Prime Minister's Son-in-Law, Khairy Jamaluddin, Tells BERSIH Rally Supporters: "Don’t Be Like MONKEYS On Streets."

From Malaysiakini: Read here for more

UPDATE: 7th November 2007

PAS Youth has declared it ‘OBLIGATORY ’ for ALL members to join the mass assembly for electoral reform in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday,(Nov.10) organised by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih).

Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub said everyone “who professes to be a member of PAS Youth” MUST participate in the rally, which will press for royal intervention in reforming the electoral process.

“I remind all PAS Youth members throughout the country that their presence in this peaceful gathering is very important if they profess to be members, and seek to continue this struggle,” said Salahuddin in a statement issued today.

“I ask that ALL PAS Youth prove their love for justice and peace - if Buddhist monks in Burma dare to demonstrate on the streets in seeking justice, there is NO reason PAS Youth should not be there at the peaceful gathering.” Read here for more on Malaysiakini

Message from Ahirudin Attan of Rocky's Bru Blog

Calling all bloggers!

When was the last time you had an afternoon stroll in the park?Come to the Dataran Merdeka this Saturday at 3 pm.

Meet others who share the belief in fair and clean elections, and LET'S HAVE A WALK TO THE ISTANA.

Come in YELLOW and in PEACE.

It should be a walk in the park except for those who don't believe in fair and clean elections.

Johari Baharom* says here Bersih, the organisers, have not been given a permit to organise the gathering but have applied for one.

*Johari's Umno division allegedly conducted a less than clean and fair Umno-G7 elections last year. A police report was lodged yesterday (not reported in the Press but read it here) ) against an Umno Supreme Council meeting linked to that particular election

Quote:

“Don’t be like monkeys (beruk) on streets.

This (the People's Rally) is an illegal gathering by an illegal organisation (BERSIH).

If you want to fight, fight in the real ring like a man.

At the general elections, we (Umno Youth) will fight and we will win!"
-Khairy Jamaluddin, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's Son-in-Law/UMNO Youth Deputy Chief at UMNO Youth General Assembly (2007)

Related articles:

• Read here: " Khairy Jamaludin Pupuk Budaya SAMSENG dan BERBOHONG"
  
  
• Read here : "Did Khairy also hijack the “Free Burma” demonstration? "
  
  
• Read here : "Demonstration against ISRAEL Attacks led by UMNO Youth Vice Head – KHAIRY JAMALUDDIN"
  
  
• Read here: Call of the Wild "Dr. Rice, I will not leave until you come out!" shouted Khairy Jamaluddin"
  
  
• Read here: "Khairy Gesa Tangkap Penganjur BERSIH...TANGKAPLAH!!! "
  
  
• Read here: "The Man who would Be King..... "

Khairy at the Ijok By-Election UMNO Rally
(Photo courtesy of Rasuah Sudah Parah Blog )


Khairy Jamaluddin Storming the Convention Centre
that hosted the Asean Regional Forum Against the Visit
of US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice to Malaysia
(Photo courtesy of Screenshots)

UMNO Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin, who is the Prime Minister's son-in-law, has urged the authorities to come down hard on a planned mass rally calling for electoral reforms to be held in Kuala Lumpur on Nov 10.

The rally this Saturday(Nov.10th) is organised by BERSIH, a coalition of about 60 NGOs and opposition parties. They seek to rally some 10,000 people and march to the palace where a memorandum urging the King to help in reforming the electoral system, which is deemed to be unfair to the opposition.


During his winding-up speech at the Umno Youth Annual General Assembly today.
Khairy said:

“This is an illegal gathering by an illegal organisation. The authorities, particularly the police, must apprehend those who organise this gathering.

Don’t be like monkeys (beruk) on streets.

(Note: Read here Khairy called Malaysian bloggers, "monkeys" - Malaysian Unplug)

If you want to fight, fight in the real ring like a man. At the general elections, we (Umno Youth) will fight and we will win!

They claim that electoral process is not clean. Then why contest in 2004 (general election) ? They boycotted Batu Talam (by-election), but they contested (later) in Machap and Ijok (by-elections).

This is not the proper way. That is not the way taught by Hishammuddin (Umno Youth Chief) . If we face them, we could spark a uneasy situation.

It’s bad enough that they gather and cause inconvenience to the public. If we face them, it would cause a confrontation that can cause chaos (huru hara).

We are strong enough and we do not need to tamper with the Elections Commission or the electoral framework to be victorious."

Read here an Oxford University (UK) Study: " Playing the (non)ethnic card: The electoral system and ethnic voting patterns in Malaysia" by Graham Brown -CRISE WORKING PAPER No. 21 April 2005 ) - .pdf file.

"......This paper examines the ethnic determinants of constituency delineations and voting patterns in West Malaysia over the past five general elections, paying particular attention to the ramifications of the 2002 redelineation exercise.

The 2002 redelineation exercise REDUCED markedly the ethnic bias of the electoral system, yet INCREASED the overall imbalance in constituency size.

The old electoral logic of small Malay-dominated rural constituencies... has become increasingly irrelevant, due to Malay urbanisation and shifting ethnic voting patterns

The paper concludes that the 2002 exercise represented the ‘correction’ of an increasing imbalance between the patterns of the Government’s electoral support and constituency delineations.

Ethnic bias in the electoral system was substantially REPLACED by a direct political bias in favour of the BN government...." -Graham Brown Read here for more

Khairy said it was hypocritical for opposition parties to hold the rally because they had previously contested in several polls under the same system.

Khairy added that Umno Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein could rally as many Youth wing members to face those at the Bersih rally.

Khairy was later approached by journalists after the event and asked why it was okay for him to choose street demonstration to protest United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Malaysia, he answered that they had a permit. He said,

“The police were there, the FRU were there and we adhered to all laws pertaining to public assembly.”

Hishammuddin, when asked, said that he will wait until the general election is over before he decides if he wants to hold on to the Umno Youth chief post.

COMMENTARY

From Ibu Bapa: Read here for more

"... Baru-baru ini keluar lagi perkataan daripada mulut menantu Pak Lah yang juga merupakan Naib Ketua Pemuda UMNO Malaysia, Khairy Jamaluddin bahawa betapa BERUKNYA manusia yang masih nak mengadakan perhimpunan rakyat 100 ribu pada 10 November ini.

Tidak lama dulu ia pernah menyamakan para “bloggers” dengan monyet kerana banyak menulis dan menyiar bahan internet yang begitu kritis terhadap kerajaan pak mertuanya.

Bila diamati ungkapan dan perkataan budak mentah keluaran Oxford ini, tidak dapat tidak kita akan menjadi kagum dan kaget tentang minatnya yang mendalam kepada haiwan yang bergelar beruk atau monyet atau spesies lain yang sewaktu dengannya. Mungkinkah beliau berkelulusan bidang berkaitan ketika belajar di Oxford dahulu, yang dengan itu menjadikan Khairy sebagai pakar beruk dan monyet negara?

Sehubungan dengan itu, mungkin juga hasil kajian beliau yang mendalam ketika di Oxford di dalam bidang Ilmu Beruk dan Monyet mendedahkan Khairy kepada keistimewaan makhluk yang pandai bergayut ini yang tidak kita ketahui selama ini?

Persoalan kita seterusnya ialah kenapakah Khairy seringkali menyamakan mereka-mereka yang tidak bersama dengan Pak Mertua Hadharinya sebagai beruk dan monyet, dan benarkah perbandingan tersebut?

Salah satu keistimewaan beruk dan monyet ialah kepandaian mereka bergayut. Jikalau monyet bergayut pada dahan-dahan pokok, Khairy bergayut pada pak mertuanya untuk naik di dalam politik. Apakah jasa budak ini sampai boleh naik jadi Naib Ketua Pemuda UMNO Malaysia dengan begitu cepat dan tanpa bertanding pula! Macamana Khairy boleh menjadi “mastermind” kepada pengawalan media negara dan penguasaan ke atas menteri dan menteri besar di bawah ketiaknya jikalau tidak kerana “pengayutannya” kepada Pak Lah? Begitu juga mana mungkin ia terlibat di dalam pelbagai urusan “jual-beli” harta benda negara jika bukan kerana gayutannya kepada Pak Lah.

Satu lagi aspek menarik berkaitan beruk dan monyet ini ialah keupayaan mereka menarik perhatian orang ramai dengan aksi-aksi yang “luarbiasa” seperti memetik buah kelapa, mencari kutu dan sebagainya. Khairy pun tidak kurang hebatnya di dalam aspek ini. Walaupun tidak ada jawatan di dalam kerajaan, ia seringkali membuat kenyataan seolah-olah ia Perdana Menteri ke 2 Malaysia.

Antara kegemaran kera-kera hutan ialah mencuri buah-buahan kepunyaan orang. Ini pun lebih kurang sama dengan perangai Khairy dan UMNO yang sibuk memunggahkan harta negara macam harta mak bapa mereka.

Inilah sedikit sebanyak hikayat Khairy dengan beruk dan monyetnya. Banyak lagi sebenarnya cerita berkenaan haiwan ini yang boleh kita kaitkan dengan Khairy tetapi memadailah setakat itu dulu.

Saya yakin kita akan mendengar banyak lagi ulasan Khairy di dalam tajuk berkaitan pada masa-masa akan datang. Tetapi satu yang pasti, perbandingan beruk dan monyet yang ia ungkapkan itu sebenarnya lebih adil untuk dirinya dan pemuda UMNO, dan wajar Khairy merefleksi dirinya sedalam-dalamnya supaya kelak tidak “memberuk” di dalam jiwa sanubarinya.

Jika berkesempatan, saya sebenarnya ingin mendapatkan khidmat Khairy dan beruk monyetnya untuk memetik kelapa yang banyak di kebun ayah saya.

From Herman Samsudeen: Read here for more from Letters to Editor, Malaysiakini

"...Himpunan Aman pada Sabtu, 10 November di Dataran Merdeka anjuran Bersih akan tetap diteruskan. Walaupun pihak penganjur menerima begitu banyak ancaman, namun tuntutan massa rakyat memberikan laluan untuk perhimpunan ini terus berjalan.

Beberapa orang ahli jawatankuasa Bersih juga telah dipanggil ke Bukit Aman pada 12 November ini.

Khairy Jamaluddin, Naib Ketua Pemuda Umno, pula telah mengarahkan pihak polis membuat tangkapan terhadap pimpinan dan peserta himpunan. Arahan ini adalah suatu yang biadap dan tidak rasional kerana himpunan ini adalah hak dan kebebasan rakyat. Rakyat berhak berada di mana sahaja mereka berada dan Pemuda Umno TIDAK berhak untuk menghalang perhimpunan ini.

Ketakutkan semakin terserlah di wajah pimpinan Umno kerana himpunan ini. Khairy yang pada mulanya mencadangkan untuk pemuda Umno turun berdepan dengan himpunan Bersih ini akhirnya mengaku kalah dalam ucapan yang sama dan mengakui bahawa pemuda Umno tidak mampu berhadapan dengan 100,000 rakyat.

Oleh itu, beliau tiada pilihan dan kemungkinan besar polis akan dijadikan kuda tunggangan mereka bagi menghadapi peserta himpunan aman ini.

Kepada pihak polis, kami mengingatkan agar mereka tidak membiarkan diri mereka diperkudakan lagi. Ini adalah himpunan rakyat, dan pihak polis juga dialu-alukan bagi menyertai rakyat dalam himpunan ini atas jiwa mereka sebagai rakyat yang prihatin terhadap masa depan negara ini.

Diperingkat PAS pula, seramai 2,000 orang petugas Unit Amal Malaysia yang beruniform dan tidak beruniform akan berkawal bagi memastikan tiadanya provokasi dan kekecohan yang boleh memburukkan imej perhimpunan ini. Kita datang dengan aman dan Unit Amal akan membantu kita.

Jika ada kalangan peserta yang cuba melakukan provokasi seperti membawa bendera parti politik, melaungkan kata-kata yang kesat, membaling atau menggunakan apa-apa objek yang boleh membahayakan orang lain, mereka akan dikeluarkan dari perhimpunan ini serta merta atau diserahkan kepada pihak polis jika perlu.

Kita yakin, bahawa terdapatnya konspirasi terancang bagi mensabotaj himpunan ini dan kita juga telah bersiap sedia bagi menghadapi perhimpunan ini.

Kepada peserta perhimpunan yang masih ragu lagi, pihak penganjur juga telah menyediakan barisan peguam yang cekap untuk menjamin dan membela anda sekiranya ditangkap. Para peguam ini akan membantu dan membela hak anda sesuai dengan peruntukan Perlembagaan. Oleh itu tiada sebab untuk kita tidak hadir dan tunduk pada ancaman yang kini semakin tersebar luas.

Pastikan anda hadir dengan aman dan segalanya akan berjalan secara aman!

From Latheefa Koya : Read here in Malaysiakini

"...Shame on you, Khairy!

For someone who is not accountable to the rakyat - lest you forget you are neither a minister nor a member of parliament - merely the son-in-law of the prime minister as well as the Youth deputy chief of one the most obsolete, racist, corrupt party in the world, you have no right to stop anyone from expressing their real and legitimate concerns on the future of this country.

For someone who himself had gone to the streets in obvious pretense that he cared (see for example, the Burma, Palestine issues) - how dare you ask the police to clamp down on Bersih’s Nov 10 rally. Who do you think you are?

Your obnoxious behaviour, your arrogance and utter contempt for democratic rights have given me a scary glimpse of what the future holds for this country if Umno continues to hold on to power. Shame on you!

The rally will go on InsyaAllah."

From Dr. Farish Noor: Read here for more on "The Other Malaysia"

The People Are Fed-up

At a recent Law Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, bluntly told the country’s lawyers that demonstrations and protests about the apparent mismanagement of the country will do little to change things but will only give the ‘wrong impression’ that ‘something is wrong in the country’, and that this will scare aware foreign investors.

The Malaysian leader was alluding to a recent protest march organised by the country’s lawyers which saw more than two thousand lawyers march up to the Prime Minister’s office in the capital of Putrajaya demanding reform of the judicial process and serious enquiries into the conduct and election of judges in Malaysia.

Perhaps the Prime Minister was also alluding to the planned march on 10th November organised by NGOs like BERSIH which have called for free and fair elections in the country, supported by opposition parties like the Peoples Justice Party (PKR), the Malaysian Islamic party (PAS) and the Democratic Action Party (DAP) of Malaysia as well.

What began as a relatively small event has now grown into what may become a landmark moment in Malaysian history: The march’s organisers aim to gather 100,000 citizens at the Merdeka (Independence) Square of the city and then march on to the national palace to present their petition to the King (Agong) himself, calling for the Monarch to intervene and look into their complaints about the poor governance of the country on issues ranging from corruption to abuse of power by the leaders of the ruling UMNO party and the government.

As Latheefa Koya of the People’s Justice Party notes: “BERSIH’s march marks a crucial point in Malaysian history where people from all walks of life, and not just political parties, demand free and fair elections in Malaysia. By doing so they are in fact calling for greater participation in the democratic process”.

The King has already signalled that he is prepared to receive the petition, while other rulers such as Sultan Azlan Shah of the state of Perak have publicly bemoaned the state of the judiciary in Malaysia.

While it is true that Malaysia is not Burma, it is striking to note how intolerant the state is when it comes to popular expressions of the people’s will in the country.

Predictably the Malaysian government has reacted to the proposed march on 10th November with the usual round of threats: Those who attend the demonstration will be regarded as trouble makers and due action will be taken, the government-controlled news agencies have already warned.

In response the President of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) has called on all members of the party to attend the rally and to swell the numbers of participants instead.

According to Hatta Ramli, one of the senior leaders of PAS: “This is to show that the members of the Islamic party are supportive of this move by the Malaysian NGOs to call for free and fair elections. It is going to be a peaceful demonstration, so why the need for such warnings? The Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) has stated that the Constitution allows for free peaceful assembly, so we are merely exercising our right to demonstrate our concern about the conduct of elections in Malaysia. This is the expression of popular democracy, of the people’s will and our intention to see that we have clean elections in Malaysia.”

Nor are the march’s organisers fazed by the threats of reprisals. According to Raja Petra Kamaruddin, who runs the country’s most widely-read online news site Malaysia-today.net, “they (the government) have been issuing such threats for more than a decade now, so why should we worry? They insist that we apply for a police permit but we know that such a permit will be refused anyway. In some cases in the past permits were given but then withdrawn at the last minute, so this time we merely informed the police that we will be having the march and we will go ahead.”

The Malaysian government is worried that such a public display of dismay over the government’s record will focus attention on Malaysia in a negative way. Instead it has tried its best to spin the story of Malaysia’s successes one by one, the latest being the achievements of the country’s first astronaut who was sent to space on board a Russian rocket to dock with the International Space Station in orbit.

But special effects and cosmic stunts have not altered the realities on the ground where Malaysian politics remains dominated by news of scandals involving corrupt policemen, politicians being accused of manipulating the judiciary and alleged links between the government, police and underworld mafia triads and gang bosses.

One of the latest revelations involved the corruption behind the Port Kelang Free Trade Zone project, where running costs and overheads have caused the project’s costs to skyrocket from 1.8 to 4.2 Billion Ringgit (RM), leaving ordinary Malaysians shocked and stumped on how such projects can lead to such large kickbacks for so many well-connected individuals.

What is more, all of this is happening under the eyes of the Badawi government, which came to power four years ago on the promise of ridding the country of corruption once and for all.

As the crucial date of 10th November gets closer, the machinery of the state along with its security apparatus will undoubtedly be cracked up to demonise the protestors and to prevent the march from happening.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi may lament the occasion as it sends out the clear message that the people are fed up with his lacklustre performance thus far, but it will hardly be the reason why foreign investors are leaving Malaysia: Indeed, if anything is to restore the faith of others in the country it would be the freedom to demonstrate openly and peacefully without threat of violence from the state.

No, if foreign investors are giving up on Malaysia is has more to do with the plethora of corruption cases involving members of the police, the routine abuse of power by the elite and the deplorable reputation of the Malaysian judiciary and civil service at present.

And the responsibility for these failures lie not in the hands of the Malaysian people, but in the Malaysian government itself- headed by none other than Badawi himself.

Malaysia's Version of "THE VILLAGE IDIOT"

Understanding a "Village Idiot"

From Wiktionary:

"A person widely known in the community for his/her stupidity and ignorant behaviour. "

From "Urban Dictionary" :

"The stupidest or most idiotic person in a particular village, as elected by the local populace.

The kind who would steal all the sugar from an overturned lorry and go door-to-door trying to sell it. A gormless gimp who couldn't find his ass with both hands.

Prior to the Industrial revolution, before swarms of people migrated from small towns, villages, and farming hamlets to large industrial cities and Metropolises, the people around at the time (i.e their community) were so small, that if one person within that community was feeble of mind, they were designated the Village Idiot."

From "The Word Detective":

"(It) must surely rank as among the most derogatory that can be printed in a family newspaper. "Idiot" has a deceptively civil origin. The Greek "idiotes" meant simply "private individual" (based on "idios," meaning "personal" or "private"). Gradually, however, the connotation of the term shifted to "an ignorant, simple man, a fool." It was in this sense that "idiot" entered English (via Latin and French) in the 13th century.

While today "idiot" is generally considered synonymous with the equally derogatory "moron" and "imbecile," around 1910 there was an attempt to distinguish these three terms as actual scientific categories of mental retardation. The IQ of a "moron" was decreed to be between 50 and 69, that of an "imbecile" between 20 and 49, and an "idiot" below 20.

This system of classification has since been replaced by far more sophisticated diagnostic tools, and no mental health professional would dream of using any of those terms. Even the term "idiot savant" (French for "learned idiot"), meaning a person afflicted by autism or another disability who demonstrates extraordinary ability in math or another area, has been replaced by "autistic savant."

Although one thinks, perhaps, of the Middle Ages when the term "VILLAGE IDIOT" arises, it seems to be of surprisingly recent vintage.

The earliest known use in print comes in George Bernard Shaw's "Major Barbara," written in 1907 ("I myself have had a village idiot exhibited to me as something irresistibly funny").

Underlying the term is the supposition (especially popular among urban sophisticates) that each small country village must have one exceptionally simple resident who serves as the butt of jokes and provides endless amusement for the townsfolk. But, like many stereotypes of rural life, the legend of the lone "Village Idiot" is unfair and inaccurate. Many villages have two or three, and sometimes we even elect them to public office. "

[ There is a Malay phrase that aptly describes the attitude of a "Village Idiot who gets elected into public office: "BODOH SOMBONG" ]

The following interview speaks for itself.

Read here in New Straits Times (28 Oct 2007 -NST) full interview article

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, who is the de-facto law minister, talks to ANIZA DAMIS (from NST) about the controversial video clip, the judiciary, the Bar Council and bloggers.

Q: Is there a crisis in the judiciary? Why is there a perception of there being one?

A: There isn’t a crisis. It’s a FALSE allegation. The perception has been created by some people. When I go back to my constituency, NOBODY talks about it.

When people do not go to the courts to settle their disputes, that’s when there’s a crisis. But I DON'T see that.

The few people who are unhappy, make a lot of noise. It is reported, people read, and think there is a crisis.

Crisis means it involves the whole country but NOBODY talks about it. I even asked my fellow Members of Parliament (MP) but NOBODY talks about it.

(Reality Check: Read here -speech of Sultan of Perak, former Lord President of the Supreme Court, who said, "Sadly I must acknowledge there has been some disquiet about our judiciary over the past few years and in the more recent past."-Malaysian Unplug)

So, what crisis are we talking about? The crisis is in the minds of those who created it.

Q: Some 1,000-2,000 lawyers were involved in the Bar Council walk. Are you saying that that many lawyers have been misled?

A: Only 1,000 went to the ground. There are 13,000 registered members of the Bar.

Q: You don’t think 1,000 is enough?

A: 1,000 of 13,000 — is that a majority? What’s the big deal?

In a democracy, the minority cannot control the majority. The minority does not speak for the majority.

Q: Aren’t the views of the minority also important?

A: But (they are) not (the) majority. If there are any decisions to be made, it has got to be the majority.

Q: So, if you wanted to be convinced (that there is a crisis), you would need 7,000 lawyers to walk?

A: Even then, it’s still not important to us, because the lawyers are not the only people who use the courts. The ordinary people use the court in their disputes.

It must be a majority of the population who feel that there is a crisis. Otherwise, there is nothing.

Q: Do you really want that many people marching in the streets?

A: No. You don’t have to have millions of people marching in the streets.

Let the people decide, whether there is a crisis or not, through the legal means of sharing your dissent or anger — through the ballot box.

Then you can say, “Let’s have elections once every three years then.” We have to work within the system that we have.

Q: So, what you are suggesting is, if people are unhappy with the judiciary, they should vote BN out?

A: Ya.

Q: But what if people want a BN government, but they also want you to ensure a clean judiciary?

A: So then go talk to the judges — why talk to us?

I’m the Executive. How can they ask me to sack the chief justice (CJ)?

Q: You’re the de-facto Law Minister. And they are not asking for a sacking — they are asking for a more transparent appointment system.

A: We’re talking about the independence of the judiciary. I don’t speak for the judges. You want to clean up the judiciary, go and speak to the judge.

(Reality Check: Nazri spoke on behalf of CJ Fairuz, Read here. Malaysian Unplug)

Then, once the judges decide, we will accommodate the procedures. Lawyers can criticise the judges or judiciary if they want to. But if I, as an MP, criticise, then I am interfering.

So, the best thing the lawyers can do is speak to the judges — tell them how important it is to clean up the judiciary.

I’m sure the judges are also concerned about their image. And if they so decide, and say, “Look, it is time that we change", then we will accommodate them — amend the Constitution, or whatever. It has to come through the judiciary — not from me.

When they (the lawyers) went to the prime minister they are asking him to interfere. Tak boleh (Cannot).

Twenty years ago, they were very angry with us. The prime minister used the procedure to sack the CJ. Now you are asking us to use the procedure to do the same thing?

Why is it that 20 years ago we cannot do that, but now we can? Is this at the whims and fancy of the Bar Council members?

I feel their problem is with the individual; not with the system. There is a Malay saying: Marah nyamuk jangan bakar kelambu. You are upset with one individual, you want to throw away the entire system.

Later, if you have another system, and you don’t get along with the CJ, do you want to change the system again?

Q: But if we had a transparent system, perhaps all judicial appointees would be acceptable to the people.

A: But if you have a royal commission for the appointment and promotion of judges, you might not agree with the decision, too, because members of the royal commission are also human beings.

Tell me, who appoints the commission? The system is the same. The appointment of the commission will be made by the king, on the advice of the prime minister.

The commission would be there, but the Bar Council will not be happy, and then you’ll have another system (change).

Q: Can the commission be appointed by consensus or stakeholders?

A: Why stakeholders? Stakeholders are people too. Do you want to have an election?
You know what will happen — people will campaign to become members of the commission and then they’ll be compromised, because they want to be chosen by the people.

And then the judges will have to kow tim (settle) with them again — it’s the same thing.

Are we to change just because 1,000 lawyers are unhappy? The Constitution must be amended by two-thirds of MPs; and the two-thirds represent the majority of the people.

If we MPs are not convinced, how can we amend the Constitution?

We can’t listen to the views of just 1,000 lawyers. Since when was the view of 1,000 lawyers more important than that of the 11 million who voted for us?

Lawyers are not the only stakeholders. It is also the people in the streets — they are the ones who go to court.

Q: You have said the government was happy with the current system of appointments. Why?

A: We found that the system works for us. We inherited this system (from the British), and for 50 years it has served us well. Something which has not brought us any problem, why should we change?

If we need to change this system, we would need a clear indication from the judiciary. Even then, before you change you have to go and see the Malay rulers. Out of courtesy, you have to tell them.

Any slight change, we have to see the Malay rulers FIRST. Once they agree, then you’ve got to get the agreement of the judges also, because this involves them.

I am only interested in no interference by the Executive. When I became minister in charge of the judiciary, I wanted to make sure that what happened 20 years ago should not happen now. So, please do not ask us to interfere with the judiciary.

The prime minister is a good man, he respects that, so he doesn’t interfere. That’s why you can see judges now making decisions which may sometimes be negative towards the government. That’s okay.

They are free to make their decisions without interference. The same goes for how judges should be appointed. But if the call for change comes from the judges, it’s okay.

Q: Is the tenure of the chief justice going to be extended?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know anything.

Q: The video-clip issue will not yet be settled at the time of his retirement (scheduled for Thursday). Don’t you think that it’s rather unfortunate for him to retire before this matter is settled?

A: I don’t know whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate. That is the prerogative of the prime minister.

Q: Has the prime minister indicated anything to you?

A: No. As I said, I don’t interfere.

I only do things which the prime minister asks me to do.

I never ask about things that I am not supposed to be making decisions or that I am not supposed to know.

Q: If you just take into account what is printed in the media and what comes out in the blogs, it would appear that there is a crisis in the judiciary.

A: To me, if there were no newspapers, if there were no blogs, then it’s just mere chit-chat in the coffeeshop. That’s all.

Q: Coffeeshop chit-chat is not important?

No. The people are important. This is a government elected by the people, for the people. So, People means the Majority.

If we didn’t have blogs, if we didn’t have newspapers, who in this world would know about it? But because of technological developments, you are able to chit-chat (about it). It’s just chit-chat.

Q: But the fear that is felt is genuine.

A: So what do you want me to do? Ban all these bloggers? Shut down all the newspapers? I don’t think so.

We must live with the fact that this is now a modern world. Technology has enabled us to get to know each other so news gets moved faster.

Q: So, you don’t think it’s important to try to address the worries of these people?

A: No. It’s not important. Why do you put so much importance on bloggers? You know what rubbish has been written in the blogs?

(Reality Check: What others say on the pervasive influence of Bloggers: Read HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE : Malaysian Unplug)

Q: Do you read blogs?

A: I don’t. I don’t waste my time. The few pieces that people print for me are just rubbish.

I’d rather spend my time to do things that are constructive; that go down directly to the people who are really in need of the help of the government.

Our bloggers are really not up to standard. When they put up something, it’s not something that they want to discuss in a very intellectual way.

It’s more because of their anger - the language they use. Why should I read all this rubbish?

When the standard of our bloggers is upgraded, then probably I will look at what is written. But anyway, they are a MINORITY. My concern is for the majority.

Q: Indians in Malaysia are a minority. Does that mean that they don’t count?

A: No, not in that minority sense. I am talking about bloggers.

When you talk about minority in the sense of perkauman, they are VERY important, because they are our rakyat, a rakyat that needs to be helped.

Bloggers don’t need to be helped. They are merely throwing rubbish into the blog.

I have NO concern for and care about bloggers.

The problems of Indians as a minority is different from the problems of the bloggers. You must appreciate that. I don’t care about the bloggers, but I do care about the minority Indians.

(Reality Check: Read here on the destruction of Hindu Temples around Malaysia-Malaysian Unplug)

In my constituency, I take care of them. You can go to my constituency and see what I have done for the Indian minority. I was the one to open the training in Mara for the Indian youths.

These are my concerns.

Q: What did you mean when you said that, by walking, the lawyers were behaving like the opposition?

A: Lawyers have got stature in the eyes of the public. And they are apolitical.

Also, I have told them that we will work together; never again should the confrontation of 20 years ago be repeated.

It doesn’t look good when the government is at odds with either the judiciary or the Bar Council.

So, I opened up the doors, I’ve helped them in many ways, to hasten the Legal Profession Act (Amendment) for instance. I did not close my door to them.

So, I was SURPRISED when they suddenly decided to walk and demonstrate.

I feel sad, because these are lawyers — my profession also — and I would rather see them being accorded the respect that should be given to them.

If the memorandum is from the Bar Council, they would have been given an appointment to see the PM.

I would have preferred that the memorandum was brought to the PM’s office.

They would sit down with the PM, discuss for one or two hours, and then hand the memorandum over.

But by walking, it is like you are already partisan, you have already made up your mind to oppose the government; that you cannot work with the government, that’s bad.

Q: Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan said the reason they walked was that they felt all their appeals were falling on deaf ears.

A: It will fall on deafer ears, I can tell you.

Q: But why would you want to cover your ears?

A: They should know — they are lawyers. Their profession is adversarial. When they go in to court, there are two sides — the defendant and the plaintiff.

Even the two counsel cannot agree on how the law should be interpreted. So, you need the judge.

So, they fight. But at the end of the day, they respect the decision made by the judge. They go out, shake hands, that’s it.

In giving their views on the judiciary, they must understand that there are two sides to the argument. And theirs may not be the right one. So they must accept the decision. As lawyers, they should.

They cannot expect that whatever memorandum they give to us, we must agree.

Why couldn’t they have called to make an appointment? I’m sure the PM would have met them.

Q: Maybe walking just says that they are partisan towards justice?

A: I wasn’t complaining about their memorandum. It was the way they did it — demonstrating on the street. The Opposition was there.

When you go on the street, how are you going to stop the opposition from coming in?

In a meeting with the PM, those who are the opposition — who are NOT genuine lawyers — cannot go in.

You should be apolitical. You are an NGO, you are not an opposition party. You have stature, you’ve got a position in public, people look at you with respect.

But the moment you take to the street, who is going to respect you? They’ll laugh at you. There are people who are laughing at you — but they don’t write in the papers Bodoh punya kerja! (fool’s errand).

Q: Is there anything wrong in walking for your beliefs?

A: No. But that is the way of the opposition. If you are a political party, we can understand. But if you are a respectable society, that’s not an honourable way to do it — not when the government accords you respect.

How can you bring yourself so low? The moment you do that, we don’t respect you.

If I say to you, “M****r*****r you!", can you say, “Eh, let us sit down, we’ll talk about it.” No!

You are lawyers, man! People respect you. So, do it in an honourable way.

When the president of the Bar Council wants an appointment with the PM, she or he gets it. That’s how it is. That’s what I wanted, and I would have accommodated that.
But they didn’t contact me. I was waiting. Ambiga knows my doors are open.

Q: If, for instance, the Bar Council wants to take that avenue now, can they still take it?

A: They can. I have already told them, go and engage with the judges. But if they ask me to do what they want me to do towards the judiciary, I won’t do it because I am the Executive.

Q: The Bar Council claims that they have never been able to get an appointment with the CJ.

A: He’s retiring anyway.I told them, “Fairuz is also a human being. Kalau you criticise, criticise, criticise dia — dia mana mau layan you.” (If you keep criticising him, he won’t entertain you).

I can get a lot of things out of you if I talk to you nicely, but if I start shouting at you, do you think you will accommodate me? No way!

Q: But you are more than an ordinary person. You are also the de facto Law Minister.

A: But you cannot divorce me from the fact that I am also a human being.

Q: That’s very irresponsible.

A: Human beings, there are ways, how you do it. You want something, you talk. You don’t shout, and then expect to get something, no way.

Q: Why didn’t the government empower the panel to compel witnesses?

A: Because we have to first determine the authenticity of the video clip, to make it into a formal and genuine complaint

Q: What if the video clip is genuine, but the person doesn’t want to come forward?

A: That’s not OUR problem. We have already set up the panel, it’s for them.
As I’ve said, if I was the one who made the complaint, I would be very happy, I’d come (forward) and co-operate. There’s nothing to fear.

(Opposition MP Lim) Kit Siang said to me this morning (Wednesday) the problem is not that they are afraid of the public taking action against them; but they are afraid of the government.

I think that’s no excuse.

Q: Why can’t you set up something that can compel a person to come forward?

A: Then you are forcing people. We want it to be voluntary. When you make a complaint to the police, are you being forced to make the complaint, or do you genuinely want to complain?

You see, that is the problem (with the current situation). You have to come to us.

Even if you don’t trust us with the tape, then we can always tell that fellow to come, show the tape, then we see, and you can take back the tape.

But even then they don’t want to come forward. And their reason is that they are scared of the government. That’s not a reason.

Q: What happens, if, by the closing of office hours on Nov 7, no one has come forward (to the Independent Panel)?

A: Then, I think you, too, can conclude that there’s nothing to discuss.

It’s (the video clip) NOT genuine. That’s all.

Q: So, the conclusion is that there is no issue?

A: No issue.

Q: But at the same time, a video clip has been released, there’s been a walk, there’s been concern?

A: Much ado over nothing.

Q: So, the government’s not going to do anything?

A: What can we do? We already set up the panel, if people don’t want to come, what do you expect us to do?

There’s nothing we can do. It’s NOT our problem.

Those people who are supposed to be informers or witnesses should come forward.

If they don’t come forward, what can we do?

You’re going to be angry with whom? With thin air? Close-shop, habis (it’s over).

Q: Would you be sad, if no one came forward?

A: Ya. I feel that if I make a complaint, and the government sets up a panel, I would be very pleased to co-operate.

But when the government responded, by setting up the panel, it’s really sad, because we could have looked into the REAL issue.

But because this is a video clip whose authenticity has not been verified, then no further action can be taken.

Q: The third party that brought forward the video clip says they are not going to talk to the panel; it is only going to talk to a royal commission.

A: We cannot be dictated to. Before we set up the royal commission and go to the next step, we have to verify first.

This is a complaint against the judiciary. You have to verify the authenticity of the video clip first.

Q: If people come forward and give their statements to the panel, and the authenticity of the video clip is verified, what would the next step be?

A: If it was verified to be true, the next step would be to investigate the judiciary, the person there.

Q: Using what?

A: MAYBE a royal commission.

Q: Why not just set it up from the beginning?

A: No, you can’t. If you set up a royal commission over something that is false, it’s a waste of time. It is important to verify the authenticity. The video clip is like a surat-layang (poison pen letter).

For every surat layang that comes along, should we set up a royal commission? There must be a genuine complaint before we set up a royal commission.

For as long as we cannot verify the authenticity, equate the video clip to a surat layang.

A royal commission is a serious matter. So, the allegation must be serious.

It has to be a genuine concern. It cannot be a surat layang, or a false video clip. Malu kita nanti. (Or it would be embarrassing.)

(Reality Check: Read here "Video clip is NOT surat layang"- Malaysian Unplug)

Q: There is less than two weeks for people to come forward with what they have. Are you hoping that they will?

A: I hope so. We set up the panel to investigate the authenticity of the tape.

Come forward, lah. Apa nak takut? Takkan kita nak bantai orang kita! (What’s there to be afraid of? We won’t beat up our own people!)

Every five years, we put ourselves up as candidates for election. If we do something wrong, do you think that people will let you go just like that? No way!

Q: Maybe the informants’ concern is not so much the government, but that the parties in the video clip might take action against them.

A: But that is something beyond us. Even for us, if we do something, the lawyer can also take action against us.

It is not only the informant who will be left unprotected, the government can also be sued by the lawyer.

But that’s how it is. We can only do certain things. Beyond what we can do, we can’t promise. Even the panel can be sued.

Q: So how is anyone supposed to do their work, if they are not protected?

A: If you tell the truth, what is there to fear?

If you write something about a person, and the person sues you for libel, you can plead fair comment, and you can get away.

If someone sues us, it does not mean that we are guilty, we have a defence — fair comment, doing our duty — you have to go to court, lah.

The only thing that we cannot guarantee is that you will not be sued by anyone. But when you go to court, you have all these defences. What should you be afraid of?

Let them take us to court — bukan kita bersalah (we are not at fault). In court we will fight it.

Q: Where is the Witness Protection bill now?

A: At the moment, it is at various ministries and agencies for their comments.

When the cabinet approves it, the bill will be sent to parliament.

Q: You have said that even without a Witness Protection Act, the government can still protect witnesses.

A: There are specific acts which provide protection for informants. If the government decides that it wants to protect informants, like in the case of the video clip, that is something which we can do.

(Reality Check: Bar Council says there is NO such legislation or a Witness Protection Act. Read here : Malaysian Unplug)

Q: So, why do we need a Witness Protection bill?

A: At the moment, the various protection (clauses) are in various acts, so it would be better if we could compile them into one singular act.

At the moment this is berterabur (all over).

So, we want to protect the informers in general, so we should have one specific act.

Q: If someone were to come forward now, on the video clip, how much protection could you offer?

A: We can offer any protection, for as long as it is not against the Constitution or against any laws.

Q: But that requires the person to come forward first. This is no guarantee of protection.

A: He can always communicate (his protection requirements) through a third person. Whatever we can do, we’ll do.

Missing Girl from Gopeng Found Dead !!!

Update from Msiaman's Blog "Find Kha Man"

2pm: 4th November: The police has classified the case as sudden death but the Chin family is trying to appeal to the police to investigate the case to find the person(s) responsible. Just based on the fact that the bicycle is left in town 'pasar' but body found on a hill stream bank some more than 5 KM away is not something of an ordinary occurance. Furthermore the body was found half naked! She was apparently still in her school uniform. It would be questionable that this girl would have goneswimming by walking more than 5 KM up-hill. Surely someone would have given her a ride.

Chin Kha Mun

MISSING NOTICE: Chin Kha Mun is a girl from Gopeng Perak. She was last seen on 1st November 2007 visiting a local school friend at about 2PM. When her family checked with the friend at around 5PM she was not to be found except for her abandoned bicycle. Kha Mun is 12 years old

11.30 pm: 3rd November

It is indeed a sad finding that Kha Mun's body was found drown in a stream a few KM away from the small town of Gopeng.

While awaiting post-mortum and other details of the sad incident, the family of Kha Mun would like to thank those who played an active role in helping to locate her as well as the care and concern for her well being.

Let us join the Chin family to mourn for the lost of Kha Mun who is too young to die at 12.

-from "Msiaman"

Malaysian "Tourist" Astronaut and the RM 3.4 Billion for 18 Russian-made Sukhoi Jet-fighters

From Malaysia-Today: Read here article by Hishamuddin Rais

Related Articles HERE and HERE

Background:

Malaysian Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor is the second Muslim in space, after the space tourist Anousheh Ansari, an Iranian-born American entrepreneur.Anousheh Ansari blasted into space for several days on the Russian "Space Tourist Programme," beginning on September 18, 2006.

However, Shukor will hold the honour of being the first Muslim to be in space in the month of Ramadan. He said he hopes to inspire the nation with his space flight experience.

Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor was selected from 11,000 Malaysian candidates in a deal Malaysia arranged with Russia in 2003 as part of a RM 3.4 BILLION purchase of 18 Sukhoi Russian jets.

Wednesday's blastoff has cost the (Malaysian) Government RM 95 million, an amount that is partly offset by the country's purchase of 18 Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jets . Read here for more

THE Russian federal space agency has made an offer to Malaysia to send a second astronaut to the International Space Station in late 2010 or 2011.Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak said Malaysia had until 2009 to confirm its undertaking of a second space mission. Read here for more

Excerpts: Read here for more

".... (Pada) 23 Oktober 2007, akhbar Japan Times telah melaporkan satu berita di muka 4 – "First Malaysian in space back home with a bump" – pulang kepala bengkak. Ini mungkin kerana semasa Soyuz mendarat berlaku sedikit kesilapan teknikal.

Dalam berita yang sama dinyatakan juga bagaimana Malaysia membayar 23 juta dolar ‘duit tambang’ untuk menaiki Soyuz.

Rakyat Malaysia TIDAK diberitahu (nasib baik saya baca akhbar Jepun) bahawa rakyat Malaysia telah membayar tiket untuk naik Soyuz ke angkasa.

Untuk tujuan apa?

Ini samalah seperti naik Proton Saga ke Kutub Utara atau pergi mendaki gunung apa namanya....saya dah lupa. Semuanya adalah kelentong besar untuk agenda politik.

Semuanya kelentong ini TIDAK ada sangkut-paut dengan keilmuan sains jauh lagi dalam bidang teknologi. Teknologi kepala bana apa?

Kita hanya membeli tiket untuk naik Soyuz. Ini samalah macam naik Bas Mini dan kemudian dalam bas ini kita buat panggilan telefon ke rumah. Bas buatan Jepun. Telefon bimbit buatan Sweden.

Kutu berahak penyelidikan apa? Tidak percaya apa yang saya tulis sila saman akhbar Jepun.

Duit tiket 25 juta dolar dan 900 juta dolar itu beli jet pejuang ini mungkin termasuk atau tidak termasuk duit upah kangkang opps... upah si penterjemah Altantuya, hal ini saya tidak arif.

Tetapi saya sedar jika duit ini tidak digunakan untuk membazir membeli jet pejuang pasti boleh digunakan untuk membangunkan bilik-bilik makmal yang lengkap dan canggih untuk sekolah-sekolah menengah di seluruh negara.

Neil Amstong telah berkelentong pada 20 Julai 1969 dengan kata-kata ‘satu jejak insan adalah satu loncatan besar untuk umat manusia’. Cukup indah bunyinya.

agaimana pula dengan ini kata-kata pujangga ini - 457 juta ringgit duit komisen Sukhoi adalah loncatan besar untuk mendekatkan Najib kepada anak kunci simpanan duit Bank Negara’. ...."
-Hishamuddin Rais

The Lingam Video Clip Scandal: Government's Wishy-Washy Attitude to Cleaning Up the Judicial Rot

From Present Power Blog: Read here for more and HERE on Malaysiakini

Excerpts: Read here for more

Background: Full report on the Lingam video clip to be presented by the 3-man Special Panel chaired by Tan Sri Haider will be ready by 10th November.

And Haider hinted the Lingam video clip may NOT be authentic and "case may be closed" based on a report prepared by Cyber Security Sdn Bhd.

The analysis of the video clip was made by TWO LOCAL EXPERTS from Cyber Security Sdn Bhd lead by its digital forensic head Aszmarfidilah Mohd Ariffin.

Nobody so far has come forward to give any statement to the panel despite the government assurance that the informant will be protected. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has refused to hand over the original copy of clip unless there is a royal commission enquiry.

Defacto Law Minister Nazri has been making media statements agreeing with Haider.

Is Nazri trying to cushion the public prior to the submission of the Panel's Report ?

Commentary

From "multidimid" in Present Point Power Blog: Read here

This was a possible spin Datuk Nazri was making through the TV station to cushion the public when the Final Panel Results are announced after next Wednesday when the panel is expected to submit a report of the findings.

This preliminary premature finding is rather suspicious.

1. What about the announcement that a copy of the Clip has been sent to HK ACA equivalent for verification?
   
   
2. Have they got no results and why based the findings entirely on these so called experts “local experts” whose credentials and records are doubtful?

   It looks like another BIG FIX if they cannot compare the local opinion with those from the overseas experts. They must reveal the digital forensic methodology and criteria they employed to come to the conclusion that the clip is not authentic?

3. Is it NOT authentic because it is NOT the original?
   
   Like you compare pirated discs with Originals.
   
   The ONLY "original" would be the ONLY one residing in the cell phone and it would most probably have been erased by now after 5 years. So actually there is NO original left.
   
   The argument they might be using would be on similar lines if they are asked to verify confiscated pirated copies of VCD or DVD disc. They can easily verify fake copies the as any duplication would involve loss They should study the tempering of the clip and see if audio & video tracks have been superimpose on and altered.
   in "quality".

The report might be made public but who would challenge these 2 local experts in their conclusion?

Are they going to include copy of the report?

My simple analysis using the Video Ulead software on a sample 30 sec of the Lingam Video clip revealed NO such tempering or cheating. (See details H E R E)

Further checks revealed NO such company called Cyber Security Sdn Bhd, the closest is

CyberSecurity Malaysia (formerly known as NISER),
located at: Level 7, SAPURA @ MINES, 7, Jalan Tasik, The Mines Resort City,
43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

CyberSecurity Malaysia

Yes CyberSecurity Malaysia's services include Audio Video Forensics.

Question is: Have they done any authenticity checks on Videos BEFORE ?

Their work and consultancies are mainly on Cyber security tracking & spying on internet, virus attacks etc?

Look at their track records and here

Today, CyberSecurity Malaysia exists as the national reference and specialist centre in cyber security under the purview of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI).

But have they got the experience to do this verification?

According the CyberSecurity Malaysia's own report: Cyber Forensics and Analysis Investigations is the core services of the Digital Forensic Lab of CyberSecurity Malaysia. They offer digital forensics services to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, organizations and the general public.

The services are offered based on the systematic foundation of digital forensics methodology, which involves digital evidence collection, preservation, analysis and presentation. Is this the same company checking on this tape?

How can Haider based the conclusion from these 2 local boys who are guarding the internet?

Mafia-Style Behavior of Malaysia's Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA)

From Malaysia-Today: Read here for more

• Read here in Malaysiakini " Ramli charged for non-disclosure of assets"

Excerpts: Read here for more

Datuk Ramli Yusoff, the Director of the Commercial Crimes Investigation Department (CCID), is finally being charged.

And he is facing four ‘Mickey Mouse’ charges that would make even Walt Disney proud. (See: Ramli: Disturbing events in the force)

Ramli is being investigated for accumulating RM27 million in assets which he did not declare. He was then given a month to submit his full statement of income and expenditure over 37 years since 1970.

Roughing Up the Solicitor Instead

The ‘mistake’ Ramli made was that he engaged a solicitor (Rosli Dahlan) to draft the official reply to the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

The ACA then pounced on the SOLICITOR (Rosli Dahlan) and asked him to declare his assets as well.

The solicitor wrote back seeking further clarification but the ACA did not respond to the query.

When the deadline expired, the ACA came to the solicitor’s office two days before Hari Raya and arrested him for non-compliance to the order that he declare his assets.

The solicitor was roughed up and handcuffed in full view of the entire office as one would to a child rapist-killer. The ACA retorted that they are not obliged to reply to any query but those ordered to declare their assets are obligated to do so.

It was a beautiful trap and the solicitor walked right into it and got snared. Let this be a lesson to the rest of us. When the ACA keeps quiet then that is bad news, as this solicitor found out the hard way.

The solicitor tried to talk to the ACA officers to allow him time to volunteer his presence at the ACA office but he was told that he needed to be arrested there and then and be brought in immediately. The matter just cannot wait, Hari Raya or no Hari Raya.

On reaching the ACA office, the matter suddenly lost all urgency and the solicitor was locked up overnight in the lockup only to be attended to the following day. It appears like all they wanted to do was to lock him up for the night and not allow him to go home.

The next day, they charged him for non-compliance to the order to declare his assets. So it was not really that urgent after all and his arrest could have waited until the next day.

Was the solicitor a government servant?

Was he involved in corrupt practices?

Had he received bribes for dishing out lucrative government contracts to Chinese businessmen?

Was he on the payroll of the organised crime syndicates and had received millions as an inducement to turn a blind eye to the prostitution, loan sharking, drugs and illegal gambling rackets?

No, this particular solicitor made the mistake of acting on behalf of the Director of the CCID.

Okay, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia says that every citizen is entitled to legal representation. And Ramli, being a citizen of Malaysia, is also entitled to legal representation. But any solicitor who represents him runs the risk of arrest.

And this did happen to Rosli Dahlan who was stupid enough to think that it is the right of all Malaysians to defend themselves against criminal charges and who was stupid enough to actual act on behalf of Ramli.

Anyway, Rosli has since made a police report alleging that he was injured during his arrest.

He has also launched a civil suit against the ACA. The ACA responded by making a counter police report alleging that Rosli was abusive during his arrest and therefore the reason to rough him up and injure him. (This was the same reason given by one-time IGP Rahim Noor in explaining why he needed to beat Anwar Ibrahim to a pulp and leave him unconscious on the floor of the police lockup with no medical attention until the following day. )

Rosli’s case has been transferred to Bukit Aman where for sure this time they are going to nail his balls to the wall, side-by-side with Ramli’s balls.

NO Mention of RM 27 Million Charge

Is this matter really about whether Ramli is a crook? Time will of course tell whether he is and we shall all soon enough know once the trial gets underway.

Ramli was initially investigated for not declaring RM27 million in assets. The four charges that he faces, however, make NO mention of the RM27 million.

Instead, he is alleged to have failed to declare small change.

What was all this RM27 million about then? Why was this figure bandied about
these last many months?

And who leaked this figure?

Somehow the press got wind of this figure so someone must have leaked it to the press. And it was certainly not Ramli because he had no inkling how this figure came about.

We must therefore assume that it was the ‘other side’ that leaked it.

This one fact alone gives an impression that there is more than meets the eye here. This is NOT about a corrupted police officer.

If it was then Parliament would have to set up a special court like they did for the Rulers and about 50 new judges would have to be employed so that all the cases can be settled before all the judges, the accused, the AG and all witnesses die of old age.

Yes, that would be how many police officers who will be put on trial.

Anyway, as I said earlier, this is NOT about whether Ramli is innocent or guilty. We will allow the court to decide that, as I am sure they will dispense justice now that they will be having a new boss.

What we want to know is whether this is a simple and cut-and-dry case of corruption or failure to declare assets or is this actually fallout from a turf war in the police force with two sides fighting for control of the very lucrative drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling and loan sharking business?

Since June this year, Malaysia Today has been saying that there are also serious problems in the police force.

One ex-IGP said, going just by their lifestyles alone, it can be assumed that 40% of the police force is corrupted. One ex-Deputy IGP, in turn, said that if they want to clean up the police force then at least 90% of the police officers will have to be sacked.

But will it be in the form of the Altantuya murder trail or in the form of the Anwar Ibrahim corruption-sodomy trial? -- if you know what I mean, and if you don’t then I will not waste any time explaining as this would mean you are living the life of a frog under a coconut shell.

Unfortunately, in Malaysia, a trial is not the correct reflection of guilt or innocence. The innocent can be sent to jail while the guilty walks free, even in cases such as murder.

And this is why we need massive judicial reforms and this is also why the people profusely oppose the extension of the tenure of the Chief Justice -- who according to the Rulers’ wishes should have retired yesterday.

I am prepared to bet ten jugs of beer that this is not about cleaning out the police force or about eradicating corruption but is in actual fact a turf war to control the very lucrative drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling and loan sharking business.

And I further bet that no one will dare take my bet. Yes, there is more than meets the eye. There is a sleight of hand which even the great David Copperfield would find awesome.

So stay tuned as there is more, much more, to come.
-Raja Petra Kamarudin

COMMENTARY

From Richard Teo : Read here for more in Letters to Editor Malaysiakini

"... Lately, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) has been busy prosecuting civil servants mentioned in the recent auditor-general's report for corruption.

It becomes glaringly obvious that ACA has NO hesitation when it comes to arresting and prosecuting civil servants but are RELUCTANT to haul in POLITICIANS who are similarly tainted with
corruption.

Prosecution and punishment appears to be swift and efficient for civil servants and the police force but when it comes to politicians like Zakaria Deros from Port Klang and Mohd Said Yusof, the ‘close one eye' Jasin MP from Malacca, the wheels of justice seemingly grinds to a halt.

In our country, it appears some people are more equal than others in the eyes of the law.

And POLITICIANS here are a special breed of men who seems to have immunity from any prosecution despite their public commission of a felony.

Those people entrusted with the duty to enforce and prosecute the perpetrators have a latent fear of POLITICIANS who perhaps have the clout to punish any ACA officers foolish enough to try and bring them to book.

With the revelation of the controversial Lingam tape, we now witness corruption within the corridors of the judiciary. Appointments and promotion are designed for those who toe the line and are compliant to their political masters.

Judicial decisions affecting the interest of the government and its cronies are not won or lost on the merits of facts and law but on the basis of a prearranged slotting of a friendly judge who would ensure a favourable judicial decision on the understanding that they would be rewarded with a promotion at a later date.

If ordinary citizens can no longer seek justice and equity from our judiciary, where else can we turn to?

Our country's structure and system comprising the executive, the legislature and the judiciary appears to be crumbling. The once lauded Westminister system inherited from the British is now a pale shadow of its former glory.

In its place, the present (UMNO-led) Government has now perpetuated a system which is rotten to its core.

Only a matter of time before it will finally bring our country to an ignominious end.

Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Retires Without the 6-month Extension

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

Quote:

".... Sadly, I must acknowledge there has been some disquiet about our judiciary over the past few years and in the more recent past.

(Judges) must be sensitive to the feelings of all parties, irrespective of race, religion or creed, and be careful not to bring a predisposed mind to an issue before them that is capable of being misconstrued by the watching public or segments of them.

I have found it necessary to speak at some length on these matters because it is my earnest hope that the Malaysian judiciary will regain the public’s confidence and it will once again be held in high esteem as it once was held.”
-Sultan of Perak, Azlan Shah

Ahmad Fairuz retired from the top post under a cloud of controversy after he was implicated in a video clip talking to senior lawyer VK Lingam on appointing ‘friendly’ judges to the higher courts.

Ahmad Fairuz would be one of the few CJs in the history of Malaysian judiciary not to be given an extension. He had applied to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in July for a six-month extension.

It is a known practice for retiring CJs to apply for a six months' extension.

Court of Appeal president Abdul Hamid Mohamad was today appointed as the acting chief justice with immediate effect, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced today.

Penang-born Abdul Hamid was just recently appointed as the head of the appellate court on Sept 5. He had joined the legal service in 1969.

Abdul Hamid was appointed as a judicial commissioner of High Court Malaya in 1990 and two years later as a High Court judge. He was appointed to the Court of Appeal in September 2000 and in August 2003 was elevated to the Federal Court. He has one more year to go to reach his compulsory retirement age.

COMMENTARY:

Open Letter to Sultan Azlan Shah, Sultan of Perak

from Martin Jalleh:

Your Royal Highness,

Thank you very much for portraying the truth about the state of the country’s judiciary and your accompanying clarion call for major reforms in the judiciary during your opening address at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference recently.

You acknowledged with sadness that “there has been some disquiet about our judiciary over the past few years and in the more recent past…there have been even more disturbing events relating to the judiciary reported in the press”.

“We have also witnessed the unprecedented act of a former Court of Appeal judge writing in his post-retirement book of erroneous and questionable judgments delivered by our higher courts in a chapter under the heading ‘When Justice is Not Administered According to Law’.”

You highlighted “serious criticisms” against the judiciary such as delayed judgments and backlog in cases as a result of incompetence. You gave the example of a case of medical negligence involving a death of a lawyer which took 23 years to reach the Court of Appeal.

“Similarly there have been reports that some judges have taken years to write their grounds of judgments involving accused persons who have been convicted and languishing in death row.” (Like the judge who failed to deliver 35 judgments including four in which the convicted are languishing in jail despite being sentenced to death seven years ago?)

“Surely, such a situation cannot be tolerated in any progressive nation,” Your Royal Highness so very aptly concluded. The powers that be should therefore understand why the lawyers walked, the people talked and the rest blogged.

You have rightly pointed out that this is not the first time that you have expressed grave concern over the judiciary: “In 2004, I had stated that it grieved me, having been a member of the judiciary, whenever I heard allegations against the judiciary and the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary.”

Your Royal Highness had in June 2004 warned that “the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary’s independence would ultimately lead to instability and remedying it would be a protracted and arduous task.”

But, very evidently, the tell-me-the-truth Government has not been listening (even though it claims to be open).

After saying that you had given a “very good speech” Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, who is also the de facto Law Minister, Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, told the press that the state of the judiciary that you had described was merely your “perception”.

Clearly contradicting the scenario that you had painted in your opening address, Nazri very proudly and loudly declared to the press that “there was no erosion of public confidence in the judiciary” (NST, 30.10.07).

You stressed in your opening address: “In matters concerning the judiciary, it is the public perception of the judiciary that ultimately matters. A judiciary loses its value and service to the community if there is no public confidence in its decision-making.”

When asked to comment on public confidence being an integral part of the judiciary Nazri said: “I agree but the public... what is the public? Does the public mean 1,000 or 2,000 people or the whole nation?” It was just as good as him saying “Does the public mean the voice of one Sultan?”

Your Royal Highness, if we were to apply and follow Nazri’s arguments and the twisted logic which he had used to arrive at his arguments, which appeared in a NST interview (28.10.07), your grave concerns would be deemed as “a false allegation”, a “perception created by some people…who are unhappy, make a lot of noise…”

Yours (according to the Minister) will be a view of the “minority”.

Nazri had also insisted that there isn’t a crisis in the judiciary and that “(c)risis means it involves the whole country but nobody talks about it. I even asked my fellow members of parliament (MP) but nobody talks about it. So, what crisis are we talking about?

The crisis is in the minds of those who created it.”

The NST interview caused Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang to ask: “Will the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz dismiss Sultan Azlan Shah’s increasing “disquiet” about the crisis of confidence in the judiciary as a “false” perception and baseless allegation of one person, in the way he dismissed the concern of Malaysian Bar on the ground that it is no “big deal” as only 1,000 out of 13,000 lawyers or 26 million Malaysians had taken part in the “Walk for Justice” to the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya?”

It now appears that the independence and future of the judiciary in our beloved country depends very much on the perception of one man – Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz. He had even made it very clear (last year) that we have to ‘convince’ him first if things are to improve significantly in the judiciary.

Perhaps Your Royal Highness could educate the minister with what you had written in the postscript to your book “Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance” (pp 399 – 401) in April 2004: “… statements made as to its independence (of the judiciary) by the judges, or even the politicians (my emphasis), do not measure public confidence in the judiciary. At the end of the day, it is this public perception that ultimately matters.”

As for the de facto Law Minister’s seeking refuge under the “silent majority” as “the public”, Nazri’s predecessor, Rais Yatim, who wrote “Freedom under Executive Power In Malaysia: A Study of Executive Supremacy”, would be able to unveil the Minister’s cheap and stale political trick:

The “…supremacy of the executive can be achieved and maintained within the so-called democratic process through political manipulations. This is exemplified by the very mechanism of democracy, namely, majoritism, which since Merdeka in 1957 the executive branch of government in Malaysia has been able to render subservient both the judiciary as well as the parliament.”

Your Royal Highness, one can understand why you are “driven nostalgically to look back to a time when our judiciary was the pride of the region and our neighbours spoke admiringly of our legal system” and we were then “second to none and the judgments of our courts were quoted confidently in other common law jurisdictions”.

Today, we are driven nauseatingly to look back at our judiciary.

The region and our neighbours still talk about us. We have become a laughing stock.

We are second to none when it comes to kangaroo courts and court jesters like the de facto Law Minister.

The judgments of our courts are often quoted in political satire and online comic scripts.

May Your Royal Highness continue to speak out boldly on common law jurisdictions and the judiciary on behalf of the common man (and woman) as it has become increasingly common knowledge to many of us that we are being led by a Government tragically lacking in common sense.

A proud and loyal son of Perak,

Martin Jalleh
31 October 2007