Thursday 30 April 2009

Indira Ghandi's Conversion Case: The Untenable Arguments of Muslim- NGOs (PEMBELA ) and PKR MP Zulkifli Noordin

Read here for more in Malaysian Insider

K Patmanathan, a Muslim convert, is challenging the Cabinet decision to ban parents from secretly converting children in a case that has strained race relations, saying the ruling " contradicts the federal constitution, it is illegal and not applicable on Muslims including myself and my children. "

His lawyer has confirmed the contents of the court document but refused further comment.

Patmanathan has gone into hiding with the youngest child, a baby girl, following the civil court order as Indira seeks help from the police to get her daughter back.
Read here for more
in malaysiakini
Related Article:

"... Last week, five ministers sat down and came up with the policy that a child is to be raised in the faith of the parents when they were married, even if one spouse then decides to become a Muslim.

For seemingly the majority of Muslims, it was NOT received very well.

If denying the right of the
converted Muslim parent to raise the children in his or her faith is UNFAIR, how is it fair to deny the unconverted parent the right to raise the children in her or his faith?

I'm going to stop beating about the bush and get straight to the point: The basic foundation of the PROTESTS by the Muslim groups is that Islam is the one true religion, the faith of the one true God, the Absolute Truth and that every OTHER religion on the face of the earth is FALSE. False deities, false faiths, false, false, false.

As such, certain rights are inalienable to the Muslims, and absolutely alienated from the non-Muslims.

I write this as a Malay, ergo a Muslim. I write this as a Muslim who looks on uncomfortably at all the custody battles and conversion arguments.

I write this as a Muslim who finds it hard to accept that it's okay to assume primacy over others, simply because their beliefs are considered false … rendering them as LESS THAN WORTHY of the same consideration as Muslims.

Islam is a religion of justice, fairness, equality and compassion. It's well past time that we prove it, isn't it?

And stop scaring the pants out of, and pissing off, our fellow Malaysian brothers and sisters.

They will all end up going to hell, of course, but you never know, YOU might end up joining them. "

-Yusseri Yusoff

They Will All Go to Hell, But YOU Might End Up Joining Them


Yusseri Yusoff

If there is one thing that demonstrates that we are probably just a bunch of people who happen to live on the same land, it is the issue of religious conversion. This is the one thing that shows, starkly, why we still have some distance to go before we can safely say that we are one united nation.

Last week, five ministers sat down and came up with the policy that a child is to be raised in the faith of the parents when they were married even if one spouse then decides to become a Muslim. It was a decision that was greeted warmly by the non-Muslims, as well as the odd Muslim or two. But for seemingly the majority of Muslims, it was not received very well.

Firstly, let's consider the reason why this policy even needed to be made and announced.

Marriage Breakdown Because of Conversion to Islam

The core is that there has been a slew of cases where a marriage broke down and one of the spouses converted into Islam. And in what feels a bit like a “package deal” the saudara/i baru then converts the children into Islam too. Usually, well … obviously, without the consent of the other parent.

The cases are numerous, more numerous than most people think, and invariably they involve INDIAN families. Why that is so, I'd imagine that the sociologists could tell us eventually.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the lawyer who is probably one of the most prominent persons involved in these sort of stuff, was quick to laud the decision though he expressed reservations as to how the policy would actually translate into practice.

He also wrote that in his opinion, the policy seems to adhere to the Constitution, where the word “parent” is also to be understood to mean “parents”.

Why was that pertinent?

Because Zulkifli Noordin (and it had to be him, didn't it?), among others, objected to the policy, stating that there was already precedent in this matter, citing the case of R. Subashini where the court decided that under Article 12 (4) of the Constitution, any one of the parent or legal guardian is allowed to decide on the faith of the child(ren).
[Note: PKR MP Zulkifli Noordin had said, " For me, Islam comes FIRST. (I am)a Muslim FIRST, a Member of Parliament, SECOND. We Muslims have been tolerant enough all this while, for so many years we have been asked, forced to live under the law that is NOT Islam. We have been forced." Read here for more - Malaysian Unplug]
At that point, we start to slide down the slippery slope of logical fallacy and vacuous reasoning.


I say that because, well, let's examine the protests made by those who object to the policy.

Zulkifli argues that the matter is resolved in spite of the policy because the court asserted that one of the parents can decide which faith the child is to be in.

What Zulkifli did not say, but seemed to imply, is that the one parent is to obviously be the Muslim parent.

What Zulkifli did not say, but seemed to imply, is that the moment one of the parents converts into Islam, that parent is automatically elevated in status and therefore has the upper hand.

But then, Zulkifli has also always believed that converting a child into Islam is not really conversion but more of a reversion. Because he believes that every child that has not reached puberty is considered Muslim under certain interpretations of Syaria law.

This, of course, might be rather shocking news to the parents of the children, but try telling that to Zulkifli.

Similarly, the Muslim coalition of NGOs calling itself PEMBELA protests the policy where one of the members, Yusri Mohamad, said: “In Article 12 section 4 of the Constitution, the faith of a child who is not yet an adult is determined by the parents. The courts have interpreted that the parents have the right to decide regardless if they are the husband or wife.

PEMBELA's argument was that the policy would deny the parent who converted his or her right and responsibility over the future of the children, saying that it would NOT be fair to those who want to convert into Islam.

What is not said, but seemingly implied, is that as long as one of the parents is a Muslim, then he or she can convert the children, even if the other one disagrees. Because as a Muslim, the parent has a responsibility to raise the children to be faithful and good Muslims.


To make clear why this reasoning breaks down, let's flip it the other way.

Say that the other parent who has not converted decides that the children should be in the religion of the unconverted parent, how is the right to decide not applied to the parent?

Or, let's say that the other parent who has not converted then decides to convert from, for example, Hinduism to Catholicism, just as his or her erstwhile partner converts into Islam. How is the “right to decide” not applied to the now Catholic parent?

If denying the right of the converted Muslim parent to raise the children in his or her faith is unfair, how is it fair to deny the unconverted parent the right to raise the children in her or his faith?


Wait, you know what, I'm going to stop beating about the bush and get straight to the point.

The basic foundation of the protests by the Muslim groups is that Islam is the one true religion, the faith of the one true God, the Absolute Truth and that every other religion on the face of the earth is false. False deities, false faiths, false, false, false.

As such, certain rights are inalienable to the Muslims, and absolutely alienated from the non-Muslims.

And this reasoning scares the pants out of some non-Muslims in Malaysia, and pisses off a lot of the others. In some cases, achieving both at the same time.


I write this as a Malay, ergo a Muslim. I write this as a Muslim who looks on uncomfortably at all the custody battles and conversion arguments.

I write this as a Muslim who finds it hard to accept that it's okay to assume primacy over others, simply because their beliefs are considered false … rendering them as less than worthy of the same consideration as Muslims.

Islam is a religion of justice, fairness, equality and compassion. It's well past time that WE prove it, isn't it?

And STOP scaring the pants out of, and PISSING OFF , our fellow Malaysian brothers and sisters. They will all end up going to hell, of course, but you never know, you might end up joining them.
-Yusseri Yusoff

Wednesday 29 April 2009

Indira Ghandi's Conversion Case: We Commend PM Najib's Cabinet Decision . IT IS A MORALLY CORRECT DECISION


We Say,

Harakah Daily reported Ketua Dewan Ulamak PAS Pusat, Dato' Mohamed Daud as saying:
"Ini sudah bercanggah. Kalau kes itu berkaitan dengan agama ia mesti melalui Mahkamah Syariah. Kalau sekali pun kabinet mahu membuat keputusan, namun dalam hal agama ia mesti dirujuk kepada jabatan berkaitan.

"Keputusan yang dibuat kabinet di bawah perdana menteri baru jelas bagi menjaga kepentingan survival politik Umno untuk mempengaruhi orang bukan Islam di negara ini."
The Ketua Dewan Ulamak PAS Pusat, Dato' Mohamed Daud is wrong on this issue and PAS should not politicise this issue.

In our view, the BN/UMNO Cabinet made a morally correct decision in protecting the baby and the children, the rights of the mother and, more so, in safeguarding the good name of Islam. And we commend Prime Minister Najib and his Cabinet for this decision.

Recent controversies with regard to conversions to Islam and the arbitrary role played by the Syariah courts in adjudicating against the rights of affected families and individuals have divided the nation and have divided families for far too long, and all in the name of Islam.

These highly charged controversies have also given Malaysia, a country known and respected for its 'moderate' Islam, a BAD name and have left a very bad taste among non Muslims and among morally upright Muslims in the country and elsewhere.

While PAS has been quick to accuse BN/UMNO of politicising issues of public and national interest, it is now doing exactly the SAME thing.

The division in our fragile Malaysian society will be made worse if PAS, as a significant member of the popular Pakatan Rakyat, continues to play divisive politics on matters of religion. By doing so, PAS is no better than those it had accused ie UMNO.

We say to PAS: STOP making this into a political issue.
As an Islamic political party, YOU have bigger role to play to unite Malaysians of different religions instead of deepening the religious divide.

-Malaysian Unplug

According to the NST report, PM Najib's Cabinet has decided that
  1. civil courts are the right place to dissolve a marriage in the event of a spouse converting to Islam.

  2. if either spouse were to convert to Islam, the children should follow the faith that the parents had agreed on at the time of marriage, or implied by their common religion.

  3. the attorney-general should review and propose changes to the law to prevent any future complications to the family unit when a spouse converted to Islam.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said yesterday:
"The cabinet feels there is an implied and constructive contract between husband and wife that their children should be brought up in accordance with the common religion at the time of marriage or whatever religion they had agreed their offspring should practise (at the time of marriage).

Conversion should come with responsibility for two reasons. The first is to protect the innocent party from being treated unfairly and victimised.

The second is to protect the new religion of the person who converted to the new faith or in this case, Islam.

The marriage followed civil law and the cabinet stands by the principle that a civil marriage should be dissolved in a manner provided for by civil courts.

Conversion to another religion is not a ground for automatic dissolution of a civil marriage.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Maj-Gen (R) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, who is in charge of Islamic affairs, will meet the relevant authorities (like the Perak Islamic Affairs Department) to settle this in accordance with the cabinet decision.

We expect the minister (Jamil) to return the children to their mother.

If it (amendment to laws) affects Islamic enactments it will be brought to the sultans' attention. We would like to hear from the public, if they feel there are loopholes.

We welcome feedback. It cannot be resolved by the government alone. As the prime minister said, the era where the government knows everything has ended."
Nazri said religion should not be used as a tool to allow a party to a marriage to run away from his or her responsibility as husband or wife.

Nazri said the question of custody in Indira's case did not arise at this juncture as the marriage had yet to be dissolved.

Nazri urged the public and non-governmental organisations to provide feedback.

The decision came following the controversy in Perak where K. Pathmanathan, 40, converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ridzuan Abdullah.

He later converted his children with wife M. Indira Ghandi without informing her.

He has also been trying to get custody of two of the children, Karan Dinish, 11, and Tevi Darsiny, 12.

The third child, baby Prasana Diksa is already in his custody.

Both Indira and Ridzuan were Hindus at the time of their marriage.



Excerpts: Read here for more

Ketua Dewan Ulamak PAS Pusat, Dato' Mohamed Daud berkata, kabinet bukannya mahkamah yang boleh membuat keputusan mengekalkan agama anak biar pun ibu bapa sudah memeluk Islam.

"Ini sudah bercanggah. Kalau kes itu berkaitan dengan agama ia mesti melalui Mahkamah Syariah. Kalau sekali pun kabinet mahu membuat keputusan, namun dalam hal agama ia mesti dirujuk kepada jabatan berkaitan.

"Percanggahan ini terang-terang berlaku dan ia memperlihatkan keputusan kabinet hanya bagi kepentingan politik Umno," katanya ketika dihubungi di sini.

Ekoran kenyataan tersebut banyak pihak membantah termasuk Persatuan Peguam Syarie Malaysia dan pemimpin-pemimpin politik.

Mohamed berkata, kabinet tidak boleh mengetepikan peranan Mahkamah Syariah dalam menangani isu membabitkan agama Islam.

"Keputusan yang dibuat kabinet di bawah perdana menteri baru jelas bagi menjaga kepentingan survival politik Umno untuk mempengaruhi orang bukan Islam di negara ini," katanya.

Beliau berkata, keputusan dibuat kerajaan BN tanpa merujuk kepada jabatan-jabatan berkaitan hal ehwal agama Islam.

"Ini jelas menunjukkan betapa lemahnya institusi agama berada di bawah pentadbiran kerajaan BN sekarang," ujarnya.

Watch this Video Clip:
PAS's Dr. Mahfuz is Politicising the Issue, NOT UMNO/BN.
In Civilised Societies, the Rights of the Mother to the Baby , not the Father, Take Precedence.
PAS is Dead Wrong !
(Malaysian Unplug)


A MOTHER’S RIGHTS: No religious basis to convert baby


Dr. Ibrahim Abu Bakar
(Associate Professor of the Department of Theology and Philosophy, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia)

Excerpts: Read here for more
As a lecturer of Islamic theology and philosophy, I am of the view that K. Patmanathan, who is now known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, should return Prasana Diksa to her mother.

The Hindu mother has every right to look after the baby.

Islamic theology does NOT impose any religious duty on the father to take away the baby girl from her Hindu mother.

This baby should NOT be prohibited by her father from being breastfed by her mother.

If he does, he is wrong and evil in Islamic theological view because Islam does not impose any religious duty on any baby regardless whether she was born to a Hindu or Muslim mother. Islam imposes Islamic religious duties upon mature men and women, not upon babies and children. Please let this baby girl be breastfed by her mother.

Some Muslims hold the view that when a husband or wife converts to Islam, he or she has the right in Islamic law to take the children with him or her and then convert the children to Islam. Islamic law does not say so.

The "Islamness" of the children is not taken into account in Islamic theology. Islamic theology will count on the "Islamness" of human beings who are mature.

The Islamic terms for mature, sensible and responsible human beings are "aqil" and "baligh". Patmanathan has been supported by some ignorant Muslims on the pretext of protecting the purity of Islam and his three children. These Muslims are wrong.

There is no Islamic legal basis for Muslims to help someone take away a baby from her mother and then convert that baby to Islam. Islam does not count on the converted babies and Islam does not reward those who have converted the babies to Islam.

The babies have NO Islamic religious duties and, therefore, they are neither rewarded nor punished for such actions.

Therefore, I support the decision by the prime minister and his cabinet that the civil marriage has to be settled by the civil court and the religion of their children be the religion at the time their parents were married in civil law. With this decision, the baby should be returned to Indira as she needs to be breastfed and cared for.

I think the police should arrest Patmanathan if he is reluctant to deliver Prasana Diksa back to Indira after the court decided to give her interim custody of her three children.

Patmanathan is a BAD Muslim if he does not hand back Prasana Diksa to her mother and does not pay compensation to Indira for looking after the baby and for breastfeeding her for two years. Being breastfed by a Hindu mother does not make the baby an infidel. She is still eligible to convert to Islam after she grows up and becomes an adult.

Patmanathan himself drank the breast milk from his Hindu mother and consumed food and drinks, probably prohibited by Islamic law, until he reached the age of 40 before he suddenly decided to convert to Islam.

He should NOT impose his Islam-ness on his children. Let them be what they want to be like he did. He grew up as a Hindu boy, a Hindu youth and then a Hindu adult before he changed his Hinduism to Islam after he had probably encountered problems in his marriage.

I do not support non-Muslims who convert to Islam just because they want to run away from their responsibilities as husbands or wives or because they want to marry Muslim women or Muslim men.



Marina Mahathir

Excerpts: Read here for more

One of the major themes of Islam is JUSTICE.

Over and over again, the Quran underscores that to be just is always what to be a faithful adherent is all about.
In Surah An-Nisa, Verse 35, God says:
" O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (than ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do.”
It says nothing about whom one has to be just to, except that they be those who deserve it.

Certainly justice is NOT limited to only those of the SAME faith.

Thus, I welcome the announcement (by the Cabinet) that minor-aged children of people who convert will be brought up in the ORIGINAL religion that their parents were when they got married.

This is to STOP the sort of vindictive MEN who try to inflict as much as misery as they can on women they no longer love by trying to take away their children in any way they can.

Unfortunately, the state has only helped to support this vindictiveness by mostly refusing to decide on what is just.

But as they say, the proof of good intentions will always be in the pudding.

These announcements must translate into FACT.

Already the negative noises are out, alleging doom if certain processes are supposedly not followed. Forgotten is the fact that those processes may not be necessarily just. Almost all these voices are, interestingly enough, MALE.

These are the same people who insist that a woman’s primary role is to be a mother. Of course, if her husband converts to Islam and takes away her children, her mothering role becomes nullified.

He suddenly becomes the martyred single father, even though he created the situation in the first place and can easily find another woman to tend to his brood.

Meanwhile, the mother remains married to the father of the children she is forcibly separated from and cannot move on.

And this is what people call the Islamic thing to do?

I hope the Cabinet cracks the whip on these issues once and for all. No doubt this will require Parliamentary approval and that will take time.

But so much misery has been caused by these injustices and what suffers most is the image of Islam as a religion that upholds justice and equality.

It is not possible to be UNJUST and call oneself a Muslim
. Unless all we care about is the form and never the substance.

Rais Yatim: A Political Chameleon

Read here for more in People's Parliament Blog

Chameleon: A distinctive and highly specialized clade of lizards...and the synonymous ability to change color.
- Wikipedia


Rais Yatim on the ISA, in 1995, when he was in the political wilderness :
“The ISA does NOT speak well for the future of the rule of law in Malaysia.

In fact, it is the main adversary of the rule of law.

The abolition of the ISA is imperative.”

Rais on the ISA in 2009, as Minister of Information and long out of the political wilderness, in an interview on BBC’s Hardtalk :
“The mechanism that we have under the ISA, specifically Section 8 and 73, can be challenged through the process of habeas corpus, which system is also prevalent here, and therefore, to SAY that the ISA is NOT up to the standard of humanity is WRONG.”
Oh, how THY complexion changes with THY fortunes!
-Haris Ibrahim of People's Parliament Blog

Tuesday 28 April 2009

A Day in Federal Court: Its Ding Dong Bell, the Perak Crisis is STILL in the Well !

Read here for full article in malaysiakini and HERE

Excerpts: Read here for more in malaysiakini and HERE

The Federal Court today sent back the 'MB versus MB' case to the Kuala Lumpur High Court for the second time, after dismissing Perak Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir's application for a fastrack hearing to consider constitutional issues.

In his ruling, Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff said this was an unanimous decision by the five- member panel.

Alauddin said the court decided this matter based on the preliminary objection and NOT the merits to Zambry's application.

The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judges Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusof and James Foong.

Nizar, who maintains he is the rightful mentri besar, is suing Zambry for usurping his office as he has yet to officially quit the post.

The panel of five judges led by Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff noted “there exists disputes of facts yet to be determined by the High Court” when rejecting Zambry’s application to interpret several Constitutional questions.

Lawyers for Nizar told reporters later the “disputed facts” were over conflicting accounts of what had taken place at a meeting between Nizar and the Sultan of Perak in early February when the former had asked for the State Legislative Assembly to be dissolved, paving the way for fresh elections throughout the state.

The Perak State Legal Advisor Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid had filed an affidavit claiming Nizar had admitted he no longer commanded the confidence of the majority in the State Assembly during his meeting with the Sultan.

But Nizar disagreed with Ahmad Kamal’s version of the affair and filed an affidavit on April 21 detailing what he discussed with Sultan Azlan Shah on February 4 and 5.

Nizar is seeking a court order to cross-examine Ahmad Kamal to reveal what really took place in his meetings with the monarch on those two days, which appears to be a crucial point leading to the Perak Constitutional crisis.

Sulaiman Abdullah, lawyer for Nizar, told reporters the judge should be given the chance to hear both versions “orally” in order to decide who is to believed. Sulaiman pointed out:
“Let us not make any mistake. This is an account made by two opposing parties. It is not one contestant against a neutral party.

Datuk Kamal by no stretch of the imagination is neutral in this context because he has consistently taken the stand he has to represent Datuk Zambry.”
The High Court has set May 4 to hear Nizar’s request.

Sunday 26 April 2009

The Federal Court Judges : Justice Meted on a Whim and Fancy Regardless of the Due Process of Law

If Your Case Comes Up in the Federal Court, Only GOD CAN Help You, Because the LAW CAN'T.

The UMNO (NOT God)-Fearing Judges in the Malaysian Federal Court

  1. Tan Sri Dato' Seri Zaki bin Tun Azmi
    Chief Justice Of The Federal Court, Malaysia

  2. Dato' Nik Hashim bin Nik Ab. Rahman

  3. Dato' Sri Augustine Paul a/l Sinnappen

  4. Dato' Abdul Aziz bin Mohamad

  5. Dato' Haji Hashim bin Dato' Haji Yusoff

  6. Dato' Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin

What will irritate them the most?


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Read here for more



On 7 November 2008, the day the FEDERAL COURT sat to hear the appeal against the Shah Alam High Court’s decision to release me from Internal Security Act detention, I was just seconds away from being sent back to Kamunting.

It was not until the morning of the hearing that we knew who the quorum of judges were going to be. We had asked for a quorum of seven -- if not seven, then AT LEAST FIVE .

But the Federal Court would allow us ONLY THREE !

WHY three? And WHOSE decision was it that it should be three? The decision was an ‘administrative decision’.

In other words, all it needs is for a clerk in the court to decide that it should be three then it would be three.

Can we appeal this? Is there a body or panel that can sit to hear our arguments as to why we want it to be more than three?


It is a unilateral decision by someone unknown -- a faceless and nameless person -- in the court bureaucracy that makes that decision and the decision is final and undisputable.

That morning, we found out that one of the three was Justice Augustine Paul. You might as well have asked Rosmah Mansor to hear my case. The effect would have been no different.

We informed the court that we would like to file an application for Augustine Paul to recuse.

But the court would NOT allow us time to do so. They said they did not want to waste any time and they wanted to get my case over and done with that very day.

“Why did you not file your application earlier?” the court wanted to know. Why the rush?

Why the need to make a decision on my case that very day? How could we file our application earlier when we did not know UNTIL that very morning that one of the three judges was going to be Augustine Paul?

We did try to find out EARLIER but the court refused to divulge who the judges were going to be.

They would only tell us that it was going to be three judges. But they refused to tell us who these three are.

So, not knowing who the judges were until that very morning itself, HOW could we have filed our application to recuse earlier?

Anyway, we raised all the issues as to why we objected to Augustine Paul and why he should recuse.

If he did not, then we would need to file a formal application to get the court to order him to recuse.

The court said NO ! They refuse to allow us time to file the application. The case has to proceed with no further delay.

My lawyers were perplexed. Why the hurry? Can’t they allow us just another day or two to make a formal application?

Azhar stood up and walked over to the public gallery where I was seated.

So, how Pete?” Azhar asked me.

“Walk off. If they refuse to allow us time to file our application then walk off. Boycott the hearing.

Azhar hung his head low and shook it from side to side. “That would mean they would get judgment in default and they will send you back to Kamunting.”

“So be it.” I was determined not to give in even if it cost me my freedom.

I could see that Sam was utterly perturbed with my decision. “Then you had better get ready to run, and run far, if that is your decision.”

No. No running. I will not allow them to say I am scared.”

Fuck you! We went through all that trouble to get you out and you just volunteer to walk back into Kamunting.”

Sam walked out of court -- I am not sure whether out of disgust with my decision or to get a nicotine fix.

Azhar walked back and whispered into Malik’s ear.

Malik stood up to inform the court that the lawyers were going to stage a walkout.

In short, we are boycotting the hearing and the court can go fuck itself for all we care.

But before Malik could open his mouth and say what he was about to say, the court suddenly did a U-turn and agreed to give us time. Suddenly, the court changed its mind and said, yes, it will give us the time we requested after all.

Everyone breathed a sigh of relief.

I was mere seconds away from being sent back to Kamunting.

I had just bought myself six extra days of freedom.


The second time the court sat I did NOT t attend. This was (the) decision of my lawyers. They expected the court to turn down all our applications and rush through with a decision. This means, if I were in court, they would detain me on the spot and whisk me back to Kamunting.


And the same as for the third hearing six days later -- I also did not attend the hearing.

True enough, our application for another court to hear our application to recuse Augustine Paul was rejected.

The same Federal Court that was hearing the appeal against my release wanted to hear the application to recuse Augustine Paul. How can that be?

We are asking that this judge be disqualified and the SAME judge is being asked to hear the application to disqualify him?

Which judge would agree that he is not suited to be a judge? This was ludicrous.

No, Augustine Paul would NOT be asked to hear the application to disqualify him. He will be asked to leave the room, leaving the other two judges to hear the application.

TWO judges? We wanted seven. If we cannot have seven, at least five. But you insist on only three.

Now you are giving us only two judges? This was getting even more ludicrous.

We objected to this decision but our objection was shot down.

Two, and ONLY TWO, judges will be hearing our application. Malik pointed out that this was illegal and unconstitutional.

He argued his case well. He even showed the court where it says that two judges just cannot sit to hear our application.

The court just brushed aside Malik’s arguments. TWO judges would sit to hear our application.

And the TWO judges that sat ruled:
Augustine Paul need NOT recuse. He need NOT be disqualified from hearing the appeal against my release.
Malik then informed the court that, under the circumstances, a sitting of two judges would be unconstitutional and unlawful and he further informed the court that we reserve the right to challenge the decision of the court.

Justice Nik Hashim shot back arrogantly: “You can do what you want”.

Then Nik Hashim declared that Augustine Paul “could now take his rightful place on the bench”.

That was the last straw. The remark that Augustine Paul “could now take his rightful place on the bench” showed that, in the mind of the court, they had prejudged the case. It was futile to even continue with the hearing.

They had written their judgement even BEFORE the hearing started.

After that, every application and objection that we raised was shot down, one by one.
  • In some instances, the court would NOT even demonstrate patience and they just brushed aside whatever we raised without giving us time to present our arguments.

  • When Azhar informed the court that we would like to present our evidence, Augustine Paul asked Azhar what the relevance of the further evidence was.

  • Azhar replied that it was to establish a jurisdictional error on the part of the Minister as detention under the Internal Security Act was intended to be preventive to avoid further threat. Augustine Paul exclaimed in a dismissive manner “What jurisdictional error?” and subsequently dismissed the application.
Yes, that was how the appeal hearing at the Federal Court was conducted.

It just brushed aside everything that was raised and refused to consider whatever was argued, even when it was pointed out that the law and the Constitution allows our applications or arguments.

Classifying the appeal against my release from ISA detention as a kangaroo court would be putting it mildly.

However, after all that hullabaloo in the Federal Court and the hurry-burry attitude it had demonstrated, the Federal Court suddenly went very quiet.


For two months now nothing has been heard from them.


The DPP handling my two court cases, Roslan Md Noh, (told the AG) that they really don’t have a case against me and should actually consider dropping the charges.

Roslan (was removed) from my case and the AG appointed Shahidani Abd Aziz as his replacement. Roslan was then sent into cold storage at the industrial court.

I called up an Umno friend who owed me a favour, big-time. He told me:
“They are going to detain you on the 23rd when you attend your sedition trial. If on the 23rd Roslan does not turn up and if, instead, Shahidani turns up in his place, then you will know my information is correct.

The only way they can silence you is to send you back to Kamunting under a fresh detention order. That is why they have gone cold on the appeal. They are no longer interested in the appeal because they have issued a new detention order. You turn up in court on the 23rd and you will be back in Kamunting the same day. They know they can’t win their case against you.

Do you know what they fear most?

They are most worried that you will disappear or go underground or overseas where they can’t touch you and where you will become even more dangerous.

That is the greatest fear.”

Friday 24 April 2009

Zaid Ibrahim to Rais Yatim: "You Wanna Have a Debate? Bring It On...Any Subject, Any Time, and Any Place !"

Read here article by Lee Wei Lian in Malaysian Insider for more

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has picked up the gauntlet thrown down by Datuk Seri Rais Yatim today and says that he is ready to debate the new Minister of Information, Communication and Culture.

Zaid's only conditions are that Rais has to specify exactly what he wants to debate and that it has to be televised.

Zaid said:
"Yes, I will debate Rais on any subject he wants, anytime and anywhere.

But RTM must show it otherwise it is a waste of time."
Rais Yatim had challenged Zaid to a public debate over his allegations against Najib, as the former minister has been often quoted in the foreign media. Rais also accused the foreign media of trying to topple prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

"However, we must study (the situation) and if I have the chance, I want to have a debate with those trying to implicate our leader with unbecoming and nonsensical words," Rais said.

GAGASAN MELAYU PERAK (GMP) Presiden, Mohd Hilmi Ismail, Buat Laporan PALSU terhadap Malaysiakini


Read here for more in Harakah Daily

Presiden GAGASAN MELAYU PERAK (GMP) bertanya: "Bukankah Malaysiakini sama dengan Malaysia-Today atau blog lain?"

"Saya TIDAK tahu menahu tentang artikel itu. Saya diberitahu oleh kakitangan saya dan membuat laporan polis."

- Dr. Mohd Hilmi Ismail,



Keghairahan 'membela istana' mendatangkan musibah kepada Gagasan Melayu Perak (GMP) apabila pertubuhan NGO itu bertindak membuat laporan PALSU terhadap laman berita portal internet, Malaysiakini.

Mohd Hilmi dan gerombolannya telah membuat laporan palsu itu di Balai Polis Sungai Senam dekat Ipoh pada jam 5 petang semalam.

Laporan Bernama menyebut, Mohd Hilmi memberitahu wartawan bahawa laporan polis dibuat kerana GMP menganggap berita yang disiarkan Malaysiakini itu sebagai biadap dan tidak menghormati institusi istana Perak.

Mohd Hilmi juga berkata, GMP berharap Kementerian Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Budaya mengambil tindakan terhadap laman sesawang terbabit kerana menyalahgunakan teknologi maklumat tanpa memikirkan implikasinya terhadap keselamatan negara.

Dalam laporan palsunya itu, Presiden GMP Mohd Hilmi Ismail mendakwa kononnya Malaysiakini telah menerbitkan artikel yang "menghina Sultan Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, dan Raja Muda Perak, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah."

Artikel bertajuk "Raja Nazrin defends monarchy against ridicule" (Raja Nazrin pertahan institusi Diraja daripada dipersenda) kononnya diterbitkan Malaysiakini pada Selasa lalu.

Bagaimanapun pemeriksaan yang dilakukan laman web terbabit mendapati tiada berita seumpama itu diapungkan pada tarikh berkenaan.

Bagaimanapun seksyen Bahasa Malaysia Malaysiakini telah menyiarkan versi bahasa Melayu berita tersebut dengan memetik laporan Bernama pada 19 April. Pengerusi Bernama ialah Dato' Seri Anuar Zaini, seorang 'penasihat' istana Perak.

Malaysiakini yang kemudiannya menghubungi GMP pagi tadi bagi mendapatkan penjelasan berhubung laporan polis palsu itu dimaklumkan Mohd Hilmi bahawa beliau "tidak menyedari Malaysiakini telah menyiarkan berita seumpama itu sebelum membuat laporan polis".

"Saya tidak tahu menahu tentang artikel itu. Saya diberitahu oleh kakitangan saya dan membuat laporan polis," ujarnya.

Ketika ditanya sama ada beliau menyedari bahawa laporan polis palsu itu boleh memburukkan reputasi Malaysiakini, Mohd Hilmi bertanya:

"Bukankah Malaysiakini sama dengan Malaysian Today atau blog lain?"

Sehubungan itu Malaysiakini menuntut Mohd Hilmi menyiarkan permintaan maaf kerana membuat laporan palsu. Laman sesawang itu juga berkemungkinan akan mengambil tindakan terhadap Mohd Hilmi dan GMP


Bernama melaporkan: Gagasan Melayu Perak (GMP) hari ini menjelaskan bahawa laporan polis yang dibuatnya semalam tidak mempunyai kaitan langsung dengan laman web Malaysiakini berhubung artikel menghina Sultan Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah dan Raja Muda, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah.

Presiden GMP, Datuk Seri Mohd Hilmi Ismail berkata, " GMP memohon maaf kepada Malaysiakini kerana telah tersilap menyatakan ia adalah pihak yang menyiarkan artikel tidak bertanggungjawab itu."


Read here on Kickdefella Blog

Datukship for Hilmi

Hello brother Hilmi, kalau kemaruk nak pertahankan Istana, this is what you should do…

“Hilmi to file a police reports against ex Indonesion model’s mum for trying to tarnish the image of Malaysian Monarch from the state of Kelantan.

Hilmi confirmed that he had seen the photographs dated 31 March 2009 in Kickdefella that shows the ex model, now known as Cik Puan Temenggong of Kelantan looks visibly happy performing her new role.”

Ada faham Hilmi!

Wednesday 22 April 2009

PERAK CRISIS: Another Call to UMNO-Judiciary for SOS-Help to Save His (Zambry's) Menteri Besar Position

Perak Crisis: UMNO's Strangle-hold of the JUDICIARY Versus Pakatan Rakyat's LEGISLATURE with the Mandate of the Rakyat

As early as 4th March 2009, long BEFORE the Perak Crisis went before the Federal Court, we had posted the following:
"... It is becoming clear that the success of the UMNO-led Government's nomination of Zaki Azmi to be the Chief Justice of Malaya is now paying HUGE dividends to UMNO in the current Constitutional Crisis in Perak.

It is ALL politics, and LITTLE about the Law and the Constitution.

The Judiciary has, by default, become an arm of the Executive. This is evidenced by the latest
(High) Court's decisions seen as thwarting every move to hinder the mandates of the Perak State Legislature.

Would any of the judges now sitting on the Bench
under the charge of Chief Justice Zaki Azmi will have the courage to adjudicate against the political interests of UMNO?

Pakatan Rakyat and any forces going against the political interest of UMNO when it is still at the helm of government, WILL LOSE.

Here is why:
The current Chief Justice Zaki Azmi who was appointed as Chief Justice of Malaya on 21st October, 2008, was an UMNO member and served as a Legal Advisor to UMNO. His previous position in UMNO was as the Chairman of UMNO's Disciplinary Committee.

His ties to UMNO is too deep for him to ensure the independence of the judiciary especially in cases involving the interest of UMNO or UMNO cronies. He has only served the judiciary for less than 5 years in total before becoming the Chief Justice, an unprecedented leap-frogging to the top post in the Judiciary with help of the UMNO-led Government.

Asia Sentinel reported on 7 December, 2007: ".. As UMNO’s legal man, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi was involved with the UMNO's myriad scandalous financial misadventures that were bailed out by the government in the heydays of former Prime Minister Mahathir’s crony-capitalism during the last Asian financial crisis."

Read here for more in malaysiakini


UMNO/BN-installed Menteri Besar, Zambry Abdul Kadir, filed an application directly to the Federal Court again to firmly declare him to be the rightful Perak menteri besar. He filed the application through the law firm of Zul Rafique and Partners.

In his affidavit to the Federal Court, Zambry claimed that the matter concerns interpretation of Article 16(2) and Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution involving the removal and appointment of a menteri besar.

He wants the Federal Court's intervention to interpret Article 16(2) and Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution :
(a) Whether Sultan Azlan Shah has the right NOT to accede to Mohd Nizar's request for the dissolution of the Perak assembly, when he (Mohd Nizar) ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the assembly;

(b) When the sultan declines to accede to Mohd Nizar's request, whether it constitute to his (Mohd Nizar) resignation and that of his state exco members; and

(c) Whether when Mohd Nizar refused to tender his resignation, his majesty had the right to appoint Zambry pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Perak constitution after the sultan is satisfied that he (Zambry) commands the confidence of the assembly.
If the Federal Court says yes to the above, he wants the Federal Court to declar that he (Zambry) was a duly appointed the menteri besar on Feb 6, 2009. He is also seeking costs and other relief deemed necessary for the application.

Mohd Nizar's Earlier Application for Judicial Review

On Feb 13, Nizar filed an application challenging Zambry's appointment. He made several declarations pertaining to the interpretation of Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution.

In his application, Mohd Nizar claimed to be the rightful Perak menteri besar on the grounds that :
  1. there was no dissolution of the state legislature,

  2. no motion of no-confidence was taken in the house against him and

  3. he did not resign from the post.
He also issued a writ of quo warranto asking Zambry to show cause by what authority he was occupying the post of menteri besar.

  1. Tan Sri Dato' Seri Zaki bin Tun Azmi
    Chief Justice Of The Federal Court, Malaysia

  2. Dato' Nik Hashim bin Nik Ab. Rahman

  3. Dato' Sri Augustine Paul a/l Sinnappen

  4. Dato' Abdul Aziz bin Mohamad

  5. Dato' Haji Hashim bin Dato' Haji Yusoff

  6. Dato' Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin

Without Elections: A Government is like a MAFIA Ruled by "Protection Money"


"WHY must we have ELECTIONS to decide our governments?

... (Because) ELECTIONS distinguish a Government from a Mafia or Triad.

(The) real thin line (separating) a Government and a Mafia or Triad is the ELECTIONS.... the principle of "No taxation Without Representation".

A government collects "TAXES ", while a Mafia or Triad collects "PROTECTION FEES".

NO mafia or triad will ALLOW their subjects to ELECT their Godfather or Patriarch. You only have a duty to pay "Protection Fees", but NO right to elect your protector.

In a civilised world, a STATE must NOT be like a Mafia or Triad. That's why ELECTORAL processes and ELECTED governments must NOT be subverted.

This month, when you pay your income tax, remember to cherish ELECTIONS.

WITHOUT elections, what you pay is only PROTECTION MONEY..."

-Wong Chin Huat

Government vs Mafia


Read here for more "Government vs Mafia" by Wong Chin Huat

(Wong Chin Huat is a political scientist and a journalism lecturer based in Monash University Sunway Campus.)

WE are now told by the new Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak that BY-ELECTIONS are BAD because they distract us from dealing with the economic crisis.

Why Are Elections a Must?

Why can't we opt for :

  • horse-trading among lawmakers;
  • palace coups;
  • the rule of judges;
  • military coups;
  • mutinying police officers;
  • mutinying bureaucracies; or
  • mob rule à la Thailand's People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD)
as alternatives to topple and install governments?

Provided the people do not protest, these methods may well be much smoother, more efficient, peaceful and attractive to certain types of investors.

Why (then) must we have ELECTIONS to decide our governments?

The answer, in a nutshell, is that elections DISTINGUISH a Government from a Mafia or Triad.

A STATE is similar to the UNDERWORLD in three senses:
  1. they extract money;

  2. they control territory; and

  3. those living on their territories cannot opt out from being their subjects.
The Thin Line Between Government and MAFIA/TRIAD

In political theory, there is only a THIN line between a Government and a Mafia or Triad.
  1. A Government collects "TAXES ",

  2. A mafia or triad collects "PROTECTION FEES". Sometimes, the mafia or triad is the government and carries out most governmental functions. For example, Kapitan Yap Ah Loy was both in 19th-century Kuala Lumpur.
So, what is the REAL THIN LINE between a government and a mafia or triad?


It is the principle of "NO Taxation WITHOUT Representation". (The same principle) which ignited the American Revolution. (It is NOT ) that mafias or triads do not know how to employ a public relations company for legitimacy branding.

In a civilised world, a state must NOT be like a mafia or triad. No mafia or triad will allow their subjects to elect their Godfather or Patriarch. You only have a duty to pay protection fees, but NO RIGHT TO ELECT our protector.

That's why electoral processes and elected governments must NOT be subverted.

This month, when you pay your income tax, remember to cherish elections. WITHOUT elections, what you pay is only protection money.

The BN's Track Record on Avoiding Elections

This aversion towards elections is nothing new to Malaysia. In the spirit of learning our national history, let's revisit some past decisions made by Alliance/Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders.
  1. In March 1965, Tunku (Abdul Rahman) terminated local elections, which were mostly won by opposition parties, especially in the urban centres. Tunku promised to restore local elections once the Indonesian Confrontation was over. Of course, he never did. Neither did his five successors. Their reason? Elections are a waste of money.

  2. In August 1965, Tunku expelled Singapore from the federation of Malaysia because Singapore Premier Lee Kuan Yew — like Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim 43 years later — was actively courting East Malaysians to challenge Umno rule. To be fair to Tunku, his Umno colleagues actually wanted a more repressive solution — Internal Security Act (ISA) detention for Lee and his People's Action Party lieutenants.

  3. In 1966, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan — from the Sarawak National Party (SNAP) — was ousted unconstitutionally following dubious defections, much like Perak's Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin 43 years later. When the Borneo High Court ruled to reinstate Ningkan, he wanted to let the people decide.

    However, before Ningkan could dissolve the legislature, the Tunku administration proclaimed Emergency Rule in Sarawak. The Federal and Sarawak constitutions were amended so that a motion of no-confidence could be passed and a more compliant chief minister appointed.

  4. In Sabah, the late Tun Mustapha Harun (who) was allied to Tunku also avoided elections . In 1969, when the Malaya Alliance struggled to hold onto power, Mustapha's Sabah Alliance bagged the state's 16 seats through "walkovers". In later years, he even contemplated making himself a sultan.

  5. Tun Abdul Razak also had his moments in outmanoeuvring the electoral process. He expressed an aversion to "politicking" and preferred to focus on administration and development. After 1969, he gradually co-opted all but two parliamentary opposition parties, DAP and SNAP, first into coalition governments and later in 1974 into the BN.

    His reward? A total of 47 walkovers or 31% of parliamentary seats in the 1974 elections.

  6. In 1974, Razak also carved Chinese-Malaysian-majority Kuala Lumpur out of Selangor presumably to ensure that opposition parties like the DAP could never capture the state.

    The new Federal Territory was NOT to have its own state government, or any elected government for that matter.

  7. Razak's successor, Tun Hussein Onn, took a slightly different tack when faced with political difficulties.

    For example, he declared an emergency and imposed direct rule in Kelantan in 1977 when PAS, then a member of BN, tried to oust their own menteri besar, Datuk Mohamad Nasir, who was much-liked by Umno. Hussein lifted the emergency and went to polls four months later when Umno had strengthened its base. Umno and Nasir's splinter party, Berjasa, eventually thrashed PAS in the election.

  8. While elections under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad were arguably never free or fair, he was particularly innovative in his own party's elections. In 1988, he effectively purged Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's supporters, by triggering the deregistration of Umno and the creation of Umno Baru. To protect the incumbents, Mahathir introduced the quota for nominations for the presidency and other senior positions, which Najib now proposes to remove.

  9. In 1994, Anwar (Ibrahim) , then deputy prime minister and Umno deputy president, brought down the Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) state government through mass defections of lawmakers within a month after elections. Denying the use of financial inducement and coercive measures, Anwar recently reiterated that he merely "invited" those defectors. Of course, no fresh elections were called.

    ( One BN leader who made markedly different decisions was former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Musa Hitam. As the acting prime minister in 1985, he prevented Tun Mustapha's plot to install himself as Sabah chief minister despite not having a legislative majority, through — yes, even then — a palace coup. But Musa's decision can be seen to be the exception rather than the rule in the BN's elections track record.)

  10. In February 2009, Najib orchestrated the downfall of Perak's elected government and installed Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as menteri besar.

    While Anwar's Pakatan Rakyat (PR) has no legal or moral ground to protest the defections in Perak, why didn't the BN subsequently allow for a fresh poll? Their answer is the usual — elections are disruptive and wasteful, and now bad for the economy.
Charles Tilly, the American sociologist, called a spade a spade:
"....War-making and State-making are but Organised Crimes.

Four centuries before him, Tang Zhen, a Chinese thinker in Imperial China, called emperors thieves who fed on their subjects..."
- Wong Chin Huat

Tuesday 21 April 2009

Indonesia Paper Publishes Damaging Allegations of Kidnap and Assault by Kelantan Royal Palace Household of an Indonesian Girl

Read HERE and HERE and Here in malaysiakini

(Images courtesy of Surya-Online)

Read full article in malaysiakini or HERE


A startling allegation has surfaced in a Surabaya newspaper about a member of the Kelantan royal household, who is said to have 'abducted and abused' his 17-year-old Indonesian model wife.

According to the Surya newspaper today, the family of Manohara Odelia Pinot are now in the dark as to her whereabouts and fear for her safety.

They also claimed that the French Indonesian model, who was named as one of the country's top models by an international magazine, was cut with a razor blade by her husband.

Manohara’s parents tried to enter Malaysia to reclaim their daughter but was stopped by the Immigration Department, which was arranged by the Raja Perempuan.

Manohara's mother, Daisy Fajarina, said the royalty had forcefully taken her daughter away in a private jet from Saudi Arabia, where the family had gone to perform the umrah (pilgrimage) last month. Manohara's family was invited to perform the umrah between Feb 25 and March 9 in order to reconcile with the royalty.

According to
a blogger going by the name of "Raja Bahrain" in his blog, who wrote:
The Crown Prince’s younger brother, Tengku Temenggong had recently married a rich and pretty Indonesian girl, Miss Manohara. After a short while Manohara left the Prince and stayed back in Indonesia.
Daisy claimed that her daughter had fled to Indonesia after complaining of frequent abuse by her 31-year-old husband, "whom she married last August " a year earlier, when she was 15.

In December 2006, Daisy and Manohara were invited to attend a dinner with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and this was where the model had met her husband.

The anguished mother said she had filed a complaint with the Indonesian embassy in Jeddah after the incident.

She had also tried to come to Malaysia to track down her daughter but alleged that she was denied entry on the "request of the Kelantan palace."

Daisy, who claims to have evidence of her daughter being abused, had also sought the help of the Indonesian Foreign Ministry.

"My child has been tortured, her chest has been cut with a razor. This is what people in the palace who were sympathetic with our plight have told me," she added.

Najib, who will be in Indonesia tomorrow for a two-day visit, is expected to be grilled by the local media on this issue.


Berita Yang TIDAK diLaporkan di Surat Khabar Melayu

FROM "Blog Amin Iskandar @ Black"

Read here for more


Yang turut tidak dilaporkan oleh Utusan Melayu ialah berita mengenai MB Pahang yang kalah dalam pemilihan MT Umno baru-baru ini diarahkan oleh mahkamah untuk membayar RM 63 juta kepada sebuah syarikat kerana melanggar perjanjian pemberian konsesi pembalakan di Mukim Bebar, Pekan, dekat Kuantan.

Untuk membacanya, klik disini, disini dan disini.

Mana dia nak dapat duit sebanyak tu? Guna duit rakyat Pahang ke?

Posting Asal

Sewaktu berucap di Johor Bharu semalam, ada beberapa perkara penting yang diumumkan oleh Najib tetapi tidak ditulis oleh akhbar-akhbar Melayu seperti Utusan Malaysia tetapi dilaporkan oleh akhbar berbahasa Inggeris, The Star.

Lihat dibawah:
Government wants more open tenders to cut down on graft


JOHOR BARU: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wants to cut down on direct negotiations for government procurement contracts.

He said this method of awarding contracts should be replaced with open or restricted tenders.

Opting for the tender system will curb corruption and bring back the people’s confidence in the Government,” he said when addressing civil servants in Johor during his one-day visit here yesterday. A lot of people will like direct negotiations but I want it reduced,” he said.

One such project was Iskandar Malaysia, he said, stressing that the new leadership would continue its commitment to develop the multibillion ringgit project into a new growth area.

Najib, who was on a one-day working visit to the state, said the project was visionary and it was also time to create a new growth area in the country.

He said Iskandar would be another choice for Malaysians to go to besides the Klang Valley , which was already overpopulated. He said the Government would also direct foreign direct investments to Iskandar.

Najib also acknowledged the importance of cooperation between the federal and the state governments.

He added that this was not the time for political polemics and it was important that Johoreans did not feel that they were not getting any benefit from Iskandar. Najib said the people should look at the positive aspects of Iskandar, such as job creation and bringing in hig h-tech investments. There would also be eco-tourism and medical -tourism projects and an international higher education centre.

On his 1Malaysia vision, Najib said he had no intention of re-inventing the wheel, saying he would continue to focus on the targets set by his two predecessors. After the function, Najib, together with Johor Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman, had an audience with the Johor Sultan at Istana Bukit Serene.

  1. Perkara penting yang diumumkan oleh Najib ialah kerajaan akan mengurangkan kaedah rundingan terus untuk memberi sesuatu kontrak dan akan memperbanyakkan kontrak-kontrak diberi secara tender terbuka.
    “A lot of people will like direct negotiations but I want it reduced,” he said.
    (Ramai pihak yang suka dengan kaedah rundingan terus akan tetapi saya akan kurangkannya).
    Apa yang cuba dilakukan oleh Najib ini TIDAK ada bezanya dengan apa yang cuba dilakukan oleh kerajaan-kerajaan negeri Pakatan Rakyat yang mengamalkan sistem tender terbuka.

    Masih teringat lagi bagaimana demonstrasi demi demonstrasi dianjurkan di Pulau Pinang oleh Umno selepas Lim Guan Eng mengumumkan bahawa kerajaan negerinya akan melaksanakan sistem tender terbuka.

    • Apakah Umno dan manusia-manusia seperti Ibrahim Ali akan berdemonstrasi membantah pengumuman Najib ini?

    • Mengapakah berita tentang ini hanya diceritakan dalam surat khabar The Star dan tidak diakhbar-akhbar Melayu?

    • Apakah ini kerana ahli-ahli Umno dan manusia-manusia seperti Ibrahim Ali tidak faham Bahasa Inggeris?

  2. Perkara kedua yang diumumkan oleh Najib tetapi TIDAK diceritakan oleh akhbar Utusan Melayu ialah mengenai penerusan projek Wilayah Pembangunan Iskandar (WPI).
    He said that he would continue with some of the policies implemented by his predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration which are good for the people and development of the nation.

    One such project was Iskandar Malaysia, he said, stressing that the new leadership would continue its commitment to develop the multibillion ringgit project into a new growth area.
    Apakah Najib turut fikir yang Dr. Mahathir juga tak faham bahasa Inggeris?

    Bukankah dahulu diantara kritikan besar Dr. Mahathir kepada pentadbiran Abdullah ialah projek Wilayah Pembangunan Iskandar yang dikatakan memberikan kelebihan kepada Singapura dan lesen kepada rakyat Israel untuk masuk ke Malaysia?

    Takkan dah lupa kot?

    Orang Melayu belum lupa lagi.

    Mahathir yang mudah lupa!