Share |

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Pemimpin Pemuda MIC ditangkap

Penyelaras pergerakan Pemuda MIC, T Mohan ditahan di Pulau Pinang pagi ini selepas membantu seorang penduduk Kampung Buah Pala mengedarkan baju-T 'Selamatkan Kg Buah Pala' di sebuah kuil di Jalan Dato Keramat.

"Polis bertindak agresif terhadap kami...mereka biadap dan bila memasang gari, tangannya cedera," kata Mohan.

Katanya, beliau akan membuat laporan terhadap pegawai yang menangkapnya.

NONEMohan sepatutnya bertemu Ketua Menteri, Lim Guan Eng pada jam 11 pagi untuk menyerahkan memorandum mendesak kerajaan negeri menjual kampung tradisional India yang terakhir itu kepada MIC supaya ia dapat dipulangkan kepada penduduknya.

Selain Mohan, lima lagi anggota Pemuda IC dan dua penduduk Kampung Buah Pala turut ditangkap.

Setiausaha Pemuda MIC pusat, C Sivaraj; pengerusi biro kebajikan dan sosial, L Subramaniam dan K Jayashanker, penduduk yang mengedarkan baju-T itu adalah antara mereka yang ditangkap.

Mereka telah dibawa ke balai polis daerah Timur Laut di Jalan Pattani.

Rancangan awalnya ialah penduduk Kampung Buah Pala, bersama dengan anggota Pemuda MIC, berarak dari kuil tersebut ke pejabat ketua menteri.

Mereka ditahan kerana didakwa menyertai perhimpunan haram.

Ketika dihubungi, Sivaraj berkata, mereka tidak diberi masa oleh pihak polis untuk bersurai.

Police release sketches of suspected Jakarta bombers

JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) -- Authorities in Indonesia released sketches Wednesday of two men believed to have carried out last week's bombings at two luxury hotels in Jakarta.

Indonesian police spokesman Nanan Sukarna shows a sketch of the suicide bombers in Jakarta on Wednesday.

Indonesian police spokesman Nanan Sukarna shows a sketch of the suicide bombers in Jakarta on Wednesday.

One was about 40; the other 17, officials said.

Analysis of their DNA matched that obtained from a homemade explosive found in a room at the Marriott Hotel where they had checked in, police said.

But authorities still do not know their identities.

The blasts last Friday at the Ritz Carlton and JW Marriott killed nine people -- including at least two presumed suicide bombers -- and wounded more than 50.

The bombings happened shortly before 8 a.m. (9 p.m. ET). Both blasts struck the hotels' restaurants and several prominent international business leaders were among the casualties.

The hotels -- which are connected by an underground tunnel -- are frequented by international visitors and many foreign nationals.

It is unclear how they got around the security at the hotels, according to Alan Orlob, security chief for Marriott Hotels. Ritz-Carlton is a subsidiary of Marriott.

Special Announcement By DS Anwar Ibrahim

PKR Defacto Leader YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim scheduled to meet Indian Community on Saturday 25th July 2009, 4.00 pm at Dewan MBPJ Jalan PJS 4/19 ,Taman Medan, Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

YB Dato Seri Anwar is expected to welcome a Senior MIC Leader (Former Member of Parliament) and few branch Chairmen during the special gathering.

Let’s Join us to Hear Anwar’s Special message during the gathering .

I.S.A. -- The Institutionalization of Senility and Amnesia?

Azly Rahman

Melayu mudah lupa (Malays are prone to forgetfulness)
-- a popular modern Malay saying

"Work with me… not for me." - Former Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled for 22 years, once spoke about the nine challenges called ‘The Way Forward-Vision’, said to be a culmination of his work throughout his tenure.

The document charted the challenges the nation must confront in order for it to develop on par with the advanced nations.

These challenges are summarised as follows:

1. Establishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny

2. Creating a psychologically liberated, secure, and developed Malaysian society with faith and confidence in itself, justifiably proud of what it is, of what it has accomplished, robust enough to face all manner of adversity

3. Fostering and developing a mature democratic society, practising a form of mature consensual, community-oriented Malaysian democracy that can be a model for many developing countries

4. Establishing a fully moral and ethical society whose citizens are strong in religious and spiritual values and with the highest ethical standards

5. Establishing a mature, liberal and tolerant society in which Malaysians of all colours and creed are free to practise and profess their customs, cultures and religious beliefs and yet feeling that they belong to one nation

6. Establishing a scientific and progressive society, a society that is innovative and forward-looking, one that is not only a consumer of technology but also a contributor to the scientific and technological civilisation of the future

7. Establishing a fully caring society and caring culture, a social system in which society will come before the self, in which welfare of the people will revolve not around the state or the individual but around a strong and resilient family system

8. Ensuring an economically just society… in which there is a fair and equitable distribution of the wealth of the nation, in which there is full partnership in economic progress

9. Establishing a prosperous society with an economy that is fully competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient

With the Internal Security Act (ISA), how do we then meet these challenges? How is it an antithesis to what a civil society means? Do we still deserve the ISA?

Snapshot of protests

We are on the threshold of 2009. We have created a larger middle class, educated and imbued not only the taste of progressive Western secularist ideals synthesised with deep cultural and/or religious values still preserved, but also a better understanding of the principles of human rights. We know that Malaysia ratified the 1946 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We know that these involve the rights to the freedom of speech and assembly.

Our nation no longer deserves the ISA or any other intolerable Acts that kill the creativity and imagination of its nation. The ISA is an ideological state apparatus must go if we are to move forward as a nation that is known for it wisdom, intelligence, tolerance, and commitment to social justice - one that takes care of the needs of the poor of all races, without fear or favour.

The ISA which provides for detention without trial for up to two years at a time is anathema to the idea of a civil society. If we charge the detainees in court, we could learn a lot more about the meaning of ‘national security’. It is not merely about maintaining public order but about trying to understand why citizens are publicly acting in manner deemed ‘disorderly’. The history of the use of the ISA is tied to the history of the ruling class and how those who own the means of production own the means of silencing progressive voices of change.

Let us look at some snapshots of the protest movements in our history:

Why did Raja Haji the legendary Bugis warrior mount a revolt against the Dutch, ending in his martyrdom atop a hill in Malacca? Why did Mat Kilau, the legendary warrior from Pekan Pahang act up against the British ending in his mysterious self-imposed exile and death by natural cause at the age of 122? Why did the Malay Nationalist Party, a continuation of Kesatuan Rakyat Indonesia Semenajung and an early radical Malay party in the late 1940s act up, only to be met with witch-hunts by the returning British?

Why did those fighting for Independence in the 1950s under the banner of Saberkas act up against the dying colonial British Empire, paving the way for the creation of what is now knows as United Malay National Organisation? Why did those truly multiracial group of social activists act up by organising the hartal against the British in the early 1960s only to be met with heavy- handed reaction? Why did those calling themselves the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army revolt against the powers-that-be, end their persecution by the British that returned to power when the Allied Powers crushed the Axis Powers?

Why did the Malaysian intellectuals and social activists speak out over almost 20 years of the Kondrietiff cycle, beginning from May 13, 1969 to October 1989, to this moment in time to be met with the American McCarthy Era-type of response form the present government?

The answer lies in economics. Human existence, motivation, the rise and fall of nations has been attributed to economics. One's existence is defined by the material condition one is in or born into.

Question of power

Deeper than simple economics lies the question of power and the powerless, and the politics of under- representation. The Americans revolted against the British in the late 1770s under the banner ‘no taxation without representation’, symbolically registering their protest with the Boston Tea Party.

Essentially they revolted against intolerable laws set forth by the British - the 1765 Quartering Act and Stamp Act of 1765, Townshend Act 1967 and Coercive Acts 1774.

In our case, the answer lies in the ideology of Malaysia-style Oriental Despotism. The complex, dynamic, systematic, contradictory, sustaining, and consensual politics of the political-economy of a dependent communal-based capitalist state has made it possible for the use of the ISA to be rationalised and legitimised by arguments that touch merely on the symptoms of the breakdown of public order, rather that the root cause of the order in which the public need to be organised.

Had there been a sound developmentalist agenda from the onset of Independence - an agenda that retards the evolution of a corrupt corporate capitalist pluralist neo-feudalistic neo-colonialist capitalist state - we would have avoided or abandoned the use of the ISA and seen the evolution of a truly civil society that practises politics of inclusion.

To put it in simple words: we have made the wrong historical turn. We have to come back to where we began - back to the drawing board. This is the challenge - how do we undo hyper-modernisation and the politics of mistrust?

We are actually doomed as a nation. We need to get out of this quagmire if we are to save ourselves from total destruction in an age wherein the centre cannot hold, as the poet WB Yeats wrote.

How are we doomed? Why have we come to a point in which the ultimate keris - the ISA - is used to silence the voices asking the government to look into the plight of the oppressed and the desolate? Why is the voice of reason cast aside and force used instead? What might the consequence of this in an age of globalised, high speed, split-second information flow, consumption, and instantaneous revolution?

How do we evolve - or rise form the ashes of destruction brought about by internal contradictions that we have failed to resolve?

This nation needs to conduct soul-searching. Urgently.

And the ISA is an anti-Islamic act, nor is it sanctioned by any religion. Let us be clear on this notion of peace and justice. There are no communists amongst us; only neo-colonialists holding on to their ideological state apparatuses. A just government will need no I.S.A.

Graft Witness’s Fatal Plunge Sours Malaysia Premier’s Honeymoon


The anti-corruption commission “is just another tool of UMNO,” said Haris Ibrahim, a Kuala Lumpur-based human rights lawyer. “Short of completely overhauling the composition and the makeup of this body, this perception will not change.”


By Ranjeetha Pakiam, Bloomberg

An opposition aide’s death last week after plunging from the 14th floor of Malaysia’s anti-corruption agency may have ended Prime Minister Najib Razak’s honeymoon with the electorate.

Teoh Beng Hock, 30, died after being grilled by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission as a witness to the alleged misuse of public funds by the opposition-run state of Selangor. The government today may accede to demands from its own coalition partners and the opposition for an independent commission of inquiry after the death sparked public protests.

“This is a reminder to the Malaysian public that the institutions of the state have been compromised,” said James Chin, a professor of political science at the Malaysian campus of Australia’s Monash University outside Kuala Lumpur. “There is no check and balance within the police and the other law enforcement agencies. They’re not accountable to anyone save for the” government.

The police account of the circumstances of Teoh’s death, as reported by the New Straits Times, is that he was questioned for nearly 11 hours in a probe into misuse of public funds by opposition politicians and released at 3:45 a.m. on July 16. Police said his body was found on the 5th floor podium of the commission’s building at 1:30 p.m. and that he died between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., the newspaper said.

Additional Questions

Abu Kassim Mohammad, the deputy commissioner of the anti- graft agency, said Teoh wanted to rest for a while on a couch after he was discharged and several officers saw him sleeping there at 6 a.m., the New Straits Times reported. The police have not concluded investigations and will bring in another 40 people for questioning in addition to the 33 already queried, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said yesterday.

Najib, whose National Front has ruled since Malaysia’s independence from Britain in 1957, had seen his public approval ratings jump before Teoh’s death. The prime minister recaptured political ground lost at last year’s election by adopting opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s mantle as a reformer, dismantling preferences in business for ethnic Malays.

Anwar’s People’s Alliance says Najib’s ruling United Malays National Organisation, or UMNO, uses the police to stamp out dissent. Anwar himself is on trial for sodomy, a crime in Malaysia, and says the charges are politically motivated and that he doesn’t expect a fair hearing.

The anti-corruption commission “is just another tool of UMNO,” said Haris Ibrahim, a Kuala Lumpur-based human rights lawyer. “Short of completely overhauling the composition and the makeup of this body, this perception will not change.”

Lack of Faith

The latest survey by the Merdeka Center, an independent research institute based outside Kuala Lumpur, showed that while Najib had a 65 percent approval rating, the public’s confidence in the police stood at 46 percent, and at 41 percent for the anti-corruption body.

The opposition will set up an independent police complaints commission, a recommendation by an earlier Royal Commission in 2005 that the government has not fully implemented, Anwar says.

Hishammuddin said yesterday the police investigation into Teoh’s death would be carried out “without fear or favor.”

“There are many questions asked that need to be answered,” he told reporters. “If the questions raised are not answered, we might have to look at other options, including the possibility of setting up a royal or independent commission.”

Funeral Protest

About 2,000 people, including Anwar, attended Teoh’s funeral on July 20, the New Straits Times reported. The procession following the body carried banners and posters demanding justice. Seven people were arrested when protesters scuffled with police at a July 17 demonstration, the Star said.

Local councilor Tan Boon Wah, 39, was one of the suspects called in for interrogation on July 15, after the anti- corruption agency accused him of pocketing 2,400 ringgit ($677) he was given to supply flags for the Malaysian National Day celebrations on Aug. 31 last year.

“They made me stand still, at attention, for four hours, during which they made as if they were going to hit me, and called me ‘stupid Chinese’ repeatedly,” Tan said in a telephone interview. Tan said he was released at 2:30 a.m. after promising to show the receipts for the flags.

“Public confidence has disappeared and a lot of rebuilding has to be done,” said Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, a former president of Transparency International and vice-president of the opposition Democratic Action Party. “The prime minister has to take the lead. There should be no cover-up.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Ranjeetha Pakiam in Kuala Lumpur at

Matlamat tidak menghalalkan cara


Malays who say “matlamat menghalalkan cara” (the ends justify the means) are munafiq Muslims. Malays who support and defend the ISA are munafiq Muslims. Munafiq Muslims are those who do not walk the talk. Munafiq Muslims are those who talk about Islam but do what Islam forbids.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

ISA dan oportunis politik
Ruhanie Ahmad

Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri atau ISA tidak menjadi isu jika tidak dipolitikkan oleh sesetengah pihak. Sebelum tragedi 9/11 Presiden George W. Bush pun pernah membidas ISA. Tetapi sesudah 9/11 dia kata ISA amat relevan untuk era terorisme.

Pada awal 1980-an Amnesty International membuat isu pasal ISA. Maka KDN jemput wakil Amnesty International melawat beberapa tahanan ISA di Kemunting. Sesudah itu NGO antarabangsa itu tidak lagi membangkitkan soal ISA.

Kali ini ada orang politik nak anjurkan perhimpunan besar-besaran pada 1 Ogos 2009 sebab hendak berarak ke Istana Negara untuk membantah ISA. Pada hari ini juga satu lagi NGO akan adakah perhimpunan di Kuala Lumpur untuk menyokong ISA dikekalkan.

Ini bermakna ada pihak membantah ISA dan ada satu lagi pihak menyokong ISA. Seperti saya pernah tulis dalam Utusan Malaysia kira-kira sebulan lalu, ISA perlu untuk keselamatan rakyat, keselamatan ekonomi dan keselamatan negara.

ISA cuma dijadikan isu oleh sesetengah oportunis politik yang meraih sokongan menerusi isu. Jika tidak ada isu kumpulan ini akan layu tanpa sokongan.

Kumpulan ini silap jika mereka nak berarak ke Istana Negara sebab ISA. Mereka nak tnnjuk kekuatan kononnya mereka disokong oleh rakyat. Mereka tidak sedar bahawa antara silent majoriti pun ramai yang sokong ISA.

Jika mereka tak percaya, teruskanlah perarakan pada 1 Ogos depan dan lihat berapa ramai rakyat yang akan bersama pihak yang menyokong ISA yang juga akan berhimpun pada hari berkenaan.

Apa yang membimbangkan ialah kemungkinan adanya golongan provokator di kalangan pembangkang untuk menimbulkan huru-hara dan kemudiannya ditudingkan kepada pihak pemerintah.

Kumpulan provokator ini juga mungkin akan dikirimkan menggangu perhimpunan pihak penyokong ISA. Bayangkan apa akan jadi jika huru-hara tercetus.

Seelok-eloknya, batalkan cadangan perarakan pada 1 Ogos depan supaya pihak penyokong ISA juga akan membatalkan rancangan mereka. Ini elok kerana kerajaan pun sudah bercadang untuk meminda ISA.

Jika kita benar-benar prihatin hantarkanlah memorandum kepada kerajaan supaya diberikan pertimbangan dalam pindaan yang dicadang akan dilakukan. Jika pemerintah tidak memberikan reaksi, jadikanlah ISA sebagai manifesto dalam PRU13.

Cara ini lebih budiman dan berhemah. Lagi pun ISA bukannya undang-undang yang buruk. Ianya hanya diberikan imej yang buruk oleh pihak-pihak yang mempunyai buruk sangka terhadap pemerintah.

Secara peribadi saya syakki adanya pihak-pihak tertentu yang kini sengaja nak menghangatkan isu ISA untuk melencongkan pandangan rakyat daripada isu-isu politik yang lebih explosive dan controversial membabitkan sesetengah pemimpin pembangkang.

Jangan korbankan keselamatan negara dan keselamatan rakyat demi masalah peribadi yang sedang membelenggu diri seseorang.


It is so tiring having to write about the same old issue over and over again. I have written about this so many times I thought I can stop writing about it by now. Apparently they will not allow me to stop. They keep raising the same issue, which I have already addressed. And they keep raising the same arguments, which I have already replied to.

It looks like I will have to, again, argue my case. And I sincerely hope this will be the last time I will have to do this but I doubt it. On 1 August 2009, PEKIDA is going to organise a pro-ISA demonstration so I suspect the issue will be very much alive for some time to come.

Yesterday, Tan Sri Sanusi Junid wrote about the Internal Security Act in his Blog ( Above is a posting by Ruhanie Ahmad, which I lifted from his Blog. I don’t think I need to explain who Sanusi and Ruhani are.

It appears that the ISA issue can be easily compartmentalised into two categories -- those who support the ISA and those who oppose it. Those who support it are the pro-government supporters while those who oppose it are the pro-opposition supporters. Simply put, pro-government means pro-ISA and anti-ISA means pro-opposition.

Those who support the ISA say it is necessary to have a detention without trial law for the sake of national security and they accuse those who oppose the ISA as political opportunists who oppose the ISA for political mileage.

They make the issue sound so simple and they try to explain it exactly that way, in very simple ‘logic’. Well, allow me to also use simple logic to explain the issue the way I normally do.

Let’s paint a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say Parliament passes a new law that says all Malaysians have to choose whether they want to be a Malay or a Muslim. The new law says you can’t be both. You can’t be both Malay and Muslim. You must choose one or the other. If you choose to be a Malay then you can’t be a Muslim, and vice versa.

So all 15 million Malays have to submit their declarations. On this document they have state whether they want to be Malay or Muslim. If they mark ‘Malay’, they will no longer be Muslim. And if they mark ‘Muslim’ then they will no longer be Malay.

You can bet that 99% of Malays would mark ‘Muslim’. They will choose to be Muslim over being Malay. Being a Muslim means you automatically get to go to heaven even if you are so evil you send shivers down the spine of the devil. Being a Malay who is no longer a Muslim means you automatically go to hell.

That, simply put, is the Malay psyche.

A Malay would never in a million years dare reject Prophet Muhammad or the Quran. Doing so would mean his or her soul would be condemned for eternity. They will kill or die in defence of Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. Life is cheap if it is lost in the defence of the dignity of Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. Your life is even cheaper if they need to kill you as punishment for insulting Prophet Muhammad or the Quran.

That is the Malay psyche.

Nevertheless, while these people will swear they choose Islam over all else and are prepared to kill and die for the sake of Islam, they will also be the last person on earth to adhere to Islamic teachings.

Islam abhors injustice. Islam forbids detention without trial. Islam is opposed to the ISA. But these Umno people want the ISA to be retained in spite of the fact that this detention without trial law violates Islamic teachings.

Tell me what I should do about such people. Tell me I am going overboard by criticising Malays. Tell me I being unfair in my comments about the Malays.

No, don’t tell me anything. Let me instead tell you. The ISA violates Islam and those who defend the ISA are defending a haram law. And let me repeat what I have said so many times before. Malays who say “matlamat menghalalkan cara” (the ends justify the means) are munafiq Muslims. Malays who support and defend the ISA are munafiq Muslims. Munafiq Muslims are those who do not walk the talk. Munafiq Muslims are those who talk about Islam but do what Islam forbids.

Probe on MACC’s SOP won’t restore people’s confidence, says Anwar

By Adib Zalkapli - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, July 23 — Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today said the government has failed to understand the people’s wishes for a royal commission of inquiry to investigate Teoh Beng Hock’s death.

“The terms of reference will definitely limit the investigation of the royal commission and will not succeed in stopping the erosion of people’s confidence in security and judicial institutions, and it will not answer the questions behind Teoh’s death,” said Anwar in a statement.

Yesterday, the Cabinet decided to form a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigation procedures and whether Teoh’s human rights had been violated during his interrogation.

The government also decided to hold an inquest to be presided over by a magistrate to determine Teoh’s cause of death.

“It is not appropriate for an investigation to determine the cause of death to be handled by a magistrate, while the ongoing probe is handled by the Home Affairs Ministry and the police,” he added.

Anwar said the demand for a royal commission was caused by the loss of confidence in government institutions including the police and the Home Affairs Ministry.

“I am confident that the people of Malaysia do not want this royal commission to end up like the investigation into the VK Lingam video and the assault by the former Inspector-General of Police on me,” he said.

Teoh, a political secretary to Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead outside the Selangor MACC headquarters on July 16, one day after he was called in for questioning.

He was interrogated as part of an investigation into the alleged misuse of state allocations by Selangor lawmakers.

In MACC mess lies Pak Lah’s legacy of visionary ideas and half-baked execution

KUALA LUMPUR, July 23 — As the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) flounders, the legacy of Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is already in tatters barely three months into his retirement.

The MACC was a cornerstone of Abdullah’s so-called reform package.

It would have more bite than the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and would be the hallmark of the government’s seriousness in fighting corruption.

But with the death of Teoh Beng Hock, a DAP political aide called in for questioning as a witness, the MACC’s image has been battered to a pulp.

The interrogation methods of anti-graft officers are being questioned.

Significantly, it also brings direct attention to allegations that the MACC is not an independent agency.

Abdullah’s legacy is in tatters barely three months into his retirement. — Reuters pic

Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders have pointed out that the MACC’s relentless pursuit of flimsy allegations of graft against Selangor government officials is in stark contrast to its inaction against Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders.

Teoh had been questioned for eight hours, according to the MACC, over allegations that his boss, a state government executive councillor, had allegedly misused RM2,400 in state funds.

In contrast, the MACC has not reported if it is investigating claims that former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo had amassed enough wealth to build a palatial mansion in Shah Alam.

It is hard to dispute the general public perception that the MACC is now viewed with greater disdain than its predecessor the ACA.

Also the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has done nothing to reverse the view that the judiciary has decayed.

The courts’ handling of the Perak crisis has left the public again feeling less than satisfied.

Judgments of senior judges are now being openly challenged. Holes are being punched in the judgments by retired judges and senior lawyers for inconsistencies with legal principles and the constitution.

Ultimately, a significant number of Malaysians are left feeling that the courts are not exactly free and fair.

In other words, the public perception of the judiciary has not changed if it has not been worsened.

Abdullah stayed on for six more months as prime minister to fulfil what he says were his promises to the public and add some lustre to a patchy legacy.

The MACC he created is more powerful but little else.

It is not seen as an independent body and is an ocean away from Hong Kong’s much vaunted Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

Both the MACC and the JAC perhaps do symbolise the Abdullah years: visionary ideas, half-baked execution and a dismal end-product.

Parliamentary Roundtable on a new IGP for a safe Malaysia to be convened in Parliament on Tuesday, July 28

Media Statement by DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for MP for Ipoh Timor Lim Kit Siang in Petaling Jaya on Thursday, 23rd July 2009:

Pakatan Rakyat is convening a Parliamentary Roundtable on a new Inspector-General of Police for a safe Malaysia in Parliament next Tuesday July 28, 2009 at 10 am.

The Parliamentary Roundtable, which is convened by the Pakatan Rakyat parliamentary leadership Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang and myself, invites all Members of Parliament, whether Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional, from both houses, Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, as well as leaders of professional and human right organizations, NGOs, civic organizations and concerned stakeholders to jointly deliberate on how to restore to Malaysians two lost fundamental rights – to be free from crime and the fear of crime.

In recent years, the crime rate in the country has reached endemic proportion making the streets, public places and even the privacy of our homes unsafe to Malaysians, visitors and investors.

In its report in May 2005 commenting on the latest crime statistics available to it, i.e. 156,455 incidents of crime in 2004, which was an increase of 29 per cent from 121,176 cases in 1997, the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission said:

“The increase seriously dented Malaysia’s reputation as a safe country. Malaysians in general, the business sector and foreign investors grew increasingly concerned with the situation. The fear was that, if the trend continues, there would be major social and economic consequences for Malaysia. A survey of 575 respondents from the public carried out by the Commission clearly demonstrates the extremely widespread concern among all ethnic groups and foreign residents. Between 82.2 per cent and 90 per cent of the respondents, or 8 to 9 persons in every 10, were concerned with the occurrence of crime.” (3.1 p.108 Report)

The Police Royal Commission recommended “As an immediate measure, PDRM should target a minimum of 20 per cent decrease in the number of crimes committed for each category within 12 months of this Report’s acceptance and implementation.”

Instead of achieving the Police Royal Commission’s target of reducing the intolerably high incidence of crime of 156,455 cases in 2004 by 20 per cent in 12 months (i.e. 125,164 cases), the reverse took place.

From the latest statistics given in Parliament, crime index have galloped to break the 200,000 mark, with the incidence of crime shooting up to 209,582 in 2007 and 211,645 in 2008.

In the seven years from 1997 to 2004, crime index increased by 29%, but in the four years from 2004 to 2008 crime index increased by 35.5%.

This is why Pakatan Rakyat is convening a Parliamentary Roundtable on a new Inspector-General of Police to provide new police leadership to roll back the tide of crime in the last five years to ensure a safe Malaysia as well as to present a new image of democratic policing in Malaysia.

The two-year renewed term of Tan Sri Musa Hassan as the current Inspector-General expires in September.

It cannot be denied that during Musa’s tenure as IGP in the past three years, the national situation deteriorated in each of the three core functions identified by the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission as the priority tasks of the police force – to keep crime low, eradicate corruption and protect human rights.

In fact, street crimes became worse in the nation’s history during Musa’s tenure as IGP in the past three years and on each of the three core functions which the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission had outlined as the priority tasks of the police force – to keep crime low, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights – Musa failed in everyone of them!

There are at least two primary reasons why the country needs a new IGP, viz:

  1. Failure of Musa in Key Performance Indicators (KPI) as IGP in the past three years in all the three core police functions to keep crime low, eradicate corruption and protect human rights. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that under Musa, Malaysians are even more unsafe from street crimes now than when he became IGP in September5 2006.
  2. The re-appointment of Musa for another term of IGP cast an adverse aspersion on all the senior police officers, as if there is not a single one out of the eight top police officers occupying key police positions below the post of IGP who are qualified or competent enough to become the new IGP to provide a new police leadership and culture to roll back the tide of crime in the past five years.

In view of the shortness of time, all MPs whether Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional, Dewan Rakyat or Dewan Negara, are hereby invited to the Parliamentary Roundtable at Bilik Taklimat, Parlimen on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 10 am (lunch at end of Roundtable) even if invitations are unable to reach everyone.

Those who wish to attend or confirm their attendance should contact the Roundtable organising secretariat (Shabrimi 016-4124735; Lim Swee Kuan 016-6266848; Boon Kia Meng 012-5180863).

Let the Parliamentary Roundtable on Tuesday will be a milestone in the journey to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service regarded as an international model for all polices forces in keeping crime low, eradicating corruption and protecting human rights.

Lim Kit Siang

Police investigation ready before inquest

KUALA SELANGOR, 23 July 2009: The police investigation into the death of Teoh Beng Hock is expected to be completed before the inquest into the death of the political aide starts next week, said Selangor police chief Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar.

The police investigation was about 10% to 15% near completion, he told reporters after closing a Selangor contingent-level Quranic recital near here last night.

The cabinet yesterday ordered an inquest next week to determine the cause of death of Teoh, whose body was found on 16 July 2009 on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam, which houses the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office on the 14th floor.

The cabinet also ordered the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry to study the MACC's standard operating procedures in questioning witnesses.

The death of 30-year-old Teoh, who was a political aide to Selangor state executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, created public outcry after he was found dead following questioning as a witness by the MACC over alleged misuse of funds by certain Pakatan Rakyat state executive councillors.

Khalid said the police would not propose anything to the MACC in relation to the mode of questioning employed by the anti-graft agency.

"We will leave it to the royal commission to scrutinise the mode of questioning employed by the MACC. The commission has a clear term of reference (which is to determine whether human rights have been violated when questioning Teoh)," he said. Khalid also said that Teoh's handphone was still with the police.

"We wanted to trace the calls made by the deceased before he was brought into MACC custody and the short messaging service (SMS) notes received before he was found dead," he said.

He added that the closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage from Plaza Masalam's car park and lift areas were consistent with witnesses' statements. — Bernama

Security Machines at Istana Kehakiman

Loyar Burok
Fahri Azzat

This post is reproduced from here

Fahri Azzat, who occasionally visits the Istana Kehakiman to do a bit of filing, case management, breakfast and use the impressive toilets, shares his thoughts on the security machines and guards stationed at the entrances and naturally concludes with the necessity for the removal of both.

If you visit the Istana Kehakiman (formerly mis-described as the “Palace of Justice”) at Putrajaya, you will notice some impressive security machinery at the entrances. There is a metal detector, an X-ray machine and a guard who can use the portable metal detector on you where appropriate. If they want to.

Although our bodies are scanned and the bags x-rayed, I really don’t know what those machines are for. Sometimes there are no guards manning the machine. One can just walk right through. Especially after the 9am morning crowd. In fact, I and just about everybody I see who walks through the metal detector sets it off but we are usually not further frisked or scanned thereafter. If you’re not going to frisk or scan us further then why bother, why waste the electricity to have those machines on?

Sometimes when we send our bags through the X-ray machine, there is no one observing the contents of the bag. The guard would be sitting somewhere closer to the door with a better view of the outside because he is usually bored out of his wits. Serious. If you wait long enough, I feel certain their brains would spill out of their ears. All they do is eye us warily from their corner as they tip their chair back as if their eyes possessed the ability to X-ray evil intentions for a few seconds before turning to what they were occupied with before.

In short, they are not using the machines as they are supposed to. There are security machines, there are security guards but there is no security. This is the magic of Malaysia. A bit like our laws - we have laws, we have courts but there is no law and even less order. Not even David Copperfield can pull off feats of illusion!

So what this means is that the machines are not for purposes of security. This suggests that it is there for some less obvious other purposes. We can also infer that since those machines are not seriously or consistently operated it is there for show. But shows cost money. X-ray machines, metal detectors cost money. And we all know that in Malaysia, money from the government means “project”. And project usually means out of our pockets i.e. tax payers money and into some well connected person’s pocket (or their flunkies).

I’m not sure why we need those machines in the Istana Kehakiman in the first place. I am not aware of any threats made against the building or the courts. For the time being, the likelihood of a threat against the Istana Kehakiman would be more from within, than without.

That money should have been spent on purchasing tasteful benches that blended with the splendid decor. More of that would be nice. Or upgrading the Judiciary museum to make it available to the public. That would make the place more interesting to visit. Seems to be opened for dignitaries only. Or nice and better room for members of the public to cool their heels and wait patiently.

Since they (the machines and the guards) are the first thing the public, clients, foreign guests and lawyers meet upon entering the court, and they symbolize incompetence and corruption, it is therefore in the interest of the Istana Kehakiman to get rid of both.

We wouldn’t want the public to think that our Judges and Judiciary were incompetent or corrupt similarly now would we?

Especially now that most of them along with the government appear to have forgotten the Royal Circus of Malaysia on the VK Lingam video clip.

Suruhanjaya DiRaja Mestilah Menyiasat Punca Kematian Mendiang Teoh

Akhirnya Dato’ Sri Najib Razak tunduk kepada desakan rakyat Malaysia yang mahukan Keadilan buat mendiang Teoh Beng Hock. Hari ini kabinet memutuskan serta akur kepada pandangan agar sebuah Suruhanjaya Diraja diwujudkan.

Cumanya, jika kita meneliti pengumuman berkaitan, berdasarkan terma-terma khusus yang digariskan kabinet, Suruhanjaya tersebut hanyalah untuk mengkaji peraturan soal siasat yang digunapakai Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia(SPRM) dan bukannya untuk menyiasat punca sebenar kematian Sdr Teoh Beng Hock. Terma tersebut pastinya membatasi penyiasatan serta penelitian Suruhanjaya Diraja sekaligus tidak berjaya menghalang terhakisnya keyakinan rakyat terhadap institusi-institusi keadilan dan keselamatan negara ini serta tidak menjawab teka-teki yang menyelubungi kematian Mendiang Teoh.

Umum menyedari kaedah penyiasatan yang digunakan SPRM dikritik hebat antaranya oleh Majlis Peguam Malaysia. Sayugia diberi perhatian, Peraturan 20, Peraturan Lokap 1953, Perkara 5 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Seksyen 28A(4) Kanun Acara Jenayah serta Konvensyen Menentang Hukuman yang Menyiksa, Zalim danTidak Berperikemanusiaan telah melakarkan secara jelas kaedah-kaedah yang harus digunapakai sewaktu penyiasatan. Kerajaan sewajarnya memastikan SPRM bertindak mengikut lunas undang-undang yang sudahpun tersedia. Saya berpandangan Suruhanjaya Diraja yang bakal diwujudkan ini sepatutnya lebih menumpu untuk menjawab punca sebenar kematian mendiang Teoh Beng Hock.

Berhadapan dengan kemarahan rakyat yang kian memuncak, tidak wajarlah penyiasatan untuk menentukan punca kematian diserahkan kepada seorang majistret dan siasatan pula dikendalikan pihak Kementerian Dalam Negeri serta Polis. Kerajaan seharusnya sedar desakan mahukan sebuah Suruhanjaya Diraja didasari ketidakyakinan rakyat terhadap integriti serta kebebasan institusi seumpama Polis dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri.

Saya yakin rakyat Malaysia tidak mahu Suruhanjaya Diraja ini berakhir seperti penyiasatan video VK Lingam dan kes serangan bekas ketua polis negara terhadap saya. Sehingga kini tiada tindakan susulan yang bermakna diambil. Segala saranan serta hasil siasatan yang dikemukakan oleh Suruhanjaya Diraja hanya menemui jalan buntu demi menjaga kepentingan sesegelitir. Jika inilah jalan yang mahu ditempuh pastinya kerajaan umno-bn membawa negara kita menuju kehancuran.


Umno Supporters Protest Against Groups Trying To Obstruct Probe

KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 (Bernama) -- About 50 Umno supporters from the Ampang, Pandan and Gombak divisions here protested against moves to frustrate probes by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and police into malpractices allegedly committed by several Selangor Executive Councillors as well as on the death of Teoh Beng Hock, a political aide to a Selangor Exco member.

Ampang Umno division head Datuk Ismail Kijo said the issue on Teoh's death should not be politicised.

"I notice that certain groups are trying to divert the issue as though they want to protect the actual issue, namely corruption.

"Their leaders are demanding that no action be taken against several State Exco members being investigated by the MACC until the probe on Teoh's death had been concluded whereas the matters are unrelated," he told reporters here.

The gathering, which started at 4.30 pm next to a carpark of a shopping complex, here, was dispersed by police about 20 minutes later as it did not have a police permit.

Tolak Inkues dan Suruhanjaya macam budak main masak-masak?

cheGuBard dengan ini menyatakan sikap menolak kewujudan Jawatankuasa Penyiasatan (inkues) dan Suruhanjaya yang di umum diwujudkan semalam oleh Najib Razak selepas mesyuarat kabinet semalam.

Najib semalam telah mengumumkan tiga keputusan kabinet ekoran kematian Teoh Beng Hock.

Pertama, Kementerian Dalam Negeri dan polis diarahkan menyelesaikan siasatan secepat mungkin dan laporan siasatan tersebut, yang sedang berjalan, akan diumumkan.

Dua, satu inkues atau siasatan awam yang diketuai oleh seorang majistret untuk menentukan punca kematian Teoh.

Tiga, menubuhkan suruhanjaya diraja dengan bidang kuasa khas untuk menilai kaedah soal siasat yang diguna pakai oleh SPRM dan menentukan sama ada pernah berlaku pencabulan hak asasi manusia sewaktu Teoh disiasat mulai petang 15 Jun hingga awal pagi esoknya.

Bagi cheGuBard ketiga - tiga perkara tersebut hanya permainan atau tindakan terdesak Regim Bn, ia tidak memberikan erti apa - apa sebaliknya hanya untuk memperlihatkan atau memberikan persepsi kononya Regim prihatin terhadap desakan rakyat.

Pertama, KDN menyiasat dan menyelesaikan secepat mungkin ? Bukan satu kes SPRM terlibat dalam jenayah mengasari suspek atau saksi semasa soal siasat, sebaliknya tidak ada apa tindakan diambil dan bagaimana pula institusi seperti PDRM yang sememangnya telah hilang kredibeliti kerana PDRM sendiri terlibat dalam banyak kes kematian dalam tahanan yang tidak selesai, ditutup dan diselewengkan. Sisatan Polis ke atas kematian Beng Hock juga telah menjurus kepada 'arah' yang salah. Semua sesi penyiasatan ialah mencari punca menghalalkan tuduhan polis/SPRM iaitu Beng Hock membunuh diri. Mereka berusaha mencari (baca; mencipta) alasan kenapa Beng Hock bunuh diri bukan mencari kenapa dan siapa membunuh Beng Hock.

Kedua, Inkues melalui jawatankuasa bebas tidak membawa ertai apa - apa...? Jawatankuasa ini tidak punya apa kuasa. Katakan jawatankuasa ini memanggil pegawai SPRM, pegawai SPRM itu boleh sahaja tidak mahu menjawab pertanyaan kerana katanya siasatan SPRM adalah rahsia. Maka arahan mewujudkan Inkues ini adalah membazir masa dan wang rakyat.

Ketiga, Suruhanjaya Diraja yang dibentuk hanya dibenarkan menyiasat kaedah penyiasatan, bukan punca atau alasan kematian dan siapa yang bertanggungjawab.

Rakyat harus jangan keliru dengan permainan 'persepsi' yang Najib cuba mainkan ini.

Suruhanjaya Diraja Penyiasatan satu kemistian

Ingat insiden mata lebam Anwar Ibrahim, polis gagal kenal pasti siapa lakukan sebaliknya Jawatankuasa Diraja mendapati Anwar dicederakan dengan tujuan dibunuh oleh Ketua Polis Negara sendiri.

Ingat lagi dengan insiden 'ketuk ketampi bogel' ? Semuanya kecoh kerana kononya ia wanita warga China. Azmi Khalid, Menteri ketika itu 'berlari' ke China memohon maaf. Namun Suruhanjaya Diraja berjaya mengenal pasti wanita tersebut adalah warga negara Malaysia dan pegawai terbabit dikenakan tindakan. Hubungan antara 2 negara baik tetapi peliknya regim ini tidak pula minta maaf dari rakyat Malaysia seperti mana seriusnya Regim ini mengejarkan seorang menteri untuk mohon maaf ke China. Begitulah regim takut dengan rakyat asing sebaliknya berani membelasah rakyat sendiri.

Najib takut wujudkan Suruhanjaya Siasatan Di raja ! Ini bukan sekali desakan untuk mewujudkan Suruhanjaya Siasatan Di raja diutarakan kepada Najib. Beliau prnah dicabar untuk wujudkan Suruhanjaya Diraja dalam mencari siapa terlibat menjadi dalang dan mencari cerita sebenar misteri pembunuhan Altantuya, namun Najib tidak berani menubuhkannya. Sebaliknya Najib hanya menggunakan kuasa menggugut , membelasah rakyat yang cuba mencari kebenaran dalam isu Altantuya.

Kita biasa melihat budak bermain masak - masak, kelihatan serius dan bersungguh namun ia hanya memasak daun dan rumput di belakang rumah dan berilusi dapur punya api malah sesekali mulut membuat bunyi menggoreng. Maka dari jauh pasti nampak 'real' tetapi ramai yang buat percaya kerana nak jaga hati budak - budak. cheGuBard sekali lagi mengajak rakyat menolak pengumuman Inkues dan Suruhanjaya diRaja yang seperti budak main masak - masak.

Umno members gather in support of MACC, police

Cabinet approves royal commission

Mansuh ISA, SUHAKAM diberi maklum

Cabinet approves royal commission - Malaysiakini

The cabinet today agreed to set up a royal commission to look into the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's investigative procedures and to determine if there were any human right violations when Teoh Beng Hock was being interrogated.

Prime Minister Najib Abul Razak - who chaired the meeting - also revealed that an inquest will be held to determine Teoh's cause of death.

The cabinet also instructed the Home Ministry and the police to wrap up its investigations into the matter as soon as possible.

The findings of the investigation will be made public whereas Najib said he will personally inform the family about it.

Teoh, 30, was the former political secretary to a Selangor exco who was being probed for alleged corruption by the MACC.

He was said to have fallen to his death from the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam, which houses the MACC Selangor office, last Thursday.

His family and friends refuse to believe that Teoh, who was to get married the next day, would take his own life.

The case had received widespread media coverage, with both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat politicians calling for a royal commission of inquiry.

He added that in line with the 1Malaysia concept, the cabinet and government institutions are dedicated to providing the best service for the people.

Truth, nothing but the truth

"We want to establish the truth and nothing but the truth... it is important for us to ensure that public faith and confidence in important institutions," Najib expressed.

Asked whether a time-frame has been set for the police to wrap up their investigations and for the formation of the Royal Commission, Najib said:

"I know the police can wrap up investigations very soon. We are talking about a matter of days but the inquest is up to the magistrate to decide. The royal commission will established quite soon.

The prime minister added that the recommendations of the royal commission will be implemented, if they are "consistent with the principles announced".

He also denied reports that MACC officers involved in Teoh's interrogation have been suspended.

"We cannot have a preconceived notion, we have to wait for the results of the investigation.

Officers transfered, not suspended

"They have not been suspended. The lead investigator has been reassigned to the headquarters.

He also clarified that the royal commission's purview is not to determine Teoh's cause of death.

"The cause of death (will be determined) by inquest which is according to Criminal Procedure Code".

"The royal commission will look into the standard operating procedures of MACC.

He stressed that "the process of investigation will be forthright and transparent".

"We regard every human life to be sacrosanct and civil liberties to be valuable."

Kit Siang disappointed

In an immediate reaction, DAP leader Lim Kit Siang said he was disappointed with the royal commission as it will not be looking into circumstances surrounding Teoh's death.

"This falls short of public expectations and is unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

What the Malaysian public want is a royal commission into the mysterious causes of Teoh's death," he said in a statement.

He earlier told reporters that Najib should consult Pakatan Rakyat leaders on the formation of the royal commission as "we were the first to demand for a royal inquiry".

"The Royal Commission will not be adequate unless there is an acceptable composition and terms of reference," he said.

Perverse reasons pervert justice in Anwar v PP - Malaysiakini

I must apologize for the delay in giving this critique. The Court of Appeal gave its decision on July 1.

I received the "outline of reasons" from Ngan Siong Hing only last Friday, July 17, 2009.

Without him supplying me with a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, I would not be able to write this critique.

Also as I do not have access to a law library I depend a lot on his generosity to get the legal material that I need to write my essays for ordinary people to understand what the judges are talking about.

This is to enable the common people of this country to judge the judges for themselves.

The whole case can be understood just by readings 418A(l) and (2) and Section 376(l) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Power corrupts

David Pannick in his book 'Judges', OUP, 1987, wrote, p 76:

"In all societies throughout history, judges have occasionally been adversely affected by their power.

An early example occurs in the biblical story of Daniel and Susanna. Two elders of the community were appointed to serve as judges.

They saw Susanna walking in her husband's garden 'and they were obsessed with lust for her'.

When she resisted their advances they falsely accused her of infidelity to her husband.

'As they were elders of the people and judges, the assembly believed them and condemned her to death.'

A young man named Daniel protested that an enquiry should be made into the judges' allegations.

He accused them of giving 'unjust decisions, condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty'.

Under his careful cross-examination, the judges were proved to be liars: 'Daniel and Susanna' in 'The Apocrypha'.

The English Bench has had its fair share of bad judges. . . .In the seventeenth century, the Bench 'was cursed by a succession of ruffians in ermine [most notably Jeffreys and Scroggs (Sir William)], who, for the sake of court [royal] favour, violated the principles of law, the precepts of religion, and the dictates of humanity': John Lord Campbell, 'Lives of the Lord Chancellors' (5th edn, 1868), vol 4, p 416.

The misuse of power

In 'The Family Story', Butterworths, 1981, Lord Denning said, p 179:

"The law itself should provide adequate and efficient remedies for the abuse or misuse of power from whatever quarter it may come.

No matter whom it is - who is guilty of the abuse or misuse.
Be it government, national or local. Be it trade unions. Be it the press. Be it management. Be it labour.

Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power.

Else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer.

They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy. To my mind it is fundamental in our society that a judge should do his utmost to see that powers are not abused or misused.

If they come into conflict with the freedom of the individual - or with any other of our fundamental freedoms - then it is the province of the judge to hold the balance between the competing interests.

In holding that balance the judges must put freedom first."

And at page 180, this was what Lord Denning said in 1949 in the Hamlyn lectures:

"Reviewing the position generally, the chief point which emerges is that we have not yet settled the principles upon which to control the new powers of the executive.

No one will suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us.

You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do.
But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us, what is the remedy?

Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, but our procedure for preventing the abuse is not.

Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the minning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age.

They must be replaced by new and up-to-date machinery, by declarations, injunctions, and actions for negligence: and, in judicial matters, by compulsory powers to order a case stated.

Not our task

This is not a task for Parliament. Our representatives there cannot control the day-to-day activities of the many who administer the manifold activities of the State: nor can they award damages to those who are injured by any abuses.

The courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead, this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the welfare state: but abused they lead to the totalitarian state.

None such must ever be allowed in this country. We have in our time to deal with changes which are of constitutional significance to those which took place 300 years ago. Let us prove ourselves equal to the challenge.

"That lecture was given in 1949. Now, 30 years or so later ('The Family Story' was published in 1981), I think we can say that we have achieved what I then hoped for." wrote Lord Denning.

"We have now new and up-to-date machinery for the winning of freedom." he wrote, "We have declarations, injunctions, actions for negligence, and judicial review. All that is needed now is for the judges - and the Bar - to get to know how to use it."

I write about this in order to show how the common law was developed by great judges and Malaysia is a common law country.

So that most of us will know how and why we have inherited a great deal from the English common law which is the cradle of it all.

The common law is mostly the experience and the combined wisdom of great judges throughout history.

It took the British judges 700 or so years to have their common law as it is today.

The USA has a common law history of about 250 years. In Malaysia we have about 50 years since independence.

Let us be humble and learn from the mistakes of others.

But for the moment, it seems that our present crop of judges have stopped in their tracks as far as the development of the common law is concerned.

Some of whom, especially those in the higher echelons, are sorely lacking in competency.

Using the tools of justice

All that is needed now is for the judges to know how to use it.

The Bar certainly knew how to use the new machinery to fight the abuse or misuse of power by the powers that be. But not so the judges of the Court of Appeal in Anwar Ibrahim v PP.

But first, let me show you the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code that applies to this case.

I start with s 418A(1) and (2), thus:

41 8A. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 417 and subject to section 418B, the Public Prosecutor may in any particular case triable by a criminal Court subordinate to the High Court issue a certificate specifying the High Court in which the proceedings are to be instituted or transferred and requiring that the accused person be caused to appear or be produced before such High Court.

(2) The power of the Public Prosecutor under subsection (1) shall be exercised by him personally.

This draconian piece of legislation gives the Public Prosecutor the power to transfer any criminal case triable by a subordinate court to a High Court of the Public Prosecutor's choice.

But who is the Public Prosecutor? For this we have to refer to s 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It reads:

Tainted hands are biased hands

376. (1) The Attorney General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have the control and direction of all criminal proceedings under this Code.

(2) The Solicitor-General shall have all powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and shall act as Public Prosecutor in case of the absence or inability to act of the Attorney General.

Subsection (2) allows the Solicitor-General to act as Public Prosecutor in case of the inability of the Attorney General to act as such.

This means that if the Attorney General is disqualified to act on account of bias, as in this case, then in such a situation he is prevented from acting as the Public Prosecutor in as 418A application.

In which case the Solicitor-General shall act as Public Prosecutor unless the Solicitor-General is himself tainted with bias - in this case for supporting the Attorney General for what he had done that amounts to bias.

But justice is still served as the defendant can still be tried before a subordinate criminal court.
We are entitled to question the motive of the Attorney-General.

Why should he, in the mantle of Public Prosecutor, be so insistent and selective in the choice of a court to hear the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy case?

To everyone in this country the charge of sodomy against Anwar Ibrahim is no different from any sodomy charge against any other wrongdoer, unless, the Attorney-General as Public Prosecutor wants to have a particular High Court to hear the case against Anwar Ibrahim.

But why so? What is so special about Anwar Ibrahim? Is he the Attorney-General's or someone's nemesis?

Such an act creates an impression to the general public that the prosecution wants to ensure a conviction by choosing the correct court to hear the case.

To all of us right thinking Malaysians, this is unfair and unjust treatment of anyone who is accused of a crime.

Real motive formoving case

If the reader has the patience to read this article to the end, you will be shocked to learn of the real motive of the Attorney-General's insistence on a High Court of his choice.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Anwar Ibrahim vP P

The judges of this Court of Appeal are Abdull Hamid Embong, Abu Samah Nordin and Jeffrey Tan Kok Wah JJCA.

Remember their names for posterity so that the bad judges of this country will be etched indelibly in our memory.

The judgment of the court was delivered by Abdull Hamid Embong JCA.

It was a unanimous decision so that the travesty of justice caused by the decision implicates all of them. He said in his judgment which is in numbered paragraphs:

52. In signing this certificate, the PP cannot be said to be exercising a quasi- judicial function, but merely an administrative one, and one that only he can exercise. (see PP v Oh Keng Seng [1976] 2 MU)

53. In this case, we are of the considered opinion that the rule that a person under a suspicion of bias should not act as an adjudicator is not applicable to the act of the PP in signing this certificate.

We would apply the exception that natural justice may be overridden by a statutory provision as enunciated in Franklin & Ors v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948] AC [87], an exception which is applicable in both administrative and legislative process.

54. We rule that, in this instance, despite the allegations of bias and conflict of interest against him, the PP being the specific and only officer authorized by law to sign the S48A certificate, may do so.

His act cannot be impugned by reason of the imputed bias or conflict of interest. (see Mohd Zainal Abidin bin Abdul Mutalib v Mahathir Mohamed, Minister of Home Affairs and Anor [1989] 3 MU 170).

Fallacy of reasoning in judgment

In paragraph 52 (see above), the judge, Hamid Embong JCA, said that the Public Prosecutor was not exercising a quasi-judicial but an administrative function which only he as Public Officer can exercise.

This is not the law. The misuse of power may come from any quarter; it need not be from a person sitting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.

As Lord Denning has put it: "No one will suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us.

You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do.

But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us, what is the remedy?"

Nowadays there is always a remedy against the wrongdoings of public officials.

The Attorney General in this case, is no more than a salaried civil servant - he is subject to the remedy against the wrongdoings of a public official.

His employer is the Government of Malaysia and the CEO is the Prime Minister.

On the other hand, an English Attorney-General is a Minister in his own right and an elected representative of the House of Commons.

In The Queen v Gaming Board for Great Britain, exparte Benaim and Khaida (1970) 12 QB 417, 430 Lord Denning MR said:

It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply: nor as to their scope and extent.

Everything depends on the subject-matter: see what Tucker U said in Russel v Norfolk (Duke J) (1949) 1 All ER 109, 118 and Lord Upjohn in Durayappah v Fernando (1967) 2 AC 337, 349.
At one time, it was said that the principles only apply to judicial proceedings and not to administrative proceedings.

Bias cannot stand in court

That heresy was scotched in Ridge v Baldwin (1964)1 AC 40, 77-79 per Lord Reid, 133 per Lord Hodson.

Ridge v Baldwin was a decision of the House of Lords. It was followed and applied by the Federal Court in Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng (1977) 2 MU 152.

This makes the common law decision of Ridge v Baldwin a part of the common law of this country.

So now, we know it is utter rubbish to say that the principles of natural justice applies only to a judicial or quasi-judicial function.

Ridge v Baldwin and Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng have changed all that. And it is also rubbish to assume that only the Attorney-General can be the Public Prosecutor.

(See my explanation of s 376(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which I have discussed earlier in this article.)

Next is paragraph 53.

The substance what this Court of Appeal is saying is that the Public Prosecutor is NOT an adjudicator so that the question of bias does not apply to him.

As pointed out above, that heresy has been scotched in the House of Lords' decision of Ridge v Baldwin.

He was merely doing his duty as Public Prosecutor, says the Court of Appeal, to put his signature which according to him is a mechanical act required of him by s 41 8A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

But the question is, what if the Public Prosecutor acts in bad faith to transfer the case to the High Court of his choice?

Surely, in such a situation the decision to transfer the case to a High Court of the Public Prosecutor's choice cannot be allowed to stand on account of bias.

The Court of Appeal relied on Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948) AC 87 where the headnote reads that the House of Lords has held that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has no judicial or quasi-judicial duty imposed on him, so that considerations of bias in the execution of such a duty are irrelevant, the sole question being whether or not he genuinely considered the report and the objections under the New Towns Act 1946.

Authorities cited not good law

We know now that after Ridge v Baldwin in 1964, Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning is no longer authority for any such proposition.

It is quite unbelievable that these judges of the Court of Appeal could ever dream of misleading the general public of this country by citing as authority, a 1948 decision when they knew, as I am sure Haji Sulaiman or any competent counsel would have informed them, that Franklin is no longer good law.

Not only that, Ridge v Baldwin in 1964 has been approved and applied by our Federal Court in Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng (1 977) J 2 MU 152, thus importing into the common law of Malaysia the English common law decision of Ridge v Baldwin.

Furthermore, they, the judges of this Court of Appeal, even try to mislead us by saying in paragraph 53: "We would apply the exception that natural justice may be overridden by a statutory provision as enunciated in Franklin & Ors v Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948) AC 87, an exception which is applicable in both administrative and legislative processes".

I have read through the judgment of Lord Thankerton, all 12 pages of it, many times over but I am unable to find the proposition of law that Hamid Embong JCA states in paragraph 53 of his "outline of reasons" was the ratio decidendi of Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning.

The Court of Appeal has put words to the House of Lords decision in Franklin which were not found in the judgment of Lord Thankerton.

And now, on to paragraph 54.

For the reasons given above, what the Court of Appeal says in paragraph 54 is not the law.
Ridge v Baldwin in the House of Lords and our Federal Court in Ketua Pengarah Kastam v Ho Kwan Seng have scotched the heresy.

If it can be shown that the Attorney-General had misused his power in the victimization of Anwar Ibrahim, that is enough to disqualify him from acting as the Public Prosecutor to sign the certificate under s 418A of the CPC.

Shocking condemnation

Finally, I will leave this to your own judgment.

The following is taken from the judgment of Steve Shim who was then the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak in the case of Zainur bin Zakaria v Public Prosecutor (2001) 3 MU 604, 613-614:

To my absolute horror and disappointment Abdul Gani Patail used the meeting and the death sentence under s 57 of the ISA as a bargaining tool to gather evidence against Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

He had with him the letter I had written to you and copied to him.

He was waving the letter about and kept on saying, repeatedly, "I am not impressed" and suggesting that he would not be impressed with my plea to a charge under the Firearms Act, but instead he wanted more.

This "more", and it came across very loud and clear, because Abdul Ghani Patail laid it out in very clear and definite terms, was:

1. That Nallakaruppan was now facing the death sentence.

2. That there were other charges also under the ISA that he could prefer against Nallakaruppan but that if they (AG' chambers) hanged him once under the present charge what need would there be to charge him for anything else.

3. That in exchange for a reduction of the present charge to one under the Firearms Act, he wanted Nallakaruppan to cooperate with them and to give information against Anwar Ibrahim, specifically on matters concerning, several married women.
Abdul Gani kept changing the number of women and finally settled on five, three married and two unmarried.

4. That he would expect Nallakaruppan to testify against Anwar in respect of these women.

I was shocked that Abdul Gani even had the gall to make such a suggestion to me.

He obviously does not know me. I do not approve of such extraction of evidence against ANYONE, not even or should I say least of all, a beggar picked up off the streets.
A man's life, or for the matter, even his freedom, is not a tool for prosecution agencies to use as a bargaining chip.
Blackmail and extortion

No jurisprudential system will condone such an act

It is blackmail and extortion of the highest culpability and my greatest disappointment is that a once independent agency that I worked with some 25 years ago, and of which I have such satisfying memories, has descended to such levels in the creation and collection of evidence.

To use the death threat as a means to the extortion of evidence that is otherwise not there (why else make such a demand), is unforgivable and surely must in itself be a crime, leave alone a sin, of the greatest magnitude.

Whether the means justify the ends that he seeks, are matters that Abdul Gani will have to wrestle within his own conscience.

You can read the rest of it from the law reports.

I cannot stomach this anymore. Possibly you can approach a website to show the entire judgment of Shim CJ on their portal with the permission of MU or any other law report.

All I can say is that, if Gani Patail is a member of an Inn of Court he would be disbarred as a barrister.

I am sickened by the perversity of the office of the Public Prosecutor.

NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his 'All is not well in the House of Denmark' comment regarding judicial corruption. He was referring to the Kuala Lumpur High Court's commercial division located in Wisma Denmark. The quote is based on Shakespeare's 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. He now lives in Ipoh.

Hunting for the yellow devils


Let me make this very clear. The recent action by the MACC, which resulted in the death of one young man, is targeted at the Chinese. If this is not racism then I am a virgin. And I stand by my allegation with this piece by YB Teresa Kok.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Someone who works in Bank Islam posted a comment in Malaysia Today calling me a Chinese ass-licker. I showed my wife the comment and said, “It looks like this chap knows our secrets.” In case this retort is lost on you, my wife is Chinese (Thai-Chinese actually -- that is why she is so ‘militant’ and defiant).

Anyway, there are a number of Malays who resent me accusing the PDRM and MACC of targeting non-Malays and that Indians and Chinese have suffered brutalisation at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect our life, limb and property.

The Malays call this ‘harap pagar, pagar makan padi’. You can trust the Malays to come out with great and wonderful sayings. But sometimes that appears to be the only thing they are good at -- coming out with great and wonderful sayings. Whether they actually practice what they preach is another thing altogether though.

For example, just stop any Malay on the street and ask him or her, “Are you Malay first or Muslim first?” I will bet you a case of Single Malt that eight or nine out of ten Malays will reply, “I am Muslim first and Malay second.”

That’s right, religion comes first and race comes second.

Then ask these same Malays about Ketuanan Melayu and the New Economic Policy and whether amendments should be made to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia where it says that Malays are accorded certain rights and special privileges and eight or nine out of ten Malays would uphold both the NEP and the Articles in the Federal Constitution giving Malays certain rights and special privileges.

How do you reconcile this? First question: Islam comes first. Second question: Malays come first. And do these Malays not see how all these policies are nothing short of institutionalised discrimination.

These Malays like that Bank Islam chap would argue that even in the US discrimination exists. Sure it does. Discrimination exists everywhere. No country is spared discrimination. The only thing is in some countries it is worse than others. But Malaysia is the only country (now that South Africa has abolished Apartheid) where discrimination is a national policy and is written into the constitution.

And it is even more visible when you see how the Indians and Chinese are targeted and how they are treated when under arrest or detention.

Let me make this very clear. The recent action by the MACC, which resulted in the death of one young man, is targeted at the Chinese. If this is not racism then I am a virgin. And I stand by my allegation with this piece by YB Teresa Kok.

MACC’s ’source’ lied
YB Teresa Kok, July 22nd, 2009

On 13th July, seven ADUN of Pakatan Rakyat in Petaling District called a press conference where we criticised MACC officers for harassing the recipients of our constituency allocation funds.

In that press conference, we also questioned MACC officers on why they only took away the Chinese ADUNs allocation files from the land office.

The seven ADUNs, including me, are Hannah Yeoh (Subang), Ean Yong Hian Wah (Sri Kembangan), Dr Cheah Wing Yin (Damansara Utama), Edward Lee (Bukit Gasing) and Lau Weng San (Kampung Tunku), all from the DAP, and Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan) from Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

On July 16, the New Straits Times reported that “a MACC source” said they were investigating five other Selangor assemblymen, all Malays, for alleged falsification of claims.

The NST editorialised that: “This is contrary to the claim made by Selangor executive councillor Teresa Kok that only Chinese state assemblymen were being investigated by the commission”.

If that is not enough, the NST published on July 20 a letter purportedly written by a reader named P.M.T of Kuala Lumpur who criticised me for asking the MACC for explanation. The headline chosen for the letter was, however, “Remark is inflammatory”.

I have written a letter to the Petaling District Officer about files taken by MACC officers yesterday, and he replied me in writing that the MACC officer, Hadri Bin Hashim, has taken seven DUN constituency files away from them at 1.45pm on 23rd June 2009. The truth is no files from other state assemblymen in the Petaling district, except the seven of us, were taken by the MACC.

The reply from the Petaling District Office that the statement made by seven of us on July 13 is correct, i.e, the MACC officer has just taken seven Chinese ADUNs’ files for investigation, and no other ADUNs are being investigated. So, we were just stating a fact.

Now I am still asking the same question based on facts. I did not and would never make any inflammatory or racial remark as suggested by the NST.

We are still waiting for the MACC to provide the full details of other state assemblymen being investigated for whatever alleged wrongdoings.

What we want to know now is who are these five other Malay state assemblymen and why are we being investigated.

MACC cannot simply call recipients of the constituency allocation and fish for mistakes. If they received reports about “misused” of funds, they should zoom into the particular allegations and investigate from there.

I urge MACC to be professional while carrying out their duties. MACC should be independent and should not be seen as agent of the BN government to look for mistakes and persecute the Pakatan Rakyat ADUNs.

Dr M's statement uncalled for, say MCA, Gerakan Youth

Written by Sharon Tan, The Edge

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has received more brickbats for calling the Chinese "the real masters of the country" — this time from Barisan Nasional component parties.

Expressing regret over the statement, MCA secretary-general Senator Datuk Wong Foon Meng said Dr Mahathir's statement made in his blog would not do anything to help foster racial harmony but would instead increase confusion.

"No party should be allowed to simply comment on racial issues. If not, it would affect the country's racial harmony and will not contribute to nation building. We regret Dr Mahathir's statement that appears to criticise Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's initiative to liberalise the economy," Wong said in a statement.

He also said that by equating the liberalisation of our country's affirmative action policies as taking over "something from the Malays is also to have an outdated mindset of a zero sum game".

He said the reforms carried out by Najib did not mean that the government was no longer helping the bumiputeras, rather "they are using another method to achieve the same target through the setting up of Ekuinas which aims to consolidate the bumiputeras' participation in the economy".

Wong said everyone should reduce political conflicts and focus on the people's needs as "racial tension would not help the country to move forward".

Gerakan Youth deputy chairman Oh Tong Keong said Dr Mahathir's statement merely reflected a simplistic, yet distorted, understanding of the Malaysian society.

"This may provoke sentiments among the Malays in that they may feel exploited and oppressed, and the Chinese in that they may feel that they are superior and smarter.

"These two presumptions are, however, unfounded and baseless, promoting nothing but the primordial tendency to resort to dangerous communalism," he said.

Describing the statement as "disappointing and unnecessary", he said: "In a multiracial society like Malaysia, such observation, that the Chinese are the real masters of the country, is extremely irresponsible."

"In his article, Tun Dr Mahathir only made statements and presumptions and he has not given any reasons for them. In other words, he only states the what, without asking why.

"For the man in the street, he may ‘consume' such statements and many others will resort to the herd mentality. For those who are informed, this is nothing but political and communal rhetoric," Oh said.

He also took Dr Mahathir to task for claiming that "whatever the Malays have now, is being taken away from them".

"Who has taken what, and how they have been taken has not been explained," he said.

Mahathir also said in his blog "that 39 years after the NEP was introduced, the bumiputera share of the corporate pie remained at just 20% while the Chinese share stood at 50% even though they consisted of just 26% of the population".

"Has he forgotten that out of the 39 years after the NEP was introduced, he oversaw 28 years of its implementation?" Oh asked.

Why I shall not be accepting Zaid’s offer

tengku-razaleigh.jpg Tengku Razaleigh was formerly Finance Minister of Malaysia and chairman of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. He was the founding chairman of Petronas.

JULY 22 — I am honoured that Datuk Zaid Ibrahim should speak so highly of me, and consider me worthy of national leadership. He invites me to join PKR, and to dissociate myself from a party which he now finds fascist and racist.

I am under no illusions that Umno is bound for destruction on its present course. Neither do I hold unrealistic expectations about the possibility of reform when the rot has gone so deep.

I offered myself for the Umno presidency last year on an agenda of thorough-going reform. I proposed a complete democratisation of Umno by opening all positions to election by every ordinary member and abolishing quotas on candidacy. I said Umno must do this to be consistent with the principle of democratic governance demanded by the Federal Constitution. Every member’s vote must count, and every member must be free to offer himself for leadership. I was stopped by the quota system that I opposed.

I am the last person to entertain illusions about the ease of reforming Umno. The party that I joined half a century ago as an idealistic young man has indeed lost its soul. It has become corrupt, this corruption has weakened it, and as it grows weaker it is tempted more and more to fan racial feeling and abuse public institutions to maintain power. This is a death spiral.

I am aware of Umno’s weaknesses. I have not failed to point them out from a sense of loyalty to the cause for which Umno was formed in 1946, a cause which our present corruption betrays.

I am not in Umno because I “harbour hope of saving Umno” in its present incarnation. I remain because the cause for which Umno was formed, and the principles which guided its promotion, has not gone away just because we have lost our way 60 years later, and they need to be upheld.

The high principle of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Ismail, their devotion to nationbuilding, their incorruptibility, their sense of fair play and their devotion to duty, exemplified for me as a young man the meaning of this cause, and how it could be both Malay and Malaysian, nationalist and cosmopolitan, traditional and contemporary, at one and the same time.

The Malay cause was not premised on an eternal zero sum game between the native and the immigrant. We meant to build a nation united by a prosperous, confident and enlightened Malay community, not a permanent state of divide and rule by political lowlife. We meant to foster Malay leadership worthy of national leadership, and we looked to our common future as Malaysia rather than to our past as people accidentally brought together by colonial history.

So much is ideal. Yet it is important that we hold up ideals in today’s moral chaos. The future of our political system lies in a healthy, competitive democracy. If so, whether or not it looks realistic right now, we shall need a reformed incarnation of this nation’s most important political party. The Umno ideal which I embraced half a century ago has a role to play in the future we hope for.

A second reason I shall not be accepting Zaid’s kind offer is that things have deteriorated to the point that party affiliation is really not the issue anymore. The issue is how we are to save our country.

Our major public institutions and our political system have degenerated to the point that the public no longer trusts them. A democratic system of government cannot function below a certain threshhold of public confidence. The suspicious death of Teoh Beng Hock under the custody of a watchdog body reporting directly to a prime minister who has his own public confidence issues may have pushed us below that threshhold.

What we must do now goes beyond political parties. We need the rakyat to rise up to claim their institutions, and demand that our public institutions are answerable to them. We must wake up to our sovereignty as citizens, reclaim the constitution which constitutes us as a nation and guarantees our rights, and demand a comprehensively reformed government to restore public confidence. We must do this before it is too late.

Dear Mahathir, enough is enough – Tay Tian Yan

JULY 22 — Mahathir has done it again. This time he has chosen an appalling occasion and an awful subject matter.

The hearts of the people are still aching over the death of Teoh Beng Hock. Our society is still in shock and needs to be soothed. Mahathir, however, offered no act of common civility. In any case, we know him well and therefore do not expect it from him.

Even so, as an elder, he should not have sparked off another dispute at such a critical juncture. Another clash that might lead to further suspicion and a widening fissure within the community.

This is the gist of what Mahathir wrote in his blog. The Malays are no longer the owners of Malaysia because they have been very compromising. Therefore, non-Malays, especially those with four thousand years’ of history, are slowly taking everything away from the Malays. These non-Malays will become the owners of Malaysia.

These arguments will not be able to withstand any form of close scrutiny. They are not tasteful and are way below par. However, to the close-minded and those of low calibre, such talk might still stir some deep emotion, and strike a very sensitive and vulnerable chord.

There remains a considerable portion of Malaysians with this mindset. They are the targets of Mahathir’s avid adrenaline boosting.

Mahathir emphasises how non-Malays are controlling all industries and commerce, and that they own most of the luxury condominiums.

He also reckons that loosening up the economy and establishing merit-based scholarships have further aggravated the situation for the Malays.

Alright, I do not need to quote any further. If my readers are interested, and are not weak of heart, please proceed to Mahathir’s blog for the full story.

Of course, an old dog cannot learn new tricks. It can only repeat the past mischief. But, it repeats them with a vengeance.

Mahathir is now performing a two-pronged comeback. On the one hand, we have the Malays. On the other, we have the non-Malays. The Malays are the oppressed; the non-Malays are the oppressors. The Malays have nothing; the non-Malays have everything.

Therefore, the Malays should fight on. Our country should press on with our differences, until...

Mahathir, enough is enough. The people have been under your delusion for decades. We always say that the British were good at “divide and rule,” but I think you, Sir, are the real master.

The 22 years under Mahathir have resulted in a partitioned and untrusting Malaysian community. All the while, Mahathir was exploiting this antagonism, and reaping the benefits of autocracy.

Even till now, he refuses to give up, and is reforming his old base. We can only guess what his political aims are.

Mahathir, please let the people know that they are all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or skin colour.

The people are the ones who own this country. Do not delude them any longer.

We built the resources and wealth of this country, together. –