Saturday, March 27, 2010
KUALA LUMPUR, March 27 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak is keen to meet Kulim Bandar Baru MP Zulkifli Noordin who claimed he was instructed to link the prime minister and his wife to the sensational Altantuya Shaariibuu murder.
Zulkifli made the claim in his first address to Parliament last Wednesday as an independent — weeks after being sacked from PKR for indiscipline. But he has refused to say if his former party had ordered him to do so.
“I will gladly meet Zul Noordin. I want to find out the truth. The truth will come out soon,” Najib told reporters after chairing an Umno supreme council meeting at the party headquarters here.
Najib and his wife have denied all links to the murder but remain clouded by allegations as the two elite policemen convicted of Altantuya’s murder were once part of their security detail. A Najib associate, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, was acquitted of all charges linked to the murder.
Zulkifli had alleged that he was offered “a reward that could shake someone’s faith” by a third party to draft a statutory declaration to implicate Najib and Rosmah, saying the offer was made in the course of the trial where he was the counsel for Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, one of the three accused in the murder.
Though he did not reveal who the third party was, speculation is rife that the accusation was targeted towards the top leadership of his former party.
Zulkifli said later he would like to meet the PM to apologise for the alleged links to the case. Najib has sworn on the Quran that he is not linked to the case.
The Altantuya murder was one of the primary ammunition used by the opposition to attack the ruling Barisan Nasional government before Election 2008 and subsequently for most of the nine by-elections since the landmark vote which saw the opposition Pakatan Rakyat sweep through four more states and win 82 federal seats.
Azilah and his co-accused Corporal Sirul Azhar have appealed against their sentence but the opposition has persistently tried to link Najib and wife to the murder.
It is not known if the allegation was Zulkifli’s promised surprise in the Parliament but the indepedent MP has found support among the three other lawmakers who walked out of PKR over the past month.
The three others are Datuk Seri Zahrain Mohd Hashim (Bayan Baru), Tan Tee Beng (Nibong Tebal) and Mohsin Fadzli Samsuri (Bagan Serai).
Until early last week, Zulkifli was defending Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in a qazaf or false declaration suit in the Syariah Court brought against the de facto PKR leader’s accuser Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, who complained of sodomy.
Zulkifli was one of Anwar’s original lawyers in the first sodomy trial in 1998 after Anwar was sacked as deputy prime minister and finance minister by then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Over the last few days, there have been a lot of news about the Altantuya murder. Maybe Malaysians have forgotten that Razak Baginda was acquitted of the charge of murder and that the basis of his acquittal was the Affidavit that he signed in support of his application for bail. The Affidavit was never admitted as evidence during the trial and yet, strangely, it was used as the basis to acquit Razak. Maybe we need to recap on that incident because, as Umno says, Melayu mudah lupa.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Razak Baginda saved by his affidavit
The acquittal of political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda in the high-profile murder case of his former Mongolian lover made big headlines in Malaysian newspapers yesterday, with many zooming in on how his affidavit had saved him.
The sleazy and sensational affair, and Abdul Razak's close ties to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, had kept the case in the public eye as the trial ran for two years.
His almost-forgotten affidavit filed two years ago was the highlight as it was pivotal to the High Court judge's decision to acquit him of abetting the murder.
The document was filed in court in an attempt by Abdul Razak, 48, to obtain bail before the trial started. He failed to get bail and there was criticism then by legal experts who considered it a wrong move to disclose his case so early in the trial.
But it turned out to be an astute move. High Court judge Mohamed Zaki Mohamed Yasin on Friday ruled that the tell-all affidavit had helped clear him of the charge of asking two policemen to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu.
"In the absence of the rebuttal evidence against them (statements in the affidavit), coupled with the fact that there is no legal onus for him to rebut any statutory presumption, there is clearly no reason for the statements to be ignored and rejected," the judge said.
The lengthy document detailed how Abdul Razak met Altantuya in 2004, and had an affair with her that lasted until 2005.
After they broke up, he alleged that the 28-year-old interpreter harassed him, and that he had sought the help of the police. But he denied telling them to kill her.
According to court evidence, Altantuya's remains were found in a jungle outside Kuala Lumpur, blown up with explosives after she was shot dead.
The judge found that 13 statements in the affidavit were not rebutted by evidence put forward by prosecutors. In a nutshell, they recounted how Abdul Razak had asked Musa Safri, a security aide of the deputy premier, for help because of Altantuya's harassment.
Musa reportedly said he would introduce him to a police officer. The co-accused Azilah Hadri, an officer from an elite unit that guards VVIPs, called Abdul Razak the next day.
Abdul Razak said he called Azilah on Oct 19, 2006, when Altantuya turned up at his house.
Altantuya was taken away by three police officers. Abdul Razak said he subsequently asked Musa what had happened to Altantuya but the aide said Azilah did not tell him.
The judge on Friday found these statements were corroborated by witnesses at the trial, and "clearly negated and nullified the act of abetment as alleged".
This detailed legal explanation was, however, described by veteran opposition politician Lim Kit Siang as a technical one, as he demanded further investigation.
The immediate public reaction on the Internet was, as expected, similar. Abdul Razak's close ties to DPM Najib were hauled out to hint at favoured treatment although there was no evidence of this.
Lim wrote in his blog that it was imperative for Najib to face an independent government inquiry on the allegations.
So far, Abdul Razak has not given his side of the story. After his acquittal, he went back to his house in upmarket Damansara Heights before going to the mosque for Friday prayers.
He wore broad smiles each time he came out of the house, but declined to speak to reporters. He also said he had been fasting for the 22 months since he was arrested.
His two co-accused, Azilah and Sirul Azhar Umar, who allegedly killed Altantuya, have been ordered to present their defence. The hearing will begin on Nov 10.
Here are excerpts of the affidavit filed by Abdul Razak Baginda:
EVEN though I had appointed (private eye) P. Balasubramaniam, the harassment by Altantuya against my family and me did not stop. Hence, I asked Deputy Superintendent Musa Safri (a security aide to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak) for help.
I also sought help to be introduced to a police officer from the Brickfields police station as my house was under their jurisdiction.
DSP Musa told me that he would introduce me to an officer who would help me.
On Oct 17, 2006, the deceased came to my house and wanted to meet me. I was not at home at that time, and my wife learnt of her visit.
On the night of Oct 17, I was at home and there was a commotion outside the house.
I called Balasubramaniam and Dhiren Norendra (a lawyer) to help me. A police patrol car arrived to settle the matter.
DSP Musa later called me and said a police officer would call me to help me sort out my problem with the deceased.
On the morning of Oct 18, 2006, Azilah Hadri (one of the co-accused) called me and introduced himself as the police officer who was referred by DSP Musa to help me.
I subsequently met with Azilah. I told him that the deceased had caused a commotion at my house, and asked him to conduct patrols around my house.
On Oct 19, 2006, Balasubramaniam called me and told me that there was a commotion outside my house. I was out with my family. So I called Azilah for help.
Balasubramaniam told me that three plainclothes police officers came to my house... to take the deceased away.
On Oct 20, I bumped into DSP Musa. I asked him what happened the night before and DSP Musa told me Azilah did not tell him anything. -- The Straits Times, 2 November 2008
Defence objects to Razak's bail affidavit
Two statements in Abdul Razak Baginda's bail affidavit is prejudicial and must be deleted if the document is admitted in court, the High Court heard today.
Defence counsel Datuk Hazman Ahmad submitted there was no direct evidence to prove the statements and they were mere allegations accusing his client, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, of a crime he was never charged with.
Hazman was submitting in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial where he objected to the prosecution's intention to admit Razak's bail affidavit.
On May 28, the prosecution tried to tender the affidavit through deputy High Court registrar Wan Mohd Norisham Wan Yakub, saying it was a sworn statement by Razak to show what transpired between him and Altantuya.
Hazman, however, objected to the admissibility of the document and is seeking to delete the two statements and Razak's cautioned statement which was attached to the affidavit (if the court decides to allow them).
The two statements were:
- Azilah boasted he had caused the death of six to 10 people and that he could settle Razak's problem. Razak then ticked Azilah off and told him that he did not want anything untoward happen to the deceased. Razak said he thought Azilah, as a police officer, understood what he meant and believed he would not do anything against the law.
- Azilah told Razak that he was at his (Razak's) house and told him 'Sir, you can sleep soundly tonight'. Razak then told Azilah at least three times not to harm the deceased.
The affidavit was filed on Jan 5, 2007, by Razak before another judge to ask for bail, but was rejected. -- eMedia, 10 June 2008
Mongolian’s murder: Razak reveals his relationship with Altantuya
In a desperate bid to secure bail, political analyst Abdul Razak Abdullah today revealed in High Court his relationship with Mongolian interpreter Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Saying that he first met Altantunya in Hongkong at the end of 2004, and in a relationship that lasted about eight months, Abdul Razak said he gave her US$10,000 three to four times, and more.
He said Altantuya told him that she was a student, and to earn a living she worked as a “part-timer” but Abdul Razak did not elaborate what it meant.
He said he also took pity on Altantuya because she said her mother had cancer.
Razak’s statement was contained in an affidavit tendered to the court by his counsel Wong Kian Kheong who read it out.
The affidavit was tendered by Wong in an attempt to obtain bail which High Court judge Datuk K.N.Segara had denied him earlier because there was no medical grounds to support his application for bail.
Wong told the court that there were no reasonable grounds to hold his client under detention as he has not been found guilty.
He then tendered the affidavit which details Abdul Razak’s movements, actions and relationship with Altantuya.
Abdul Razak said he got acquainted with the Mongolian woman in Hongkong at the end of 2004 and had met her in Shanghai in early 2005, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and France in middle of 2005.
The relationship continued for about seven to eight months until Abdul Razak ended it.
Razak said Altantuya identified herself as Aminah during their relationship.
Wong said Razak stopped giving money to Altantuya after she continued to demand for more and he could not tolerate it any longer.
During Wong’s argument, Abdul Razak was seen asking Wong’s assistant for a piece of paper to jot down something before passing it back for Wong’s attention.
In the affidavit, Abdul Razak also explained about the harassment he encountered from Altantuya when he decided to end his relationship with the woman.
He said the matter became serious when Altantuya continued with the harassments through SMSes and telephone calls and he decided to seek help when Altantuya threatened to harm his daughter.
Based on a lawyer’s advice, Abdul Razak hired a private detective, former policeman P. Balasubramaniam and an assistant.
The private investigators were supposed to provide security to him and his family members who were told about the affair with Altantuya.
Abdul Razak also sought the aid of a DSP Musa Safri who introduced him to C/Insp Azilah Hadri.
He said Musa had told him that Azilah would be able to help him and he met him (Azilah) personally once, while at other times the communication between both of them was through telephone.
Abdul Razak said in the affidavit that Azilah was responsible for the death of about six or more people and he would be able to help the political analyst.
At this point, lawyer representing Azilah, Zulkifli Noordin interjected by saying that the accusations against his client were unjust.
Segara ordered Zulkifli to sit and not to get excited as he was supposed to hold a watching brief and not take part in the proceedings.
As Wong continued with the affidavit, Segara interjected from time to time telling him to stick to the facts and not draw inferences from the events that unfolded as Abdul Razak attempted to “get rid” of Altantuya.
At one juncture, Wong skipped part of the affidavit on Abdul Razak meeting Musa at the Deputy Prime Minister's (DPM) office on official matters, during which he (Abdul Razak) enquired about Altantuya’s fate.
Segara became angry and said: “Why are you avoiding the part, there’s nothing to hide, the DPM would not be embarrassed if the matter is mentioned. This is the court. Everything has to be disclosed.”
Segara said the affidavit produced by Abdul Razak pointed to a conclusion that he had abetted with Azilah to “get rid” of Altantuya from his life, but the matter was to be deliberated when the trial begins.
He said Abdul Razak despite knowing that Azilah had killed several people, chose to continue seeking his aid.
Wong said Abdul Razak had specifically told Azilah not to cause any harm to Altantuya, but he did not want her to be sent to lock-up and later deported as the Mongolian would be angry with him and his relationship with her would come out in the open.
The court was also told that at one point, Azilah told Abdul Razak “Tonight sir, you can sleep peacefully”.
Wong also tried to substantiate his appeal for bail by saying that the previous two judges who heard Abdul Razak’s case had allowed him to be released on bail, but Segara cut him off by saying he will not comment on their decisions.
After Wong was done, DPP Salehuddin Saidin tried to stand up to speak but Segara quickly told him: “You don’t have to say anything.”
Wong declined to comment when asked if he would appeal against the decision.
Shedding tears, Abdul Razak hugged his wife, daughter, parents and siblings as he was led away by the police to prison.
Earlier, Segara said the court was unable to consider Abdul Razak’s application as he had not fulfilled the exceptional circumstance for him to be allowed bail.
“There is not a single evidence to show that he is incapacitated by illness. Is he telling the truth or is he malingering,” said Segara.
He said Abdul Razak had failed to produce a medical report in relation to his medical condition and therefore the court was put in a difficult situation as it was unable to weigh his application based on exceptional and special circumstances.
“Without the benefit of a medical report, I won’t even consider. It must be supported by documents. I have given enough time but the medical reports were not forthcoming at all.
“Affirment that he is suffering serious medical conditions and hypothesis that he requires constant medical attention is insufficient,” he added.
Segara also said he was rather amazed, based on details in the affidavit, that the medical conditions allegedly suffered by Abdul Razak was not detected by the Gleneages Medical Centre but was determined when he sought treatment in Kuala Lumpur Hospital after his remand.
Segara also said the offence Abdul Razak was charged with is serious and non-bailable.
However he said, Abdul Razak can at anytime approach the court if his medical condition, as claimed, became evident and the court would consider his application for bail at that time, based on evidence produced. -- The Sun, 19 January 2007
Judge: Enough grounds to prove Razak abetted in murder
This caused Justice Segara to interject: “You have got here a person who claims that he had killed before and he can settle your problem."
“And what is your problem? You were threatened by a woman and you want her out of sight. Period. Yet, you go on dealing with that police officer.”
Wong (referring to affidavit and reading): I (Razak) told Chief Insp Azilah not to do anything untoward against Altantuya. If any such thing were to happen to her, her family will look for me. I believe that as a police officer, he would not commit a crime. I only asked him to get police to patrol around my house. I gave him my address and Hotel Malaya where the deceased was staying.
Judge: Whatever for did he give the address of the hotel to this man who said he had killed before? The relationship had ended in 2005 and suddenly, she is back in the picture in 2006. You don’t call the authority but a crime was committed after that.
Wong: The accused took Chief Insp Azilah as a police officer who can help.
Judge: Is your client an ordinary layman for you to give me such an answer?
Wong: My client did admonish Chief Insp Azilah.
Judge: Why call Azilah and not the police directly?
Wong: To protect the family.
Judge: This is your version but there are a lot of gaps. This is one man who claimed he had killed yet you went to him.
Wong: But the accused had admonished him.
Judge: Who is he to admonish a police officer? He had no right. Is he the boss of this person? Is he the IGP? These are questions that you cannot run away from answering.
Wong: He wanted Azilah to help him in a legal manner.
Judge: Come on, you expect the court to believe this? He has such a big establishment. He can just walk into the Brickfields police station and see someone. Anyway, I have not formed any conclusion about your client’s guilt. I am only questioning based on what is stated in the affidavit.
“The whole thing is here. He called the person to get rid of her. No need to go any further in relation to abetment. The police officer is no longer helping him as a police. He is there in his personal capacity. This particular episode has flashed the entire abetment act.”
Justice Segara said that it was in this light that the court would look at the case.
“We will only know at the time of the trial when we hear all the other people’s versions. Then, we will know whether he had asked to kill or not. At the moment, he abetted in contacting Azilah, knowing very well that he had killed six people,” he said. -- The Star, 20 January 2007
(Bernama) - Bekas Ketua Angkatan Muda Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Mohamad Ezam Mohd. Noor menawarkan diri untuk membantu polis menyiasat pendedahan Ahli Parlimen Kulim-Bandar Baharu, Zulkifli Noordin berhubung tawaran ganjaran lumayan pihak tertentu bagi memfitnah Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan isterinya, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.
Mohamad Ezam berkata, beliau sedia dipanggil oleh pihak polis pada bila-bila masa bagi tujuan itu.
“Pendedahan ini suatu dakwaan serius tapi tidak memeranjatkan kerana semasa saya masih bersama PKR isu untuk mengaitkan Perdana Menteri dan isteri dengan kes pembunuhan wanita Mongolia Altantuya Shaariibuu telahpun berlaku,” katanya kepada pemberita, di sini semalam.
Mohamad Ezam berkata, beliau pernah meminta pihak yang berkenaan agar mengemukakan bukti dan fakta berhubung isu itu, namun diberikan arahan yang berbunyi: “kamu bedallah dulu”.
"Saya masih ingat lagi kata-katanya (pihak berkenaan) itu,” katanya.
Yet again, Malaysians are misled with false promises. For months there was so much hype to the Government’s initiative to provide cheaper, affordable and yet very fast broadband.
Yesterday, it came as a shock to Malaysians that the so called affordable and fast broadband service starts at RM149 and ranges up to RM249. To many Malaysians, this sum is a huge commitment. Many were expecting prices from RM50 onwards.
To make matters worse, the Star reported today that in Singapore, one could get 1Gbps for RM200. Mind you, RM200 to a Singaporean is small money. Don’t just convert, see the GDP per capita. Most Singaporeans are earning 5 times more than Malaysians as Malaysia has one of the lowest GDP per capita in the region.
Thus RM200 for a 1Gbps line is small change to a Singaporean. But our mere 5Mbps at RM149 is big money to the average Malaysian. To some, its money to feed the whole family for a whole week.
Clearly the government has no idea about the purchasing power of Malaysians and the low remuneration the average Malaysian earns and the very shocking fact that the average person’s pay packet is not in proportion to the cost of living in Malaysia.
In comparison, the 6Mbps broadband in Singapore (Singtel) with unlimited downloads is S$30 per month and the 15Mbps broadband with unlimited downloads is going for S$62.
The mobile broadband with a free USB stick and with speeds of 1.2Mbps is S$14 per month with a 30GB allowance.
Again, please be reminded Singaporeans earn far more than the average Malaysian does and yet their broadband is much cheaper. In 2009 Singapore’s GDP (nominal) per capita was $35,000 whilst Malaysia was $8,000
So, with our purchasing power so low, how can the average person afford RM$149?
Was the government ever sincere about giving affordable Internet to the public? I wonder. If it owns huge amounts of shares in the company that is providing the new High Speed Broadband service, isn’t that a conflict of interest?
It is distressing to learn from Dr. T. Jayabalan, the health adviser to the Consumers Association of Penang that medical assistants are giving out prescriptions for the wrong medicines or prescribing medicines which they are not allowed to prescribe and they have also been found to have wrongfully diagnosed patients at a study conducted at Kampar, Perak. And feedback thus far, from the MOH regarding the validity of MCs (Medical Certificates) issued by 1Malaysia Clinics have been unsatisfactory. The explanation issued by the Health Ministry’s Medical Practice Division officer, Dr Noraini Baba, stating that according to an internal MOH circular, MAs are allowed to issue MCs seems to suggest that she either doesn’t know the law or thinks she can actually circumvent a law through a department circular.
But perhaps CAP too should share of the blame for this vague situation. The last time they made so much noise, it resulted in ignorant officers at the Health Ministry rushing to pass an reckless legislation called the Private Healthcare, Facilities and Services Act (PHFSA) which was conjured up in the dark corners of the Health Ministry and stamped with the Official Secrets Act (OSA) effectively excluding the stake holders from taking part in the discussions. The Act is surely unconstitutional.
A doctor today with an Annual Practicing Certificate (APC) is legal under the Medical Act 1971 but becomes illegal if his premise is unregistered under the PHFSA 2006. But a Hospital Assistant (HA) working in a presumably legal PHFSA premise, 1Malaysia Clinic, becomes immediately illegal as he has committed a felony under the Medical Act 1971 since under this Act only registered medical practitioners are allowed to work in medical clinics. This is the end result of people like SM Idris who give half-baked ideas to our poorly trained civil servants who then create silly laws in a knee-jerk unthinking fashion, which ultimately not only endanger people’s lives but place the government eventually in a legal quandary. Worrying statistics of wrong prescriptions and misdiagnoses seeping out of 1Malaysia Clinics maybe just the tip of a disaster waiting to happen.
If we keep making up unending rules and regulations for the delivery of healthcare in this country, the whole of Sabah and Sarawak will soon be paralyzed as HAs there run many of our rural clinics and even provide anesthesia for many of the rural hospitals there. And anesthesia is no child’s play as even propofol; supposedly a very safe anesthetic can kill as it did the late Michael Jackson. In a country with limited trained medical human resources we have to initially stratify the levels of care that we can offer and much depends on both the quantity and today, the quality of medical professionals we have at hand.
Our rural health clinics are still run by midwives termed “Jururawat Desa“ while our health clinics are run by a combination of staff nurses, medical assistants and doctors. Our hospitals are run by all of these people and specialists. But specialists alone are not good enough if we want to deliver quality care as we need the help of physiotherapists, lab technologists, radiographers, biomedical personnel, critical care nurses, operating room technicians, anesthetic technicians and a whole gamut of other health personnel. Some of the monster hospitals that this government has built like Sungai Buloh, Ampang and Serdang are today nothing more then glorified nursing homes. Patients rush in thinking they are in for high-tech care, but a quick glimpse of the ICU will show 20 beds with 5 junior nurses trying desperately to man the 20 beds with no respiratory therapists, technicians, doctors or even the critical care specialists or anesthetists around.
A great many of the Malaysian population, especially in urban areas are very dependant on the General Practitioner who are the lynchpins in healthcare both in the UK and Australia . In the UK , GPs are today credited in reducing smoking in the general population, monitoring and preventing strokes and heart attacks from modern day epidemics such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension. In Mexico , Singapore , the US and in Europe , GPs were in the forefront in stopping the spread of the deadly influenza virus H1N1. GPs there were provided training, test kits and eventually Tamiflu to check the disease. Amazingly, in direct contrast, the MOH in Malaysia decided to bypass the resourceful neighborhood GP and instruct likely infected patients to rush to the Sungai Buloh Hospital with disastrous results where hundreds of patients mulled around at its lobby with staff stretched to their limits. Only after a huge public outcry in the face of mounting unacceptable mortalities did the MOH rescind and supply the generic version of Tamiflu to GPs.
For chaps like Idris, GPs in Malaysia are there only to make money and must therefore be shackled with draconian laws and treated as common criminals if they cross the line. They should be jailed or fined if their premises are unlicensed. In fact one doctor, Basmullah Khan, was needlessly jailed for three months just because his premise license was technically “not approved”. Only a malicious government would close down any health facility where hundreds of patients have been depending upon the expertise of the doctor for treatment and follow-up simply based on a bureaucratic edict. No country in this world treats its doctors this way except for Malaysia , another Malaysian first I guess.
But what are the repercussions of this sought of enactments on medical practitioners? A GP in Sungai Pelek, who once used to put up a drip for a dehydrated patient suffering from diarrhea due to food poisoning, refers the patient because he doesn’t want to take a risk under the PHFSA. He has even been told to remove the two beds he always keeps for such emergencies at this remote town. A GP in Triang seeing a dengue patient, lethargic, nauseated with a platelet count of 80,000 decides to refer when previously he would have asked the patient to come for a daily course of IV fluids and monitored his clinical features and platelet counts. And a GP out in Gemas refuses to deliver a full-term patient in labour with an almost full cervical opening for fear the baby may be born ‘flat’ and he would have to face the draconian PHFSA. So he decides to be safe and call for the ambulance to Segamat, 20 miles away. The baby is of course born in the ambulance.
And right here in Penang, a GP sees a diabetic patient suffering a coronary, lies him flat and places a couple of GTN tablets under his tongue when previously he himself would have administered crushed aspirin to the patient and given him a bolus of heparin which he always keeps for emergencies of this nature and perhaps some morphine. Of course he could have administered all of this and nothing would have happened if everything went well. But if the patient developed a complication, lo and behold he would be criminally charged and the MOH would tell him to speak to the judge if he wanted a lesser sentence. The GP doesn’t need this. It’s better to play safe. Is there any wonder why our government hospitals and their outpatient departments are overflowing. This is the type of defensive medicine that placed America into trouble.
The Prime Minister may have meant well in wanting to provide free outpatient care for poor urbanites. And the MOH could have advised him of a multitude of options including opening their own current urban health care clinics, even for 24 hours using their own doctors or outsource the service to GPs for an appropriate price. Why did the MOH choose to break the law by allowing unregistered medical practitioners to treat patients when surely they know that this is wrong? Were they politically pressured or were they plain ignorant. How would the Ministry defend itself in the event a patient sues for malpractice? It is an irony in itself that the MOH goes around closing clinics run by registered medical practitioners while they themselves use unregistered medical practitioners to run clinics in urban areas where there are an abundance of doctors. Is the Ministry of Health above the law?
Perkasa held its first AGM at the PWTC in KL this morning with Mahathir in the spotlight – but estimates of the turnout vary.
The large crowd at the PWTC – Photo twittered by Tun Faisal (More photos here)
Malaysiakini put the turnout at more than 2,000.
According to blogger Aisehman, the MC said 8,000 seats were put out but the crowd was 10,000-strong.
Aisehman himself thinks the turnout was 3,000-4,000 max, many of them from the older generation. He had earlier estimated the crowd at 5,000, which I think seems more like it. Check out his tweets here.
Whatever the case, the large hall looks full.
Among those who came in for criticism by speakers at the AGM (drum-roll, please):
- Anwar (for the usual)
- Khairy (“newly hatched politician”! – haha)
- DAP (‘Malaysian Malaysia’ concept)
- Malaysiakini (allegedly disuniting the Malays)
- Malaysian Insider (ditto)
- Liberal Malay bloggers
- “A group of extremist people”
- Pas (allegedly failing to protect Islam)
- Saifuddin (alleged contempt of court)
- Utusan Malaysia (not surprisingly)
He argued that Indian support for Pakatan Rakyat is fast eroding and thus the best candidate for the parliamentary seat would be Uthayakumar as he can attract the sizable Indian votes in the mixed constituency.
"It is a good opportunity for Pakatan Rakyat to bring him on our side as he would be an asset to our coalition," said Manoharan, who won his state seat for DAP at the 2008 general elections while he was detained under the Internal Security Act.
The lawyer-cum-politician was held for about 18 months alongside Uthayakumar and three other Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Front) activists.
In justifying his choice, Manoharan said that PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim should explore long-term measures to secure Indian votes in the next general elections.
According to Manoharan (left in photo), Pakatan has nothing to lose by fielding Uthayakumar (right in photo) as a candidate.
Uthayakumar and his yet-to-be-registered HRP have been firing potshots at PKR and Pakatan for their failures in addressing issues affecting the Indian community.
Manoharan conceded that Uthayakumar has trained his guns at PKR over the past year, but he was optimistic that his fellow Hindraf activist can work together with Pakatan.
"Make him an ally not a foe as he knows how to resolve the Indian community's problem," said Manoharan.
Uthayakumar to consider
Uthayakumar has unveiled plans to contest 15 parliamentary and 42 state seats, all of which boast substantial Indian voters. This includes seats held by Pakatan's Indian politicians.
Meanwhile, Uthayakumar was coy when asked to comment on Manoharan's suggestion.
"If I am given the leeway to bring about changes in regards to the critical Indian community problems, I will consider," he told Malaysiakini.
The Hulu Selangor seat fell vacant following the death of its incumbent representative, Dr Zainal Abidin Ahmad, two days ago. The Election Commission will announce the date of the by-election next Friday.
Indian Malaysians comprise about 19 percent of the 63,593 voters in the semi-urban constituency, which is located north of Selangor.
By Marc Jitab - Free Malaysia Today
KUALA LUMPUR: Twelve foreign and diplomatic missions were today given a briefing by the Human Rights Party (HRP) on human rights violations against ethnic minority Malaysian Indians.
HRP's pro tem secretary-general P Uthayakumar presented a laundry list of human rights failures and abuses in a 42-page report at the HRP headquarters in Bangsar here.
HRP, the political arm of the outlawed Hindraf organisation, appealed to foreign governments to internationalise the problems faced by Malaysian Indians.
Among the violations, Uthayakumar listed out police brutality, denial of education, forced religious conversions, housing and land issues, and lack of governmental funding.
Participants at the briefing were also shown grim pictures of victims who were abused, shot or thrown into the river, whose bodies were decomposed.
Uthayakumar said he had no choice but take the matter to the international arena as neither of the two main political coalitions in Malaysia served the interests of these minorities.
“The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) is just a showpiece of the government. There are 150,000 Indian children without birth certificates.
"If MIC can't even help provide them a simple thing as a piece of paper to show they are Malaysians, how can it solve the other problems?" he asked.
Uthayakumar did not spare the Pakatan-led state governments, saying that they are not doing any better either.
"At a stroke of a pen, the Penang, Selangor and Kedah governments can approve land for Tamil schools and the federal government will be compelled to enforce it.
"But it's been two years since they came into power, and nothing has moved,” said Uthayakumar, who is HRP's legal adviser.
Uthayakumar's days to freely champion HRP's cause may be numbered as there is a sedition trial hanging over his head. His prospects, according to his lawyer N Surindran, is grim.
With Hindraf banned and HRP yet to be registered, Uthayakumar's attempt to reach out to the international community to get Indian voices heard, seems understandable.
The event, dubbed the 'Campaign to Save the Nation', saw Kuala Kubu Bahru crammed with cars, some of which made the journey from outside the colonial town.
Some were from Tanjung Malim, with a few as far away as Sungai Besar in Perak. Among them were 50 people who chartered a bus to get from a plantation estate in Tanjung Malim to Kuala Kubu Bharu.
Top Pakatan leaders included PKR deputy president Syed Husin Ali, vice-president Azmin Ali, strategic director Tian Chua, PAS supreme council member Dr Hatta Ramli and DAP's Kampung Tunku state representative Lau Weng San were among those seated on the makeshift stage.
Former Umno minister Zaid Ibrahim, one of those tipped to be PKR candidate for the by-election, was also present.
Both PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim and Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim arrived just before 11pm.
Hot button issues
The Pakatan leaders took turns to work the crowd. All began their speeches by offering their condolences to the late Hulu Selangor parliamentarian, Zainal Abidin Ahmad, who died last night of cancer.
“Zainal Abidin worked until his last breath to serve the people. He has chosen a path full of struggle and sacrifice,” Tian Chua said of the academician-turned-politician, who served a short stint as Selangor deputy menteri besar when the state was under Umno.
The speakers then moved into a campaign mode - one by one touching on familiar hot button issues - the missing jet engines, the Scorpene submarines contract, widespread corruption and others.
“At the last general elections, Malaysians made a decision that change should happen. In Selangor, Pakatan was given the mandate, and we give the best service in return,” said Khalid to the cheer from the crowd.
We seek a bigger majority
It is learnt that tonight's event was planned even before Zainal died.
According to Hatta, Pakatan was in the midst of organising the rally when Zainal Abidin passed away.
What is to be a 'Save the Nation' campaign has now turned into a by-election rally.
“The by-election is not too far away. This time around, we must make sure we win with a bigger majority,” shouted Kampung Tunku state rep Lau Weng San from the podium.
Gombak MP Azmin Ali, when it was his turn to speak, said that PKR wanted a candidate who can “carry on Pakatan's dream”.
“Selangor under Pakatan has brought in RM7 billion in investments in two years. In 2009 alone, Selangor provided employment to 20,753 people,” he said.
“The Selangor MB is using the assets of the state for the people, not build himself a RM24 million palace.”
Anwar speaks well past midnight
Anwar, who began his speech at 11.45pm, spoke for over half an hour until well past midnight. Despite that, most of the crowd stayed put.
The PKR leader, conscious of the sizable number of Indian voters in Hulu Selangor, took pains to point out that two key Hindraf activists who were detained under the Internal Security Act are with Pakatan.
“(T) Vasanthakumar, who is with PKR, is here,” said Anwar, adding that V Ganabatirau, who was also present, is a DAP member.
Anwar also took potshots at some of his critics.
"I'm a Muslim and Malay, but my 'taukeh' is a 'taukeh judi',” he said in an oblique reference to Malay rights Perkasa leader Ibrahim Ali.
"I'm Malay and Muslim, but I took money,” he continued, referring to the few PKR defectors.
Apart from his usual ceramah fodder, Anwar took a swipe at a certain Umno figure who has stakes in beer producer San Miguel.
He has the crowd in stitches with anecdotes of missing jet engines and unsinkable submarines.
Close fight expected
In the 2008 general elections, Zainal Abidin unexpectedly defeated MIC deputy president G Palanivel by a slim 198 vote majority.
Hulu Selangor is a semi-urban mixed seat of 63,539 voters of whom 53.9 percent are Malay, Chinese (26.7 percent) and Indians (19 precent). BN has a good chance of winning back the seat as it won all three state seats under the Hulu Selangor constituency in 2008 - Kuala Kubu Bharu (MCA), Batang Kali (Umno) and Hulu Bernam (Umno).
BN has a good chance of winning back the seat as it won all three state seats under the Hulu Selangor constituency in 2008 - Kuala Kubu Bharu (MCA), Batang Kali (Umno) and Hulu Bernam (Umno).This will be the country's 10th by-election since the 2008 general elections, with Pakatan Rakyat winning seven of the contests while BN bagged two.
By Athi Shankar - Free Malaysia Today
GEORGE TOWN: Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) has accused top Umno leaders of manipulating Article 153 of the Federal Constitution to amass the country’s wealth and enrich themselves.
London-based Hindraf supremo P Waytha Moorthy said Umno had disseminated misinformation for over 50 years, since independence, on the real contents of Article 153 to hoodwink Malaysians and misappropriate the country’s wealth by deception.
He said Article 153 never mentioned special privileges of Malays.
“It only stated the special position and provision of the Malays, read together with those of natives of Sabah and Sarawak and legitimate interests of all Malaysians.
“Umno invented the phantom privileges to empower and enrich the party elites,” he pointed out.
But, he alleged that Umno leaders over the years have propagated wrong information to deceive and cheat the people into believing that Article 153 was all about such phantom privileges.
He said Umno's top leaders have constantly and consistently spread misinformation on these phantom Malay privileges in order to loot and plunder the country’s wealth to enrich themselves at the expenses of other Malaysians, including the poor Malays and Indians.
“For instance, Umno had taken total control of Petronas money, a nation’s wealth, even evading parliamentary scrutiny,” he noted.
He said Umno leaders manipulated Article 153 to usurp the powers of Rulers to ensure the ruling elites were rich and powerful.
Waytha Moorthy alleged that Umno leaders misrepresented Article 153 to instil fear among non-Malays that “bloodbath would take place if the phantom special privileges of Malays were questioned”.
“Umno leaders have consistently warned non-Malays about the May 13 racial riot,” he told FMT via telephone.
He accused Umno leaders of abusing Article 153 to carry out a racist policy to upgrade a particular race – the Malays.
He said this blatant violation of human rights was systematically executed at the expense of non-Malays, especially poor and underprivileged Indians, Orang Asli (indigenous people) and natives of Sabah and Sarawak.
Waythamoorthy, a lawyer by profession, said Article 153 clearly stated that “it shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities”.
“Malaysians shall note that the article did not mention special privileges. It stresses that the King’s constitutional duty is to safeguard the legitimate interests of all Malaysians.
“Hindraf wants to know what the Yang di-Pertuan has done so far and will do in future to safeguard the interests of all Malaysians, not just Malays,” he said.
He added that Hindraf was curious to know what has been the “titah baginda” (ruler’s command) to safeguard the legitimate interests of all Malaysians.
The Hindraf leader had his international Malaysian passport revoked by the Home Ministry in late 2008.
Since then, Waytha Moorthy has been living under British political asylum.
Recently, the Umno-controlled Putrajaya administration announced that Waytha Moorthy would not be allowed back into the country because of his campaign to amend Article 153.
Hindraf considers the government'’s decision a serious violation of its leader’s legitimate citizenry rights.
Waytha Moorthy questioned the Umno-led Barisan Nasional government's fear of amending Article 153 when the same administration had amended the Federal Constitution countless times since 1957.
“The constitution only has 181 articles, but Umno had willfully amended it over 500 times, a world record, to suit its political whims and fancies,” he said.
He said the Umno administration had committed treason when the party embarked on constitutional amendments to clip the royal powers during the constitutional crisis in 1983 and 1989.
He said Hindraf wanted Article 153 to be amended to safeguard and enhance the legitimate interests, rights and benefits of all Malaysians irrespective of their ethnic and religious backgrounds.
“What’s so sacred about Article 153 that it shall not be amended?” he asked.
Itinerary @ HRP Briefing for foreign and diplomatic missions in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia on 26/03/2010 at HRP HQ
Human Rights Violations Against the Ethnic Minority Malaysian Indians. HRP Briefing for foreign and diplomatic missions in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia on 26/03/2010 at HRP HQ
NO. 6, Jalan Abdullah, Off Jalan Bangsar, 59000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: 03-2282 5241 Fax: 03-22825245
1) Welcome address by HRP Central Committee Member Mr. Patmarajah (10.00 a.m to 10.05 a.m)
2) Presentation of Hindraf video (10.05 to 10.10 a.m)
3) Briefing 1 – by P. Uthayakumar
– Short summary on the Ethnic Minority Malaysian Indian Human Rights Violations Annual Repport 2009
– Brief update on the Malaysian government’s refusal to register Hindraf and HRP as an NGO and Political Party respectively.
– In addition to UMNO/BN the Opposition parties’s, PKR, DAP and PAS, almost all NGOs’, Malaysian Civil Society, the print and electronic media including the alternative media’s abandonment that has also contributed to the current critical Indian problems (10.10 to 10.25 a.m)
4) Briefing 2 – Status of Mr. P. Uthayakumar’s especially the Kg.Medan “ethnic cleansing” Sedition charges which carries a maximum of three (3) years jail after having served 514 days of detention without conviction and trial under Malaysia’s draconian ISA – by P. Uthayakumar’s lawyer Mr. N. Surendran (10.25 to 10.40 a.m)
5) Slide Show presentation on the critical ethnic minority Indian problems in Malaysia by HRP Central Committee Member Mr. Jeevendra Kumar. (10.40 to 10.55 a.m)
6) Q & A (35minutes) 10.55 to 11.30 a.m.
7) Refreshments and Fellowship.
Photos: 26/3/2010 (Friday) 10am: Human Rights Violations Against the Ethnic Minority Malaysian Indians. HRP Briefing for foreign and diplomatic missio
26/3/2010 (Friday) 10am: Human Rights Violations Against the Ethnic Minority Malaysian Indians. HRP Briefing for foreign and diplomatic missions in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.
By Adib Zalkapli - The Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, March 26 — A number of Malay heads of government-linked companies (GLCs) and other corporate leaders from the community have declined invitations to attend right wing group Perkasa’s first annual general meeting tomorrow, in another significant rebuff following the Selangor Sultan’s decision not to attend the assembly.
But a senior Perkasa official downplayed the decision of GLC heads to skip the Perkasa AGM, pointing out that their diaries are full.
“Some of the GLC CEOs, their diaries are filled up months in advance, so we understand their difficulties,” Perkasa secretary-general Syed Hassan Syed Ali told The Malaysian Insider.
“But we are confident that they still believe in our struggle. Just because they are successful it does not mean they have abandoned the Malay cause,” he added.
Last week, the Selangor ruler decided not to attend the first AGM of Perkasa in what was a major snub for the right-wing Malay group.
It is understood that Perkasa had sent out invitations to their inaugural assembly beyond the typical right wing crowd.
This was part of efforts to reach out and broaden its appeal.
The heads of GLCs, retired politicians, Islamic clerics and former armed forces officers are among those invited to witness the birth of the organisation that was formed to defend the constitutional position of the Malays and the social contract.
Syed Hassan said what was important for Perkasa was that it was accepted by the Malay masses and the crowd size tomorrow would prove its relevance.
Perkasa expects about 10,000 Malays to turn up for the AGM to be launched by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who has become a champion of Perkasa’s cause in recent months.
“We are not trying to ride on anyone’s popularity. This is for all Malays. I think to be associated with Perkasa is good for a politician’s record,’’ said Syed Hassan.
Since its inception after Election 2008, Perkasa has attracted many active politicians including Pahang Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Adnan Yaakub and Umno supreme council member Dr Puad Zarkashi to attend its events.
Syed Hassan said motions on religion, economy, education and security will be tabled and debated on by delegates.
The assembly is also expected to endorse the position of the members of the Perkasa pro-tem committee.
Perkasa was formed by independent Pasir Mas MP Datuk Ibrahim Ali soon after Election 2008 and has turned into a strong pressure group representing those seeking to defend the constitutional position of the Malays and the social contract.
It has been at the forefront in lobbying the government to retain the affirmative action policy favouring the Malays and in the New Economic Model (NEM) scheduled to be announced at the end of this month.
By Adib Zalkapli - The Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, March 26 — Umno and MIC are locked in a tussle to field their candidates in the coming Hulu Selangor by-election, with both former mentri besar Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib and Datuk G. Palanivel being touted as possible runners.
Umno’s Hulu Selangor division has confirmed to The Malaysian Insider that they are hoping a candidate from their party would be fielded as the Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate, while MIC has already nominated Palanivel.
Palanivel, a former deputy minister of welfare and family development, had been Hulu Selangor MP from 1990 until his defeat in Election 2008 by PKR’s Datuk Zainal Abidin Ahmad, whose death last night triggered the by-election.
Speculation is rife that BN might give the seat — with a significant Indian vote — to Umno, and will provide a different seat to MIC in the next general elections.
Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is likely to stick to PKR contesting the seat that Zainal Abidin won with a wafer-thin majority of 198 votes in the last elections. But the party is keen to present a strong candidate to keep the seat and stem its loss, following the departure of four federal lawmakers, who are now independents.
The Malays make up 53.9 per cent of the more than 60,000 voters in the constituency. The Chinese vote pool there stands at 26.7 per cent, and Indians, approximately 19 per cent, while other races are at 0.41 per cent.
It is understood that, with the Malay vote evenly split, PKR is hoping to retain the Indian support that it received in Election 2008.
Umno division sources told The Malaysian Insider today the party grassroots are confident of a landslide victory should Muhammad, who served as mentri besar from 1986 to 1997, be fielded.
“If we want to emulate our success in Bagan Pinang, a mature candidate is very much needed, and the people of Hulu Selangor will definitely give him a grand welcome,” said a Hulu Selangor Umno committee member, who spoke anonymously.
He added that it is unlikely for Muhammad to decline a request to contest.
“He has been in the struggle for a very long time. If he knows this will strengthen Umno and Barisan Nasional, he will not say no,” he said.
Muhammad previously served as the representative of Batang Kali — one of the state seats in Hulu Selangor parliamentary constituency — from 1982 to 1995.
He left mainstream politics a year ago, after losing his bid for the Umno deputy presidency to Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
In the Bagan Pinang by-election last October, Umno fielded party veteran, Tan Sri Isa Abdul Samad, and won the Negri Sembilan state seat by a majority of more than 5,000 votes, in what was BN’s first by-election victory in peninsular Malaysia since Election 2008.
“If Tan Sri Mat Taib is fielded, we will win big. The problem is, this is a by-election, so it is hard to change the quota,” said the local Umno man, referring to the seat allocation arrangement in BN.
“Alternatively, if it is not possible to let Umno contest (now), maybe the leadership can consider giving it to us in the next general election,” said the Umno leader.
He blamed the narrow lost to PKR in Election 2008 as a result of allocating the seat for MIC.
“In every branch meeting, there will be demand for the seat to be given to Umno. I guess in 2008, the protest reached its peak,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
Hulu Selangor Umno division chief, Datuk Mohamed Idris Abu Bakar, when asked about the possibility of Muhammad’s comeback, said it was not unusual as local leaders have been asking for the seat to be allocated for Umno.
“It is not just about Mat Taib, there are many other names, but for the Umno members, of course they want a Malay candidate,” Idris said.
He added that the Umno division would not be submitting any names to the leadership, as Hulu Selangor remains MIC’s unless instructed by the Malay party’s national leadership.
Despite winning the parliamentary seat, PR lost all the three state seats in the Hulu Selangor constituency in Election 2008.
By Syed Jaymal Zahiid - The Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, March 26 — Indian leaders in PKR have made it clear that they would favour an Indian candidate for the imminent Hulu Selangor by-election following the death of its PKR MP, Datuk Dr Zainal Abidin Ahmad last night.
PKR vice-president R Sivarasa (picture) said putting up an Indian candidate would be most favourable for the party in light of the constituency’s recent voting pattern.
“It will be most favourable to have an Indian candidate contest there from the winning point of view so yes I would be leaning towards that idea,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
The Subang MP said further that fielding an Indian candidate would also “neutralise the” anticipated “racial issues”, considering the likelihood that its political rivals Barisan Nasional (BN) will be fielding an Indian candidate as well.
MIC, the third biggest component party in BN, said today it will propose to the coalition’s top leadership the name of its deputy president Datuk G Palanivel for the candidacy.
Palanivel had lost to the late Zainal Abidin by a wafer-thin margin of 198 majority votes at the 2008 general elections.
However, it is understood that BN may give the seat — with a significant Indian vote — to Umno, and will provide a different seat to MIC.
The Malays make up 53.9 per cent of more than 60,000 voters in the constituency. The Chinese vote pool there stands at 26.7 per cent, and Indians, approximately 19 per cent, while other races are at 0.41 per cent.
It is understood that, with the Malay vote evenly split, PKR is hoping to retain the Indian support that it received in Election 2008.
Kapar MP and PKR supreme council member S Manickavasagam said he too will be lobbying for an Indian candidate and is confident that it will be tactically advantageous for PKR.
“You see, Indian leaders from PKR have never lost a by-election as evident with the Bukit Selambau by-election, and our track record is good. No PKR Indian leaders have jumped ship,” said Manickavasagam.
It is understood that the lost of four of its lawmakers, triggered by three defections and one sacking, have given PKR the shivers. It will be keen on placing a strong candidate to stem further losses.
Manickavasagam argued that fielding an Indian candidate will be the best option now for the party.
The Malaysian Insider understands the proposals made by these leaders will likely be shot down by the party’s Hulu Selangor division.
A senior official of the party there told The Malaysian Insider that the majority of the Malay PKR supporters there would want a Malay candidate to be fielded.
“We want a Malay candidate because the majority of the voters here are us,” said one local PKR leader.
“And if you consider what happened in Bagan Pinang, where the Indian votes swung to BN, it would be disastrous to place an Indian candidate here,” added the official.
But Sivarasa does not share this sentiment, arguing that they are more than prepared to win the Indian hearts there.
“We are prepared to go down to the ground and argue our case,” he said.
PETALING JAYA: A policeman today told the Sessions Court here that he was not informed of the health condition of car thief suspect A Kugan from other police personnel from the previous shift.
Lance corporal Mohd Sani Mohd Sarip, 42, who was on duty at the D9 Criminal Investigation Department (serious crime) of the Subang Jaya police district headquarters, said that on Jan 20 last year he started work at 8am.
Questioned by defence counsel Datuk P M Nagarajan as to whether personnel had informed him earlier of Kugans's condition -- whether he was healthy, sick or ill -- Sani said: "They did not say anything of Kugan's condition."
Sani said he and other personnel did not make inquries about alleged cases of theft of luxury cars by Kugan on Jan 20 because all information was complete.
Sani was the 15th prosecution witness to give evidence.
The accused in the case, Constable V Navindran, 28, had pleaded not guilty on Oct 1 to causing grievous hurt to Kugan, 23, in police custody.
Navindran, who is being represented by Nagarajan, is charged with committing the offence at the interrogation room of the Taipan police station, USJ, Subang Jaya, at 7am on Jan 16, 2009.
He is being charged under Section 331 of the Penal Code which carries a jail term of 10 years and a fine upon conviction.
Navindran also pleaded not guilty to two alternative charges of causing hurt to Kugan at the same time and place under Section 330 of the Penal Code.
When asked how Kugan ate when both his hands were handcuffed behind his back, Sani said his handcuffs would be opened to a frontal position by detective corporal M Paramasimban.
"If at meal time, Kugan's cuffs would be opened, to my knowledge Paramasimban would do so," he said.
The trial before Judge Aslam Zainuddin resumes on April 5.
Remember, I too did swear that someone told me something. No doubt I swore that in a Statutory Declaration. I did not swear on the Quran. But if Zul insists then I will arrange to swear on the Quran in front of an imam of a mosque that what I signed in my Statutory Declaration is true, as I had been informed, so help me God.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
UK Parliament, 24 March 2010 : Column 349W
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports his Department has received on allegations that Mr. Raja Petra Kamarudin may be in exile in the UK; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: I have been asked to reply.
Our high commission in Kuala Lumpur has reported on speculation in Malaysia that Raja Petra Kamarudin may be in the United Kingdom. We are not in a position to comment on or to confirm such speculation.
As I said in a previous article, the Malaysian Parliament wasted two whole weeks of the current session dabbling in petty issues and personal matters when it should instead be debating matters of national importance. Have you heard the saying ‘fiddling while Rome burns’?
Anyway, just to digress a bit, the day that Zulkilfi Noordin raised the matter of some unknown people attempting to bribe him to implicate ‘the First Couple’ in the Altantutya murder, UK’s Parliament was asked about me (see above).
I will not comment further and will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions on this matter. It appears, however, that the word ‘exile’ was used. So, while Parliament did not receive a confirmation as to whether I am or am not in the UK, it looks like the British government has declared my status as that of an exile.
Assuming I am in the UK, would the Malaysian government dare launch extradition proceedings against me? Sedition is not a crime in the UK. It used to be a crime in the days when the King of England was believed to have been appointed by God. But that law has never been used for some time and on 1 January 2010 Britain repealed the Sedition Act.
So no such law exists any longer. Therefore, under the ‘dual criminality’ clause, if a certain act is a crime in Malaysia but not in the UK, then the Malaysian government can’t extradite that person.
For example, two men can get married in the UK, sometimes even in church. And when Elton John got married to his boyfriend a couple of years ago, they did not arrest him for sodomy and send him to jail. Instead he received a congratulatory message from the British Prime Minister. Therefore, this means if you face sodomy charges in Malaysia (sex between two consenting male adults), and you are now in the UK, Malaysia can’t extradite you.
On the criminal defamation issue, this law still exists in the UK but it has not been used for a long time. In fact, the last time it was used (I think it was 20 or 30 years ago), the court threw the case out and the government lost the case. The court ruled that they should take a civil defamation suit instead of using the criminal defamation law.
Anyway, even if the Malaysian government still wants to try to extradite me it will need to prove its case in a British court and convince the court that it has a case against me. And to do that it would need to bring the evidence to court -- which means you must first read what I said in my Statutory Declaration.
Yes, the contents of my Statutory Declaration would need to be scrutinised to see in what way I defamed the people I am alleged to have defamed. What did I say in my Statutory Declaration? And did what I say tantamount to criminal defamation?
What I said is that someone had told me something. And I revealed what this someone had told me and urged the prosecutors in the Altantuya murder trial to investigate this matter and get to the bottom of the allegation. I did not say this is what I allege. I said this is what the other person alleged. I also said that I felt it was my duty to bring it to the attention of the government so that they can establish whether this allegation is true or not.
How is the Malaysian government going to convince the UK court that this act of mine tantamount to criminal defamation? Furthermore, what constitutes criminal defamation? And does the Deputy Prime Minister’s wife come under the category where if you defame her, assuming I did, then it would be criminal in nature (seeing that she does not work for the government)?
Yes, the Malaysian government has so many hurdles to clear. The legal system in the UK does not work like it does in Malaysia. To establish that I am in the UK is the first hurdle. And once this has been established, they then have to start the legal process. And the legal process must comply with British legal standards and not Malaysian legal standards, which have no standards to speak of.
Not that easy is it?
No, I am not on the run, as Umno says. I am doing what Chairman Mao and Sun Tzu taught me. Never engage the enemy on their turf. Make them come to your turf then engage them. So, I have built my trench, plonked myself in it, and am waiting for the enemy to come get me. That is not called running. That is called drawing the enemy to your turf so that you can massacre them.
The Talibans also taught me this. When the Talibans realised that the Russians had just too much firepower -- with their tanks, rockets and helicopter gun-ships -- they withdrew to the mountains. The Talibans did not run. They retreated to the mountains so that the Russians would follow them. Then, with their antique weapons, the Talibans whacked the Russians good and proper and sent them running back to Moscow with their tails between their legs.
You see; the Talibans are experts in mountain warfare while the Russians are powerful on the plains. So why engage the Russians on the plains where they will make mincemeat out of you? Go to the mountains where the tanks can’t climb and where you can get a good shot of the helicopters. In no time Afghanistan became Russia’s Vietnam.
Aiyah, Umno is such a novice in the art of war lah.
Next, about Zul Noordin’s statement that the Prime Minister swore on the Quran that he does not know Altantuya and that that is good enough for him (Zul). First of all, Najid did not swear on the Quran that he does not know Altantuya. He just swore that he does not know ‘that Mongolian woman’. Secondly, if by swearing on the Quran then that is good enough for Zul, does this mean if I too swear on the Quran that someone told me something then that is also good enough for him? Or is it not good enough?
Remember, I too did swear that someone told me something. No doubt I swore that in a Statutory Declaration. I did not swear on the Quran. But if Zul insists then I will arrange to swear on the Quran in front of an imam of a mosque that what I signed in my Statutory Declaration is true, as I had been informed, so help me God.
Does Zul want me to do this? Over to you Zul! The ball is now at your feet. Just say the word and consider it done.
Hell, if swearing on the Quran is good enough then we do not need lawyers or prisons. There would be no one in jail. Aiyah, Lawyer Zul, what are you talking about lah?
On another topic, a few months ago, the Sultan of Selangor made a trip to London and as he was leaving he said he is going to London to arrest me and to bring me back to Malaysia. I take it he must have been joking. Or maybe not!
A couple of days ago, my cousin went to the Selangor Palace to bring to the attention of the Palace a certain issue involving the Orang Asli. It seems some capitalists are attempting to steal some land belonging to the Orang Asli, where they have been living for about 100 years.
The Sultan of Selangor’s ADC confronted my cousin and told him that the Palace knows that he is linked to me. They have photographs of him with me, which the Special Branch took and probably handed over to the Palace.
My cousin replied, of course we are linked. We are cousins.
The ADC then replied that I am an arsehole and that I had attacked the Sultans.
My cousin responded by telling the ADC that he is not a member of the Royal Family so he should butt out. This is a matter between members of the Royal Family.
The ADC then raised his voice and said that my cousin is arrogant.
The ADC was dressed in his military uniform, of course, and my cousin told him to take off his uniform and step outside for a one-on-one. The ADC walked off while murmuring to himself. Good for him or else my cousin, the son of Raja Datuk Redzwa bin Raja Sri Tun Uda, would have rearranged his face.
By the way, the late Raja Datuk Redzwa, younger brother to my father, was the most feared of all our uncles. No one could cross him and not suffer the consequences. He hated Umno and even attended the massive Reformasi demonstration on the Kesas Highway back in 2000. And when the police tried to stop him he argued with the police and dared them to arrest him. Don’t play play with my uncle mah!
Yes, palace officials should stay out of our family matters. They are not members of Royalty and have no business making any comments. They should be reminded that are merely the hired hands. Unfortunately this is 2010 and not 1810. Two hundred years ago my keris would have been bathed in this ADC’s blood. Nowadays such things are no longer allowed.
Sigh…how I miss the good old days.
Finally, see the picture below. Now do you believe it when I say that not all Malays are Muslims? In Islam, the ends do not justify the means. You can’t wash yourself with piss and declare that you are now clean. You can only clean yourself in pure water (air suci). Air kencing (piss) can’t purify your body.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who will be officiating the PERKASA meeting tomorrow, once proudly said that even the US now has a detention without trial law like Malaysia. If the US had introduced this law earlier then 911 would not have happened, explained Dr Mahathir. Because the US did not have such a law like the ISA, the New York Twin Towers was brought down at the loss of so many lives.
Yes, the Internal Security Act is good. And Dr Mahathir says the US too should have such a law. Then the US introduces the Patriot Act, like what Dr Mahathir said they should have done earlier.
Okay. The ISA is good. Malaysia says the US should also have a law like the ISA. The US then introduces the Patriot Act. So the Patriot Act is good because it is like Malaysia’s ISA. The Patriot Act targets Muslims and detains Muslims without trial. So that is good since the Muslim NGOS feel that the ISA helps combat terrorism.
Can we now please stop whacking the US? The Patriot Act is good. Okay, so Muslims are the victims. So what? The ISA targets Muslims as well. And the opposite of good is bad. This must mean Muslims are bad.
Hmm….come again! Muslim NGOs konon! Podah!