedly appeared in the photograph with Altantuya that both prosecution and defense tried so hard not to allow into court.

The picture

On Day 10 of the trial, Altantuya's cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg testified that after Altantuya returned from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet Burmaa, and showed her a photograph of Altantuya and her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, who is accused of conspiring in her murder, and "a government official" taking a meal together. Answering Singh later, after the shouting match in the court had subsided, she said this "government official" was Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

She could distinctly remember the name, she said, because it bears a similarity to Altantuya’s acknowledged lover's name, and she even asked Altantuya whether they were brothers. Burmaa further added that the photo had also been shown to Altantuya's father.

Now, the revelation of Najib in the photo would not have caused such a sensation if not for the deputy prime minister's oft-repeated denial of any knowledge of Altantuya, including a public denial during a recent by-election, when even the name of Allah was invoked.

What does Najib have to say now that his denial is directly contradicted by the witness Burmaa? His press secretary Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad issued a brief statement on June 30 saying that the deputy prime minister had declined to comment for two reasons. One, any comment might be sub judice, since the case is in court, and, two, Najib had already repeatedly denied an acquaintance with the girl in the past, "as such, the issue over the picture does not arise,” the spokesman said.

Sub judice? That’s ridiculous. How could a simple statement like "I have never had my photo taken with Altantuya" be sub judice? In fact, being the number-two leader in the government, Najib is absolutely duty-bound to say outright whether he was ever photographed with Altantuya, in view of the serious implications of Burmaa's allegation.

The issue over the picture does not arise? Equally ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is true. Precisely because of Najib's past denials, it is all the more imperative that Najib must stand up now to clarify.

Guilty conscience?

There is only one explanation for Najib's past denials and his present silence: A guilty conscience. If Najib's conduct with respect to the case had been above-board, there would be no reason for him to deny an acquaintance with his friend Abdul Razak’s friend Altantuya. Similarly, if the allegation of the picture is false, it is inconceivable and totally incomprehensible that Najib should have chosen not to refute Burmaa's allegation.

In fact, Najib seems so worried about the publicity of the picture that his secretary called editors in the local press and requested them not to blow up the issue. This resulted in the explosive story being absent from the local headlines the next day. (In one Chinese paper – Guang Ming – the Najib story hit the front page in the evening edition, but disappeared completely by the next morning). And of course, Anwar Ibrahim's criticism of the trial and his specific call on Najib to clarify the issue of the picture during a press conference was generally blacked out.

However, despite such new suppression, irreversible damage is done. There is little doubt that Najib is deeply troubled and his political position seriously weakened.

Manipulation

That this murder case has been subjected to serious political manipulation has been obvious from the very start, when the police commenced their highly questionable investigation, right through to the present trial when the conduct of lawyers for both sides appear increasingly dubious. Instead of the prosecutor seeking the truth and the defense lawyer fighting for the accused, both seem preoccupied with an overriding mission – to prevent the whole truth from emerging. Their combined efforts to cover up the issue of the immigration record and the identity of Najib Razak in the picture are just two examples of such conduct.

The highly irregular nature of this case was also marked by frequent and mysterious changes of legal personnel, resulting in a complete change-over of the defense team, the prosecutors and the judge even before the hearings began. These weird phenomena were crowned by the shock appearance of a new team of prosecutors who were appointed only hours before the hearing was supposed to begin, thus necessitating an impromptu postponement of the trial for two weeks. None of these changes of legal personnel has been properly explained, except for the resignation of Abdul Razak’s first lawyer; Zulkifli Noordin, quit, he said, because of "serious interference by third parties".

Under these circumstances, the public must brace itself for more aberrant scenarios from this court, while Najib and his supporters may have to keep their fingers crossed in the days ahead when many more witnesses have yet to walk through what must appear to Najib as a minefield.

On a more serious note, this unseemly trial does not exactly add credit to Malaysia’s system, whose already wretched image has just been further mauled by the shameful finale of another sham trial – that of Eric Chia of Perwaja Steel fame. After seven long years of investigations and three years of court hearings, that case was thrown out due to lack of prima facie evidence. With that, the long-drawn out Perwaja Steel saga ended without finding any culprit for the mountain of losses (more than RM 10 billion) suffered by taxpayers.

There has been a spate of criminal cases being dismissed of late due to inadequate investigations and poor prosecution, indicating that the downward slide of our criminal justice system, which began in the Mahathir era, has gotten worse under Abdullah Badawi's leadership. With the criminal justice system in a shambles, the rule of law is in jeopardy. And that is an important benchmark to judge the efficacy of Abdullah's administration vis-à-vis his reform agenda.

Kim Quek is a Malaysia-based commentator.

2 notorious cases challenge Malaysia's modesty

This is not the first time that sex and politics have publicly collided in Malaysia. The trial of Anwar Ibrahim, a former deputy prime minister, for sodomy in the 1990s featured, among other highlights, a blood-stained mattress being hauled into the courtroom.

Thomas Fuller

Government censors in this majority Muslim nation uphold an ethos of modesty by snipping sex scenes from films and ordering entertainers to avoid outfits that reveal too much on Malaysian stages - bare belly buttons and figure-hugging outfits are off limits.

But these days Malaysians looking to avoid R-rated content might be advised to read past news reports about their own leaders. Top politicians are embroiled in two scandals involving accusations of sodomy and the gruesome murder of a Mongolian mistress.

Reports on the finer points of a rectal examination and revelations about the sexual preferences of the dead mistress make other sex scandals that once shocked people here - such as Monica Lewinsky and her blue dress - seem almost Victorian.

This is not the first time that sex and politics have publicly collided in Malaysia. The trial of Anwar Ibrahim, a former deputy prime minister, for sodomy in the 1990s featured, among other highlights, a blood-stained mattress being hauled into the courtroom.

This time, wider use of the Internet has helped disseminate documents, facts and rumors that would otherwise have been filtered out of mainstream news media tightly controlled by the government.

The two scandals encompass much more than just sex. They are part of a broader clash between two men vying for power: Anwar is facing new allegations of sodomy at a time when he is vowing to unseat the governing party, while the other scandal involves Anwar's principal political rival, Najib Razak, the deputy prime minister and anointed heir to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

What is worrying for many Malaysians is that the gloves appear to have come off in the high-stakes fight between Anwar and Najib.

Testimony in the murder trial revealed that immigration records of the Mongolian woman and her friend had been deleted.

Malaysia's political opposition says the case highlights the impunity of the police and high officials in government as well as a lack of independence in the judiciary. A police officer took the stand and said she was tortured by police investigators - her own colleagues.

Witnesses in both cases have dropped from sight, including a private investigator, Balasubramaniam Perumal, who alleged in a sworn statement issued shortly before disappearing that the dead Mongolian woman was Najib's mistress.

The statement by Balasubramaniam, which has been widely circulated online, contradicted Najib's repeated assertions that he never met the Mongolian woman, Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Balasubramaniam spent two months writing and revising a 16-page declaration about the case, based on conversations he had with the murdered woman and Abdul Razak Baginda, an aide to Najib. Balasubramaniam retracted the allegations in a hastily convened press conference and then disappeared.

"It's obvious what has happened here. You don't need to be a rocket scientist," said Americk Sidhu, the private investigator's lawyer. "Somebody needed him to shut up."

Balasubramaniam's wife and three children are also missing. The family's two Rottweilers were left behind in their cages.

"A lot of very dark things are happening now," said Raja Petra Kamarudin, one of the most influential and prolific Malaysian bloggers. Raja Petra was formerly a political associate of Anwar's wife, Azizah Ismail, in her National Justice Party.

Although a number of gruesome facts in the Mongolian case have emerged in court over the past year - Altantuya, for example, was shot and her body obliterated with explosives in the jungle outside Kuala Lumpur - Raja Petra asserts that only a fraction of what happened is being admitted into court.

Citing sources in military intelligence, he issued a sworn declaration in June alleging that Najib's wife, Rosmah Mansor, was present at Altantuya's killing. Government prosecutors say Altantuya was killed by two commandos who also served as bodyguards to Malaysia's top leaders.

"I don't think Malaysia can afford to have a prime minister who has a huge question mark hanging over his head: Is he, or not, involved in the murder of this girl?" Raja Petra said in an interview.

Najib has called the allegation in the declaration "total lies, fabrication and total garbage" and a "desperate and pathetic attempt to discredit and taint my political image."

The government charged Raja Petra with criminal libel, a law that lawyers say has not been used in recent memory in Malaysia and which, unlike civil defamation, can carry a two-year prison term. Separately, Raja Petra has been charged with sedition and his house raided several times.

Raja Petra was also responsible for leaking a medical report last week relating to the sodomy case. Anwar's accuser, Mohamed Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a 23-year-old former campaign volunteer, went to a hospital in Kuala Lumpur hours before lodging a police report charging that Anwar had sodomized him. But the medical report, which also circulated widely on the Internet, says he complained of a piece of plastic being inserted into his anus. The doctor who wrote the report, Mohamed Osman, said he found "no active bleeding, no pus, tear or scar."

Since then, Osman also has disappeared, although the hospital says he will be back Monday.

Anwar, who on Thursday announced that he would run for Parliament in his quest to unseat the government and become prime minister, said in an interview that he expected to be arrested soon. He has refused to give a DNA sample because he believes it will be used against him. "There's nothing stopping them from fabricating evidence again," Anwar said.

Although Malaysians enthusiastically share the latest developments in both cases, some have grown tired of the graphic details.

"A good word is disgust - whether it's sodomy or blowing up the Mongolian lady," said the Reverend Wong Kim Kong, executive adviser of the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship, an umbrella organization of protestant churches. A narrow majority of Malaysians are Muslim but the country has sizeable Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh minorities.

Wong said the constant barrage of allegations made by bloggers, paired with the government's steady denials, have left Malaysians pining for clarity.

"People just cannot trust the word of any of these people," Wong said. "They cannot distinguish who is telling the truth."

The scandals come at a time of great political uncertainty in Malaysia. The governing party of Abdullah and Najib and the ethnic-based system of politics that it represents is in disarray. There is simmering resentment between the majority Malays and the minority Chinese and Indians, and corruption within government is rampant, despite promises by Abdullah to clean up the system.

Anwar has vowed to remake the country's politics and revoke the authoritarian laws that, among other things, ban students from protesting, keep the media controlled and allow the government to lock up dissidents without trial. But Anwar remains a polarizing figure who is not trusted by many in the elite.

"I think there will at some point be a crisis of legitimacy," said Ibrahim Suffian, the head of the Merdeka Center, a polling agency. "'The leaders seem to feel that they can get away with a lot of things so long as the masses are satisfied with the economic opportunities given to them.

"But the economy is so bad that people are losing faith. There is a feeling that maybe it's time for major changes."

Anwar is arrested and brought to Bukit Aman

The Malaysian government first said that Anwar Ibrahim was arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) on 20 September 1998 - the day he led the biggest demonstration in Malaysia’s history - because he was a threat to national security.

Dato Yaacob Md Amin, the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), testified in the Royal Commission of Inquiry that sat from 22 February to 4 March 1999 to investigate Anwar’s beating that the decision to arrest Anwar was made one week before 20 September. He also testified that Anwar was arrested, not under the ISA, but under Section 377 of the Penal Code, and that this decision came from the AG’s Chambers’ office.

Today, we will go through Dato Yaacob’s testimony on the events the night of Anwar’s arrest.

“On 20 September 1998, at around 6.45pm, I received information from the Bukit Aman Control Centre regarding demonstrations at Masjid Negara (National Mosque) and Dataran Merdeka (Independence Square).”

“At 8.30pm, I went to the 30th floor Police Headquarters, Bukit Aman.”

“When I reached the 30th floor, there were many officers there. They were talking to each other, among themselves, in the hall.”

“I knew that the situation in KL was bad and I went to the 30th floor to give assistance, if needed. I was not instructed to go to the 30th floor.”

“When I arrived at the hall, I saw Tan Sri Rahim Noor, the former IGP, Dato Ghazali Yaacob, and other officers.”

“While I was talking to the officers present, I came to know that action to arrest Dato Seri Anwar was in progress. I knew of this fact at about 9.30pm.”

“At 10.00pm, I came to know that Dato Seri Anwar had been arrested by police officers and he would be brought back to Bukit Aman.”

“I went downstairs to the foyer because I wanted to see Dato Seri Anwar being brought in to Bukit Aman. I did not inform Tan Sri Rahim that I wanted to go downstairs. I did not inform anyone on the 30th floor that I wanted to go down to see the arrival of Dato Seri Anwar.”

“I saw the arrival of the vehicle. Dato Seri Anwar was helped out of the vehicle and was led by two police officers into the foyer. He was blindfolded. He was not handcuffed.”

“As he passed me I said something, “Treat him like a normal criminal. Why is he not handcuffed?” This statement was directed to the officers who affected the arrest.”

“The normal practice is, when a person is arrested, he would be handcuffed. It is not normal to blindfold a person who is arrested.”

“When a criminal is arrested he is handcuffed. At that time I knew that Dato Seri Anwar was arrested under Section 377 of the Penal Code which is a criminal offence.”

“He was taken straight to the lockup. I followed him from behind into the lockup area.”

“Not long after that, Dato Ramli arrived. When Dato Ramli arrived at the counter, I left the lockup. When I left the lockup area, Dato Seri Anwar was not taken into the cell yet.”

“I left the lockup and went to the CID office. There were other officers and I had general conversations with these officers. While I was talking to these officers, I got to know that Tan Sri Rahim would be visiting the lockup.”

“After I knew about this, I went to the lift and waited for Tan Sri Rahim. Shortly after that, Tan Sri Rahim came out from the lift. Tan Sri Rahim was alone at that time.”

“I received Tan Sri Rahim and he uttered, “Come!” My understanding of that is to follow him. Apart from that, he did not say anything else to me.”

Tomorrow, we will continue with Dato Yaacob’s testimony on what happened in the lockup.

Najib: The truth will prevail

PEKAN: Datuk Seri Najib Razak yesterday pledged he would carry out his responsibilities as an Umno member, elected representative and deputy prime minister to the letter, irrespective of the challenges that come his way.

He said he would not let challenges, including slander, keep him from his responsibilities.

"My wife and I will face these challenges.

"The truth will prevail," he said at the joint opening of the meetings of the 139 branches of the Pekan Umno division yesterday.

Najib also said that he would not shy away from helping anyone who sought his help.

"I will continue to receive people at my home to help them in whatever way that I can, including signing a letter of assistance and giving allocations."

He called on party members and leaders of the division to continue helping the people and strengthen the party.

He also told them not to just seek positions in the upcoming party elections.

"The struggle does not end with you gaining positions, but what you do with that position."

Party members, Najib said, should not be satisfied with whatever they achieved, but must continue to help the people.

Party members must accept the way the political pendulum swung, Najib added.



At an earlier function, he described P. Balasubramaniam's initial statutory declaration which linked him with Altantuya Shaariibuu as a "political ploy".

Najib acknowledged the allegations could have a negative impact on him, but said he had to face the fallout from the statutory declaration.

"I have to accept the fact that politics in the country has become dirty. "

Najib added there were people willing to do anything to achieve their aims.

He said he would not seek an injunction to prevent issues relating to the statutory declaration.

"I will not hide behind an injunction.

"All this was done not to find out the truth, but to influence public opinion against our leaders.

"That is why I had to reply to it (initially) in a political manner."

Private investigator Balasubramaniam had, in a statutory declaration on Tuesday and announced in a press conference two days later, stated Najib had introduced murdered Mongolian Altantuya to Abdul Razak Baginda.

He claimed that Najib had told Abdul Razak that he (Najib) was in a sexual relationship with Altantuya and that she was to be "looked after" so that she did not harass him now that he was the deputy prime minister.

Balasubramaniam, who was employed by Abdul Razak at the time of Altantuya's death, had, alleged that Abdul Razak had told him that Najib had sent him (Abdul Razak) a text message saying the deputy prime minister would meet with the inspector-general of police to resolve the matter.

However, the day after the press conference, which was called by Parti Keadilan Rakyat de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Balasubramaniam called another session with the media where copies of another statutory declaration retracting the previous one were distributed.

In the second declaration, Balasubramaniam claimed he had been under duress when he had made the first declaration.

Najib, who said he did not know why Balasubramaniam had revoked the original declaration, added that he would not take any legal action against him.

"Even before I could think of the next step, he has withdrawn it.

"I leave it to the authorities to take action," he said.

Najib also said that he was disappointed that an opposition leader was involved in the press conference involving the first statutory declaration.

"This is something which should not have arisen as it involves three people facing serious charges in the courts.

"Why is there a need to involve a political aspect?

"This not a question of politics. This is about the law which we have to respect."

He said laws, regulations and legal institutions should be respected.

"Whether they are government or opposition leaders, all should follow the laws."

Najib said although defamation had always been around in the form of poison pen letters, these days it was more widespread through information and communication technology.

He said the government had the option of imposing censorship instead of leaving it to the people to evaluate.

However, he said, this would lead to the belief that the government was not democratic nor open.

"Therefore, it is better for the people to be left to decide on the various issues."

On whether the issue would affect the Umno branch meetings and elections to begin this month, he said: "Umno members understand what is happening.

"They can evaluate. Umno members have become smarter."

Crowds swelling at Kelana Jaya stadium

PETALING JAYA: Thousands of protestors, led by several NGOs and Pakatan Rakyat leaders, have thronged the Kelana Jaya stadium here to protest against the fuel hike.

Many of them were wearing red shirts, emblazoned with the word "protest" to voice their dissent.

Despite the huge crowd, there has been no heavy police presence.

Only policemen in a few patrol cars have been seen monitoring the area.

The rally has a carnival like atmosphere with traders doing brisk business selling food and drinks, T-shirts and souvenirs.

Since Sunday morning, several PKR and Hindraf leaders rallied the crowd with speeches and shouts of Reformasi! and Minyak turun!.

Crowd had been increasing since 10am.

Among those expected to speak later are PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat , vice president Mohamad Sabu, Nik Aziz, DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang and PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar rallies support against sodomy claims

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (CNN) -- Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim reacted strongly to sodomy accusations Tuesday, filing a complaint against the police chief and the attorney general and planning a public rally.
Anwar, a former deputy prime minister who spent six years in prison on sodomy and corruption charges before a historic return to politics in elections in March, said the new allegations are designed to usurp his political gains. The complaint he filed Tuesday is about the charges leveled against him 10 years ago.


Anwar said the evidence used in that case was fabricated. At the time, the current police chief was the investigating officer in the case. The attorney general was the then prosecutor.

"Do you expect me to have full trust in the Inspector General of Police ... who has been involved for 10 years in the personal vendetta and battle against me? Who is fearing for his own position?" Anwar told CNN. His supporters are also expected to hold a public rally Tuesday night, because Anwar said he did not "trust the system."

"So what do we do now? We go to the people," he told CNN. "I believe Malaysians are sick and fed up of these desperate maneuvers by the government."

Anwar was the heir apparent to former premier Mahatir Mohamad until 1998, when he was sacked and convicted of corruption and of sodomizing his driver.

He spent six years in jail until the nation's highest court overturned the sex conviction. But the corruption verdict was never lifted and it barred him from running for office.

Then came the national elections in March. Anwar helmed a loose coalition of opposition parties that won control of five of the country's 13 states. The coalition also won 82 of 222 parliamentary seats -- making it only the second time in the southeast Asian country's history that the ruling party failed to gain the two-thirds majority needed to amend the constitution.

Anwar, 60, is now eligible to run for parliament. And he has claimed that he has the numbers to form a new government with the help of lawmakers who want to defect from the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) coalition of current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Anwar said the latest allegations are meant to sideline him again. Sodomy, even if consensual, is punishable by 20 years in prison in the Muslim-majority country.

"We are almost there with the crossover of support, with the huge uncertainties politically within the (ruling) party," he said. "So this is the last attempt to frustrate and derail the process." Prime Minister Abdullah told reporters he leaving it up to the police to determine the authenticity of the accusations.

"It is the police who should take appropriate action," Abdullah was quoted as saying by the national news agency, Bernama. "What Anwar has said is not for us to decide. He will surely deny... The accused will normally deny the allegation."

Anwar has filed a suit against the 23-year-old male aide who is accusing him of sodomy. The aide said the incident occurred in a luxury apartment on June 26. Anwar also took refuge briefly in the Turkish embassy in Kuala Lumpur because he said he feared being assassinated.

The government denies the claims.

"Anwar's life has never been in danger," Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar told reporters Monday. "We have never taken any action that can endanger his life or his family. Why should we do that?"

Nevertheless, Anwar said he leaving little to chance.

ACA interrogated me for three hours: Dr Mahathir

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad says he has been interrogated by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) for three hours in relation to the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the V K Lingam video clip.

"I am sure I will be questioned in court also because of a possibility that I was lobbied on the appointment of judges," he said in his blog www.chedet.com yesterday.

Dr Mahathir's special officer Sufi Yusoff, in an SMS reply to Bernama, said the ACA had interviewed Dr Mahathir on June 25 relating to the Lingam video clip investigation.

Dr Mahathir referred to the issue of the commission in his comments on his relationship with Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) advisor Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which among others claimed that Anwar's interest in the proper appointment of judges was actually "to seek revenge against me".

"Now, the Royal Commission has named me as one of those to be investigated although I had nothing to do with Lingam and his activities," he said.

Dr Mahathir said he only came to know Lingam because he was successful in some litigation cases and decided to engage him as his lawyer in the case brought by Anwar.

"But the Royal Commission concluded that if it is possible that I was involved then I must be involved. It is almost like saying if it is possible I had murdered a person then I must have murdered the person. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary here," he said.

He said he was aware of efforts to find out if he had committed offences during his 22 years as prime minister.

"So far they haven't found anything. But now they have found an indirect way of getting at me," he said and added that he was not seeking sympathy from anyone.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry, in its report, had said that there was sufficient cause to invoke the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961, the Sedition Act 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code against Dr Mahathir, lawyer V K Lingam, Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan and former chief justices Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Dr Mahathir was the only one who had not filed for a judicial review following the report, saying he was prepared to go to court.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has set July 16 to hear the preliminary objection to the applications for a judicial review by the five others.

Meanwhile, on May 16, the Cabinet ordered Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to immediately direct agencies to investigate allegations levelled at the six of them.

— Bernama

And the winner is………..

Yes, this looks bad for Najib, as well as for Anwar. And it certainly looks like Najib is behind the second SD as well as the sodomy allegation against Anwar -- while Anwar, in turn, is seen as behind the first SD that links Najib to Altantuya.

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I said in an earlier article in this same column that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should be out of office by Christmas. And his successor, I predicted, could either be Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, aspirant Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, or opposition head honcho Anwar Ibrahim. I have also always said that seven days is a long time in politics. What more seven months. And the fact that political fortunes change, subject to both internal as well as external factors beyond your control, means that the situation is always very fluid indeed.

Soon after the 12th General Election of 8 March 2008, the pressure mounted, not only for Abdullah to resign, but also for him to confirm his exit plan with details such as his resignation date and the name of his successor. The pressure, in fact, started in mid-2006 when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad first launched his salvo against Abdullah at a dialogue session in Kelab Century Paradise jointly-organised by Malaysia Today and a couple of NGOs. For almost two years Mahathir continued his attacks on Abdullah, interrupted in between by a couple of heart attacks and a heart operation.

Abdullah was up against two fronts -- internally from the Najib and Tengku Razaleigh forces and externally from Pakatan Rakyat led by Anwar Ibrahim. Of course, Pakatan Rakyat did not really pose that much a threat until after the general election when it managed to grab five states and 82 Parliament seats -- which resulted, for the first time, in Barisan Nasional losing its two-thirds majority in Parliament. It did happen once before, of course. But, then, it was the Alliance Party of Umno, MCA and MIC that lost its two-thirds majority -- but they managed to regain their majority when Barisan Nasional was formed and all the opposition parties except DAP joined the new coalition (although PAS left the coalition almost three years later and has remained in the opposition ever since).

There is another internal force, a fifth column, which is headed by Muhyiddin Yassin. But Muhyiddin has been very cautious in not openly siding with any of the three factions of Abdullah, Najib and Tengku Razaleigh. He is very cleverly building up his support base, which can later swing to any of the three factions depending on who has the best chance of winning. In that sense, Muhyiddin can play the role of kingmaker if he so wishes and in the event he feels he can never make it on his own unless he joins forces with Abdullah, Najib or Tengku Razaleigh.

Muhyiddin is no direct threat. He will only become a threat if he manages to build up enough support and then throws this support behind one of the three contenders. And that contender will most certainly be the candidate who has the best chance of winning. But then, who is it the contender that has the best chance of winning? That is something that is very fluid and keeps changing week to week.

By mid-June 2008, it appeared like Najib and Anwar were the two hot favourites. When Najib visited the Umno divisions, the grass-root members cheered him and ‘proclaimed’ him the new Umno President cum Prime Minister. This even happened in Abdullah’s own division. And Muhyiddin, who was there by his side, was cheered as the new Umno Deputy President -- although he feigned ‘shyness’ in typical Malay fashion. It looked like Najib was set to become the new Umno President with Muhyiddin as his running mate, which means they will be Malaysia’s new Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister respectively.

But then this will only happen if Anwar does not pull a coup. Anwar had boldly proclaimed many times that he will form the new federal government by Malaysia Day, 16 September 2008, and that at least 30 Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament are waiting in the wings and ready to cross over. The race was on. Either Najib pushes Abdullah out before 16 September or else he will be pushing Abdullah out just to become the opposition leader in Parliament and not the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

It was now either Najib or Anwar. And there was also Tengku Razaleigh and Muhyiddin to contend with, though not as potent as Najib and Anwar. Tengku Razaleigh and Muhyiddin are not too serious a problem, though problems nevertheless. It was Najib and Anwar who have to be dealt with, and dealt with before the Umno branch elections start this month and the division elections in August.

Suddenly, Najib and Anwar are facing controversy -- Najib with his Altantuya murder controversy and Anwar in a new sodomy allegation. Now Najib and Anwar have their hands full. They are busy clearing their names and have no time to worry about taking over the Prime Ministership. The issue is no longer which of the two can become the next Prime Minister but whether they can even stay out of jail. That is a more pressing problem. The job of Prime Minister will have to wait.

Saiful, the man who alleged that Anwar had sodomised him met Najib just before he lodged that police report against Anwar. At first Najib denied meeting the young man. Then, later, he admits that he did meet the chap after all, but only to discuss the young man’s career and future and to help him obtain a scholarship.

The earlier denial followed by the later admission does not augur well for Najib. The fact that a very busy Deputy Prime Minister has all the time in the world to meet a school dropout so that he can act as the latter’s career guidance counsellor is also a story many find hard to buy. Events and statements point to the fact that Najib is behind this latest sodomy allegation against Anwar.

That, at least, is what we are being led to believe. But what we have not been told is that Saiful was trained by the BTN (Biro Tata Negara), Malaysia’s propaganda outfit and an outfit headed by Abdullah loyalists. We are told that Saiful first surfaced a week or so before the 8 March 2008 general election when he reported to PKR’s party HQ as an election volunteer. Where did he come from and who brought him into the party HQ?

Yes, that is the most crucial question. Saiful did not just turn up on the doorstep of the party HQ from nowhere. He was brought in by his very close friend, the son of the late Dato Nasaruddin Jalil and an Anwar aide. That’s right. According to Dato Nasaruddin’s wife, her son and Saiful are bosom buddies. Then, something strange happened. Dato Nasaruddin’s son was mysteriously killed by a hit-and-run driver. No one knows how it happened or who killed him. But, after that most tragic ‘accident’, Saiful stayed on to become one of the temporary staff of the party.

Was Dato Nasaruddin’s son’s death an accident? Is there something more sinister than just an unsolved hit-and-run accident? I suppose we shall never know the answer to that one and it may forever remain in the books as an accident or a victim of a hit-and-run. But what we do know is that the young man whom Dato Nasaruddin’s son brought into the party got elevated from a volunteer to a temporary staff of the party.

The Muftis of Perlis and Perak have suggested that Anwar come out and swear an oath that he is innocent of the allegation of sodomising Saiful. That would be the only way he can clear his name. It is not known yet if he will do that but, if he does not, then the dark cloud hanging over his head will remain there. There would be no other way that Anwar can clear his name.

Anwar also has to explain what he was doing at that upmarket condo. Yes, I too have clandestine meetings with my many Deep Throats at secret locations such as hotel rooms and apartments. But then I always bring along witnesses to ensure that I have an alibi in the event someone spots me and accuse me of having secret rendezvous for purposes of sex.

But Anwar’s case is more complex. I was told they have photographs of Anwar and Saiful going into one of the rooms of the One World hotel escorted by another man. If these photographs surface and Anwar cannot explain what is going on, then he may cease to be a threat to Abdullah. Abdullah then has only to take care of Najib.

The Statutory Declaration (SD) by the private investigator, Bala, has hurt Najib a lot. But the retraction or second SD the following day, which deletes all references to Najib, is even more damaging than the first one. If anyone had any doubts and thought that maybe Bala was fixing Najib up with his first SD, the second SD removed those doubts. Now, people are even more convinced that Najib is guilty. If not then why amend the first SD but only as far as Najib’s name is concerned whereas all the other allegations remain the same?

Bala’s first SD was not done in a hurry. It took numerous meetings over two months to finalise the SD. Bala had plenty of time to change his mind over those two months. And how can you say that you signed the SD under duress when it was done over many meetings over two months?

But the second SD was done only a few hours after the first one surfaced. And it was done after his visit to the police station. That gives an appearance of duress. And the fact he does not say that the entire SD is false but only as far as Najib’s name is concerned gives an impression that Najib is behind the second SD and that it was done to clear his name. Why would Najib go to all this trouble if he were innocent?

I met Bala on 2 July 2008 and was with him for about six hours from 6.30pm. He was jovial and chatty and joked that my SD two weeks earlier had stolen the thunder from his. Now, his has become the second SD instead of the first as he had hoped. After the press conference of 3 July 2008 we had lunch and he was still as jovial and chatty as the night before. He was now the superstar and he was relishing every minute of it. We agreed to meet on Saturday night (tonight) to party and celebrate the ‘success’ of his SD. Then, yesterday, the bombshell.

Yes, this looks bad for Najib, as well as for Anwar. And it certainly looks like Najib is behind the second SD as well as the sodomy allegation against Anwar -- while Anwar, in turn, is seen as behind the first SD that links Najib to Altantuya. In one swoop, both Najib and Anwar are brought down. And this means Abdullah has now rid himself of two serious problems. And with these two serious threats neutralised Abdullah can now take care of the lesser threats of Tengku Razaleigh and Muhyiddin.

I might not like Abdullah but I must certainly admire his skills. He looks stupid, he talks stupid, he acts stupid, but a man who can make you think he is stupid is actually cleverer than you.

Yes, it looks like Abdullah will still be Umno President and Prime Minister of Malaysia come Christmas. I would not have said this three weeks ago but today I say this with confidence. And while Najib and Anwar finish each other off, Abdullah is giggling in the background and choosing the Christmas tree that he will erect in Putrajaya come December.

Well done, Pak Lah. Brilliant moves. Now let’s see how Najib and Anwar extricate themselves from the mess they are currently in.

The Oil-for-Food scandal revisited

One of the names that cropped up in the final report of the Independent Inquiry Committee into The United Nations Oil-For-Food Programme was the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Malaysia was the fourth highest purchaser of oil - RM1.8 billion.

Malaysia Today

On Sunday, the BBC reported as follows:

The Iraqi government has said it will file lawsuits in US courts against firms and people suspected of illegally profiting from a UN programme. The UN oil-for-food programme allowed Saddam Hussein's government to sell oil in order to buy humanitarian supplies during UN sanctions from 1996-2003. An inquiry found that 2,200 firms paid $1.8bn in bribes to Iraqi officials.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that the legal action was to recover damages and hold those who benefited from the illegal activity accountable for their actions. "The oil-for-food programme was subject to huge financial scandals by companies and others [who] conspired with Saddam Hussein to embezzle large sums of money through kickbacks, inflated prices and the supply of shoddy goods," he said.

A UN-commissioned inquiry headed by former US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker found that 2,200 companies in 66 countries had paid kickbacks to Iraqi officials to win supply contracts under the $60bn (£30bn) programme. The Iraqi statement did not name the firms or people the legal action will target nor when and in which courts the suits will be filed.

Two years ago, this was what the BBC said:

More than 2,000 firms linked to the UN oil-for-food programme in Iraq were involved in making illicit payments to the Iraqi government, a report says. It found Saddam Hussein received $1.8bn (£1bn) from firms including Daimler Chrysler and Volvo, and it also named individuals said to have benefited.

More than half of the 4,500 companies - from 60 countries - involved in the oil-for-food programme paid kickbacks or surcharges to the Iraqi government, Mr Volcker reported. The single largest bribe came from a Malaysian trading company, Mastek, which paid Iraq $10bn over a prolonged period, the report found.

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

PM & The Oil for Food Scandal
The Oil-for-Food Programme was established to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for food, medicine and other vital supplies. It did not take long however for the Iraqi government to abuse the programme by demanding kickbacks from companies. Several investigations were launched and voluminous reports written.

One of the names that cropped up in the final report of the Independent Inquiry Committee into The United Nations Oil-For-Food Programme was the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Studying Chapter Two of the report, Malaysia was the fourth highest purchaser of oil under Phase IX of the programme (circa 2000 and above). This amounted to a figure of US$500 million or RM1.8 billion.

The report names Mastek Sdn Bhd as one of the companies that paid bribes to Iraqi officials amounting to US$10 million. The Prime Minister publicly denied any involvement in the scandal. He only recommended several people to participate in the Oil-for-Food Programme in his capacity as (then) Deputy Prime Minister. Malaysiakini was threatened by government officials for reporting on Abdullah Badawi's involvement.

The current Foreign Minister Syed Hamid issued a statement saying that the Prime Minister had nothing to gain from obtaining oil in Iraq. The Iraq Survey Group that prepared the report concluded that a person in the programme could profit by US$0.65 per barrel of oil obtained.

Returning to Mastek Sdn Bhd, it is listed as a saw timber company. Mastek Sdn Bhd was at that time a dormant company which was revived by three persons, namely:

Noor Asiah Dato' Mahmood (Abdullah Badawi's sister-in-law)
Faek Ahmad Shareef (Noor Asiah's ex-husband)
Jaya Sudhir (businessman)
After it's revival it became a crude oil company, participating in Phase VII to Phase IX of the Oil-for-Food Programme. Currently Mastek Sdn Bhd is listed as a computer software develpoment company.

Prior to Phase IX, Mastek Sdn Bhd received roughly 7.5 million barrels of oil. During Phase IX however, Mastek Sdn Bhd's oil allocation rose to 39.5 million barrels. This coincided with the time when Abdullah Badawi cemented his position as the Deputy Prime Minister, after the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim. In fact, this was the single largest allocation of oil during the entire Oil-for-Food Programme.

The report specifically stated that Iraqi officials gave such a large allocation to Faek Ahmad because of his relationship to Abdullah Badawi. In written documents, Iraqi officials referred to Faek Ahmad as "Mr. Faek Ahmad Shareef/for the benefit of Abdullah". According to the definition of corruption as defined by the Anti-Corruption Agency, translated as below:

“Any officer of the civil service using his/her position or post in the service to obtain bribes/benefits regarding any decision made by the person or making a decision regarding any matter, in which he/her, his/her family members, friends or partners have a stake in the matter, whether direct or indirect.”

Abdullah Badawi's role in the scandal skirts dangerously close to the definition of corruption. Besides Mastek Sdn Bhd, another Malaysian company implicated in the report is Tradeyear Sdn Bhd. Listed as it's non-contractual beneficiaries are Faek Ahmad as well as a certain "Mr. Abdullah Badawi".

Tradeyear Sdn Bhd was allocated 9.2 million barrels of oil, after paying surcharges (aka bribes) of US$116,000. 9.2 million barrels of oil translates to a profit of US$6 million. Looks like a certain "Mr. Abdullah Badawi" is laughing all the way to the bank.

A simple search of the report turns out another two Malaysian companies that implicated in kickbacks, Jawala Corp Sdn Bhd of Dato Majid Khan (US$1 million) and Petma Oil of Dato Paduka L.M.N Affendi (US$110,000). To it's credit, Petronas was charged with surcharges but refused to pay.

As far back as June 2006, Teresa Kok (MP for Seputeh) had raised the issue in Parliament. Now it is May 2007 and no action has been taken against the companies mentioned nor has any satisfactory explanation been given. It's no wonder that Parliament leaks. The report can be found here. (By Goldenhub)

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

In September 2006, Malaysia Today published this piece by Matthias Chang:

THE FATHER OF ALL SCAMS
CORRUPTION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL

Mastek Sdn Bhd: Owned By Noor Asiah Mahmood Supported By Pak Lah Made Obscene Commissions & Gave Kickbacks At The Expense Of Iraqis Suffering Under 12 Brutal Years of Sanctions

An Entire Family In The Cesspool of Corruption

Scomi
ECM Libra
UN Oil-for-Food Programme

The Dirty Little Secret Of Pak Lah: “Mr Clean”

Reading the headlines in the New Straits Times and the spin churned out by Pak Lah’s spin doctors, we were led to believe that Pak Lah personifies integrity and honesty.

But is Pak Lah really “clean?”

Pak Lah did launch a campaign against corruption and some patsies, politicians and businessmen who were no longer useful in his agenda were put on show trials, orchestrated to project his “Teflon” image.

Only just recently, Mr. Clean called on Muslim countries “to step up efforts to fight corruption.” He was quoted as saying that, “the current condition that Muslim countries find themselves in is deeply alarming and distressing. I am saddened when we consider Islam’s glorious legacy of culturally and scientifically advanced civilisations, all built on solid foundation of ethics and moral values.”

Like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Pak Lah has a façade of Cleanliness but hides a rotten core!

What do you make of a person who preaches ethics and morality to fellow Muslims but in practice commits the most blatant corrupt practices?

This is a US$800 million question.

This is the scam committed by a Malaysian company supported by our Mr. Clean, Pak Lah in the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme.

An international correspondent described it well when he said that:

“It was meant to be the “Mother of all Humanitarian Programs”, but has turned out to be the Father of all Scams!”

And a Malaysian company was right in the middle of this cesspool.

This is the DIRTY SECRET of Pak Lah!

READ ON.

Let me explain the Dark Side of Mr. Clean.

There are two reports on the Iraq Oil for Food scandal, namely:

1) Charles Duelfer - Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the Director of the Central Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, September 30, 2004 (the “Duelfer Report” in short); and

2) Paul A. Volcker – Independent Enquiry Committee into The United Nations Oil-for Food Programme (Manipulation of the Oil-for-Food Programme by the Iraqi Regime) October 27, 2005 (the “Volcker Report” in short).

Both reports have named Pak Lah’s connection to the Oil-for-Food Programme via Malaysian companies.

The relevant companies are:

1) Mastek Sdn Bhd (50717-A)

Shareholders: Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd - 379,200 shares Noor Asiah Binti Mahmood - 100,800 shares (Sister-in-Law of Pak Lah)

2) Tradeyear Sdn Bhd (361316-K)

Shareholders: Tradeyear Ltd - 2 shares

The Volcker Report specifically named Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as a “Non-Contractual Beneficiary.”

The Report defines such a beneficiary as “The name of the individuals and entities other than the named contracting party that were named in the Ministry of Oil records as the intended beneficiary of the oil allocation. In some instances, the named beneficiary is an official of the contracting party.”

The Volcker Report indicated that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had written a letter to Taha Yassin Ramadan on November 13, 2000 recommending a delegation headed by Mr. Faek Ahmad Shareef and Noor Asiah Mahmood (the sister-in-law of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) for the purposes of obtaining oil allocation.

The question that needs to be asked of Pak Lah is – “Why did you make those recommendations when the two companies referred to above were merely acting as middleman?”

Petronas, our the national oil company was already involved legitimately in the Oil-for-Food programme, and as the Volcker Report showed clearly that when the Saddam Government demanded kickbacks, Petronas refused to give kickbacks!

In the Volcker Report, it is clearly stated that a kickback of US$10,916,241 were demanded of Mastek Sdn Bhd, of which US$9,803,960 were paid, leaving a balance of US$1,112,281 unpaid.

In the case of Tradeyear Sdn Bhd, the sum of US$116,870 of kickback was demanded and the amount was paid in full.

The amount of moneys involved in the transactions was staggering. We can only imagine the amount of commissions earned by Mastek Sdn Bhd, owned by Noor Asiah Mahmod, the sister-in-law of Pak Lah.

While Petronas took up only 13,276,782 barrels of oil valued at US$264,111,195 from an allocation of 14,100,000 barrels, the above two stated companies in comparison took the following:

Mastek Sdn Bhd: Allocated: 45,000,000 barrels of oil
Took : 43,614,685 barrels of oil
Value : US$884,919,027

Tradeyear Sdn Bhd: Allocated : 9,200,000 barrels of oil
Took : 9,094,996
Value : US$171,771,487

When we add the two values, the amount earned exceeds US$1 billion!!

From interviews conducted with one Mr. Jaya Sudir (August 19, 2005) the Volcker Report states that Mr. Faek Ahmad Shareef had leveraged his connection with Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. A review of Iraqi documents confirms that Iraqi officials associated Mr. Faek Ahmad Shareef with Mr. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as references to Mr. Shareef’s oil allocation in SOMO (State Oil Marketing Organisation) documents appear in some instances as “Mr. Faek Ahmad Shareef/for the benefit of Abdullah.”

In the case of Mastek Sdn Bhd, Pak Lah’s sister-in-law was directly involved in the payment of kickbacks. Pak Lah who was then the Deputy Prime Minister had admitted writing the letter of recommendation in support of the company’s application of oil allocation under the Oil-for-Food programme. There is therefore a “conflict of interest” when Pak Lah as the Deputy Prime Minister made the said recommendation.

Additionally, while serving as Deputy Prime Minister and without the knowledge of the then Prime Minister and or the Cabinet, Pak Lah placed himself in a situation whereby his personal as well as the government’s integrity have been brought into question.

What Action Must Be Taken?

In a similar situation that obtained in India, where the then foreign minister, Mr Natwar Singh was alleged to have benefited from the Oil-for-Food programme, the said minister was removed from the highest decision making body of the ruling party (the Indian Congress Party). Mr. Natwar Singh subsequently resigned from the government, notwithstanding his protests of innocence. The scandal was also alleged to have implicated Mr. Natwar Singh’s son.

It is inconceivable that Pak Lah having called upon all Muslim countries to fight corruption should be allowed to continue with his charade and to remain in office as the Prime Minister of Malaysia and President of Umno.

Pak Lah by any measure is tainted by the corrupt practice of his sister-in-law, Ms Noor Asiah Mahmood who has admitted making kickbacks in the Volcker Report.

When the scandal first broke out, Pak Lah pretended not to know anything about it. Pak Lah did not inform the government and the Malaysian people that his sister-in-law was a key figure in the scandal. It was only after the publication of the Volcker and Duelfer Reports, that he “claimed” that he was not involved in the scandal. In such scandals, it is often difficult to establish the money trail.

But what is important is that Pak Lah is tainted by his recommendation of his sister-in-law for the oil allocation and the kickbacks.

If it was not right for Pak Lah to approve the ECM Libra-Avenue merger because of a conflict of interest, as his son-in-law was the beneficiary, likewise it is not right for Pak Lah when he was the Deputy Prime Minister, to recommend his sister-in-law. They made obscene profits at the expense of fellow Muslims who were suffering from 12 years of brutal economic sanctions! 500,000 children died as a result of the sanctions. This is Blood Money!

We demand a Judicial Inquiry into this sordid affair!

Pak Lah must resign as President of Umno and Prime Minister of Malaysia!

Pakatan Rakyat is losing the plot

The latest controversy involving Yahya Shahri, added to the MIA Port Kelang State Assemblyman, does not augur well for PKR. PKR already has to run twice as fast just to stay in pace with PAS and DAP. Falling behind PAS and DAP certainly does not help PKR one bit.

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Selangor MB’s suspended aide quits

(The Malaysian Insider) – Last night, Yahya Shahri, the suspended special officer to Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, resigned in a huff. Yahya told an impromptu gathering of supporters in Shah Alam that he quit with immediate effect from the MB’s office as well as Selangor secretary of Parti Keadilan Rakyat in reaction to his two-month suspension announced a day earlier.

His reputation is under a cloud following the action taken by the menteri besar to facilitate investigations into alleged corrupt practices by the Anti-Corruption Agency. Khalid said Yahya had been informed of the action through short messaging service in order “spare the officer the shock when the (suspension) letter is delivered".

Obviously, Yahya is unhappy with his suspension, declaring that he had lost confidence in the menteri besar. He also called for Khalid to step down as the PKR boss for Selangor and wants party advisor Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to take over. He told Malaysiakini that he would be meeting Anwar this afternoon after speaking to and conveying his quit decision to PKR president and Anwar’s wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail yesterday.

Khalid had told reporters the decision to suspend Yahya was made following allegations of improper conduct. Yahya was said to have issued recommendations for four companies to obtain contracts from local authorities in Selangor. The Selangor MB explained that he had to maintain transparency and integrity in agreement with PKR’s partners in Pakatan Rakyat – PAS and DAP.

"We are sincere. We want to do it right. If the officer is not guilty, he will be called back to work. We will take appropriate action if the officer is found guilty," he added. He had instructed his political secretary to obtain more information from PKR members who made the allegations.

Yahya's supporters had gathered in protest against the suspension at Khalid's official Shah Alam residence yesterday but left after a short while, proceeding to Yahya's house also in Shah Alam.

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

There appears to be a lot of grumblings and unhappiness in the way PKR is managing things. This is a far departure from the way PAS is running Perak or DAP, Penang, which has received mostly praises. From Day One, many sceptics have expressed reservations about PKR and Tan Sri Khalid. They point out to the fact that PKR has inherited ‘Umno culture’ while Khalid, ‘a product of Umno cronyism’, has a lot of ‘baggage’ to his name.

Of course, there are many ex-Umno personalities in PKR, Anwar Ibrahim included. But PKR is not all ex-Umno, I would argue in reply to the critics. And Khalid may be a product of Umno cronyism during his corporate days. But we must not judge him by his Umno past. We have to look at his present track record to come to a conclusion as to whether he has shed his ‘evil ways’ or whether the old habits are still very strongly entrenched in the way he does things.

While no one appears to have any misgivings about the PAS or DAP Chief Minister/Menteri Besar or State EXCO Members, the jury is out on the PKR crowd. People would rather treat the PKR personalities with suspicion until they prove themselves otherwise. In other words, they are assumed guilty until proven innocent. And this is most unfortunate indeed because there are many PKR Members of Parliament, State Assemblymen and office bearers who are not only NOT ex-Umno but are sincerely doing a good job, if not comparable, better than the PAS and DAP people -- in particular the women of PKR who not only work hard but have gone through a lot of sacrifices in pursuit of their ideals.

But is there not a Malay proverb that goes: one buffalo brings mud and the entire herd gets muddy? So all it needs is one muddy buffalo to muddy the entire herd. And this is the dilemma facing PKR. And the actions of people such as the PKR State Assemblyman for Port Kelang only adds fuel to the fire and make things worse.

This particular PKR State Assemblyman from Port Kelang is MIA (missing in action). He has of course been seen all over the place but it is mostly when he is frolicking with the Umno people, eating and drinking at various expensive restaurants. While the DAP Member of Parliament for Port Kelang, Charles Santiago, and the DAP State Assemblyman for Pandamaran (also under the Port Kelang Parliamentary constituency), Ronnie Liu, work their butts off, the PKR State Assemblyman for Port Kelang parties with Umno people all night long.

Yes, one PKR buffalo from Port Kelang muddies the entire PKR herd of buffaloes. Never mind that the other 30 PKR Selangor buffaloes are clean and are doing a great job. It is what this one delinquent buffalo does that gets noticed, not what the other 30 good buffaloes do that matters.

And this is what PKR must guard against. As it stands now, public opinion is not in PKR’s favour. It has to work doubly-hard and stay doubly-clean compared to PAS and DAP. In spite of that, people will still look at PKR with suspicion in their eyes and reservations in their hearts. And one muddy buffalo is all it needs for people to say, “Ah, I told you, the PKR people are all crooks!”

The latest controversy involving Yahya Shahri, added to the MIA Port Kelang State Assemblyman, does not augur well for PKR. PKR already has to run twice as fast just to stay in pace with PAS and DAP. Falling behind PAS and DAP certainly does not help PKR one bit.

And why has the Port Kelang State Assemblyman not been taken to task? And why must Yahya resign in protest and instigate his supporters to demonstrate? Yahya should have welcomed the move to suspend him for two months until his name is cleared. This will give an impression that he is not taking things personally and has nothing to hide and that he only has the interest of the party’s image at heart. Now it appears like he only cares about himself and not about the party, like a true ex-Umno person.

Khalid, too, appears to be running around in circles. He makes snap announcements in a popularity exercise and then retracts them later when he discovers that it can’t be done after all due to legislation limitations or contractual obligations. This only strengthens the perception that PKR has absolutely no experience in running governments and that their policies are not thought through carefully before the announcements are made. Are a bunch of amateurs in charge of the Selangor government? We would like to believe not, but it is getting harder and harder to believe that this is not so.

PAS is also compounding the problem. They forget that they are just a member of the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, and are not the federal government or the absolute government in the states, in particular Selangor. What’s with this protest against the ‘sexy’ singers? If aurat is such a big issue, then they should also protest against the football match. The 22 footballers will be wearing shorts, which means that their aurat is uncovered. Why protest against two female singers who reveal too much flesh but ignore the 22 male footballers who also reveal too much?

It appears like these PAS people are discriminating against women. If women reveal too much flesh, then PAS gets all excited. But men are allowed to violate the Islamic rule by revealing too much flesh. That is not a problem. Should not rules apply to everyone, men as well as women? Why are only women targeted for reprisals whereas men get away with whatever they want to do?

Two days ago, a policeman at Putra Heights raped an underage girl. The girl was not sexily dressed. She was not even a criminal but a mere pillion rider. But she was detained and taken to the police station and raped. Why has PAS kept silent on this matter? Where is that massive demonstration to protest police officers raping underage girls? Is fighting with the Sultan of Selangor over whether female singers not dressed like Arabian Bedouins should be permitted to sing in public more important than an underage girl being raped by a policeman?

And all this talk about Islamising the country is frightening the voters. Pakatan Rakyat did not come into office because of just PAS members’ votes. Many non-PAS members -- Malays, Chinese and Indians included -- voted for Pakatan Rakyat. But they did not vote in favour of an Islamic State. They voted in favour of seeing a strong opposition and possibly a two-party system finally emerging in Malaysia after 51 years of Umno domination.

Yes, the voters voted in favour of Pakatan Rakyat, not in favour of PAS. PAS just happens to be a member of Pakatan Rakyat, that’s all. So PAS must do things with the interest of Pakatan Rakyat at heart, not in the interest of its own party. Is this something so hard to understand? Five years is not that long. See what happened in 2004 compared to 1999. 2012/2013 may see a reversal of the 2008 success, just like 2004 was the reversal of 1999, if PAS and PKR are not careful. And thus far PAS and PKR have not offered the voters any reason to vote them back into office come the next election.

Malaysia’s two systems of justice

Last month, Umno Johor said that the greatest mistake they made was in giving the non-Malay immigrants citizenship in August 1957. Now that they have been given citizenship they show their ingratitude by voting for the opposition.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Verse 13, chapter Al-Hujurat of the Quran, can be translated to read: "O Mankind! We have created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you in the sight of Allah is he who has most righteous (taqwa) among of you. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware."

With this verse from the Quran, Islam declares equality for all mankind. Islam respects a human for being a human and not for any other reason. Islam does not distinguish between the different races, different groups of people, or different ‘colours’.

The Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) addressed the people signifying that concept during his last pilgrimage, saying: "O People! Your God is one; your father is one; no preference of an Arab neither over non-Arab nor of a non-Arab over an Arab or red over black or black over red except for the most righteous. Verily the most honoured of you is the most righteous."

This is to assert that, in Islam, no nation (community) is created above other nations and therefore no nation can be placed above another. Man's worth in the eyes of men and in the eyes of God is determined by his skills, by the good he does, and by his obedience to God.

In another tradition, the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him, was asked, "Who among men is most favoured by God?”

The Prophet replied, "A man who does the most good to people."

Excerpts of a speech by Imam Mohamed Baianonie at the Islamic Center of Raleigh, N.C.

ABIM is upset that I have used coarse or abrasive language when whacking them. They don’t mind being whacked as long as I do it politely. Okay, let us humour them then. If they like it gentle then let us give it to them gently. After all, not everyone likes their sex wild so I suppose that goes for how they get whacked as well, in and out of bed.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that 90% of the tax is paid by the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese. Tun Dr Mahathir cried during one Umno general assembly because, he said, he had failed to change the attitude and mentality of the Malays. When asked, after he had retired on 1 November 2003, what was his greatest regret; Tun Dr Mahathir replied that his greatest regret is not being able to change the Malays in the 22 years that he was Prime Minister of Malaysia. Tun Dr Mahathir once lamented: why can’t the Malays be more like the Chinese?

Yes, I know, many Malaysia Today readers hate Tun Dr Mahathir. Nevertheless, as much as you may hate the Tun, we should not overlook the good things he has done or said even though you may hold the opinion that he did more bad than good. After all, the British were colonialists and there can be nothing good about colonialism. However, when the British left, they left behind a good education, administrative and legal system.

Unfortunately, after we took over the running of this country, we Malayans messed the entire thing up beyond recognition. Notwithstanding all that, we still need to recognise the good the British did amongst all that bad, as much as we may dislike the British. Imagine if the Portuguese, Dutch or Spanish had been our masters until 31 August 1957. Malaysia, today, would be an absolute mess and we would not need Umno to mess the county up any further.

Okay, back to the issue of the day: whacking ABIM, Umno and the Malays-Muslims as gentle as I can. Read what Imam Mohamed Baianonie said. The message is clear. And it is the message of the Quran and of the Prophet Muhammad. Do I really need to explain things further or is what Imam Mohamed Baianonie said self-explanatory enough?

What is Islam? Is Islam just about rituals? What would rituals be without akidah? And what is the foundation of Islam? The foundation of Islam is justice. Islam is all about justice and nothing but justice. Without justice there would be no Islam. Muslims talk about the syariah and about the hudud legal system. Is not the syariah and hudud about justice? Are Muslims not taught that they must subscribe to the syariah and hudud because these are God’s laws and God deals with justice?

You just can’t separate justice from Islam. Without justice there would be no Islam. Islam would not exist without justice. Islam, with mere rituals minus the justice, would not be Islam. Saddam Hussein performed the rituals of Islam. But Saddam was not just. So Saddam was ousted and hanged by the neck until he died because he just performed the rituals of Islam minus the justice that Islam makes mandatory. Justice, justice, justice. That is what Islam decrees. And a ‘good’ Muslim who performs the rituals of Islam but is not just is put to death. That is Islam and that is how Islam dispenses justice.

ABIM says we should not whack the Muslims. And since, by law, Malays are Muslims then we should not whack the Malays as well. But is it okay for Malays to whack the non-Malays and non-Muslims?

What if the non-Muslims were to say they do not recognise Islam or the Quran because Islam and the Quran have been distorted over the last 1,400 years? What if the non-Muslims were to say that Islam and the Quran have been changed and are no longer the original Islam and Quran that Prophet Muhammad introduced 1,400 years ago? If the non-Muslims say this then they would be committing a crime under the Sedition Act. The non-Muslims would face punishment because they are not sensitive to the feelings of the Muslims.

But Muslims are permitted to say they do not recognise Christianity and the Bible because Christianity and the Bible have changed and have been distorted over the last 2,000 years and are no longer the original Christianity and Bible which Jesus introduced 2,000 years ago. Muslims can openly say this in the Friday prayer sermons and it is not seditious, even if this is not sensitive to the feelings of the Christians.

And why can Muslims say this but Christians can’t? Because Islam is the official religion of Malaysia and Christianity is ‘tolerated’ as long as it stays out of the way of Islam.

Sure, there are certain beliefs in Islam and certain beliefs in Christianity and both are entitled to their own beliefs. But while Muslims can openly express their beliefs, Christians may not. And Christians may not because Islam is the official religion of Malaysia. And Muslims say that Islam is a tolerant religion and that Islam believes in justice.

Muslims do not understand the meaning of the word justice. Justice, to the Muslims, is only what is good for the Muslims. And what is not good for the Muslims is unjust. And justice to the non-Muslims does not matter. Being unjust to the non-Muslims is not being unjust. This is because non-Muslims do not have equal rights to Muslims. Non-Muslims are immigrants and immigrants are second-class citizens.

Last month, Umno Johor said that the greatest mistake they made was in giving the non-Malay immigrants citizenship in August 1957. Now that they have been given citizenship they show their ingratitude by voting for the opposition. Yes, non-Malays, even those born in Malaysia, are immigrants. And, being immigrants, they must vote Barisan Nasional. And if they do not vote for Barisan Nasional then they are ungrateful.

Yes, voting is your right. This is your right according to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Malays can vote for whomsoever they would like to vote for because the Constitution allows them to do so. Malays, therefore, can vote for the opposition. But, if you are non-Malay, then you must vote for Barisan Nasional because you are an immigrant. If you vote for the opposition then you are a traitor, you are ungrateful, and it was a great mistake giving you citizenship in 1957.

Tun Dr Mahathir’s father was born in India. But Tun Dr Mahathir can vote opposition. He can even oppose Umno like he is doing so now. In fact, he can even become the Prime Minister. He is not an ungrateful immigrant who should be sent back to India. Tian Chua, however, can’t oppose Umno. Tian Chua, whose family settled in Malaya long before the Portuguese came in 1511, is an immigrant. And if he is not happy and if he opposes Umno then he should go back to China. And Umno Johor regrets giving Tian Chua citizenship in 1957 but does not regret giving Tun Dr Mahathir citizenship.

Why? Because Tun Dr Mahathir is Muslim while Tian Chua is not. But if Tian Chua circumcises and takes on the Muslim name of Musa Bin Susah and marries a Malay woman, then he need not go back to China and Umno does not regret giving him citizenship in 1957.

The Malays have a very warped view of justice. Malays practice two standards of justice. There is one standard for the Malays and another for the non-Malays. And 90% of the tax is paid by the non-Malays and 10% by the Malays, says Tun Dr Mahathir. But 10% of the scholarships must go to the non-Malays and 90% to the Malays. And when they propose to change this to 40% for the non-Malays and 60% for the Malays, the Malays raise a hue and cry. And they call this justice. And they say Islam is about justice.

If this is an example of Islamic justice then I just shudder to think what would happen if Muslims start becoming unjust.