MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku


Thursday, May 31, 2012

Don't be servants to Puncak Niaga and Syabas, Umno told

Former menteri besar Mohd Khir Toyo and several other Selangor Umno leaders have again been reminded that the federal government coffers do not belong to Umno.

NONERebuking Khir, Agricultural Minister Noh Omar and Selangor Umno secretary Mohd Zin Mohamad, Selangor exco member Dr Xavier Jayakumar (left) called on them not to behave like ‘servants'. 

"We wish to advise them not to be servants to Puncak Niaga and (state water concessionaire) Syabas chairperson Rozali Ismail," Jayakumar said, noting that the Umno leaders had been "enthusiastically lobbying" for a water infrastructure project to be continued. 

His statement yesterday came in response to Khir's blog post on Tuesday, in which he criticised the state government for stalling the construction of a water treatment plant that is part of an RM8 billion project to pipe water from Pahang to Selangor to prevent a water shortage Selangor is predicted to face in 2014. 

"(Current Selangor Menteri Besar) Khalid Ibrahim's excuse of finding a cheaper method, et cetera, does not make sense because the government had already built a water channel from Sungai Pahang to Selangor. The only thing left is to build the Langat 2 Water Plant to solve Klang Valley's water woes. 

"In addition, the construction of the dam does not require any funding from the state," Khir wrote. 

Khir also claimed the delays were costing the federal government as construction costs were soaring and it had to repay its debt and interests to the Japan International Cooperation Agency. 

Jayakumar reiterated that Selangor had sufficient water supply to meet the demands in the state, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. 

"What is clear and obvious is that the Umno/BN leaders do not care whether there will be a water crisis by 2014... but it is imperative for them to ensure that Puncak Niaga and Syabas, which is owned by Rozali, get to continue with their ‘water business' in Selangor," he said. 

The federal government wants to take over the state's water assets as part of a nationwide water restructuring plan, but the move was rejected by Khalid's administration. 

Negotiations have been at an impasse for about two years.

'It's proof of no concrete evidence against Anwar'

Former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan's statements made in yesterday's interview with Malaysiakini on the Sodomy I case against former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim are seen "as an afterthought".

On this issue, Musa should have stuck to his evidence given in the trial, his statement to the KL CID investigating team, his own suit against Anwar and the statement given by Mohd Rodwan Yusof, former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim said.

Mat Zain, who was the investigating officer in Anwar Ibrahim's black eye case in 1998, said Anwar while in police custody gave his consent for his blood sample to be taken on Sept 28, 1998, for a HIV test by a Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) doctor. 

Mat Zain said the sample was taken and given according to procedures. However, the sample taken for HIV test was taken away, without the doctor's consent on Oct 15, 1998, for DNA tests as well.

ex-igp musa hassan interview with malaysiakini 2"The doctor should have insisted that the blood sample taken for the HIV test is not suitable for the DNA test, since the procedure for DNA test samples must follow certain protocol," he said. 

Now that Musa had admitted to having used the blood sample for DNA tests with samples taken from the mattress, "then it is as good as him (Musa) admitting that he did not have concrete evidence" when he briefed the then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

"Otherwise, why would Musa want to steal the blood sample from HKL and do the DNA tests on the mattress if he had all the evidence when he briefed Dr Mahathir?" Mat Zain asked. 

Mat Zain said it should be remembered that the DNA test was already done at that time and Anwar had already been charged and trial was about to begin in less than a month.

He also noted that the DNA evidence gathered from the mattress was eventually expunged when chemist Lim Kong Boon acknowledged that the evidence could be planted. 

In the Malaysiakini interview yesterday, Musa admitted that he took blood samples to conduct the HIV test and it was also used for DNA testing.

This was because, the former IGP said, he had to conduct a full investigation as there were many allegations made in the book "50 reasons why Anwar cannot be PM".

Good drama script

Without mincing his words, Mat Zain also described Musa's warning to his (Musa's) younger brother Fuad not to interfere in the police investigations as "a good drama script"

"If Musa really would arrest his own brother, then he should have arrested present attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and HKL doctor Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof for fabricating evidence on the black eye investigation."

The fabricated reports are easily accessible as they are in the public domain. 

Mat Zain also said if Musa was honest to himself and the police, he should have supported calls for a tribunal to investigate the allegations made against him and Gani to clear the long-standing disputes. 

"The guilty ones must be punished, no matter who they are. Musa knows the various PMs and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong personally. He should not be afraid if he is totally clear of any wrongdoing," the former KL CID chief challenged.

Absolving himself, Gani and Najib

After having read Musa's statement on the Altantuya murder case as well, Mat Zain said, it was now more clear that Musa's willingness to speak to Malaysiakini on various ‘subjects', and published in parts, was to clear himself, Gani and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak through the media in view of the coming general election - and possibly revive his younger brother Fuad's political profile and ambition as well.

He said, Musa brought up Fuad's name "out of the blue", when speaking about his role in Sodomy I. Fuad was a former Hulu Kelang assemblyperson and in the 1990s was considered a rising star and possibly, a Selangor menteri besar in the making.

NONE"However, Fuad's dream of becoming at least an state executive councillor was shattered when he lost to Azmin Ali in the 1999 general election, garnering just 8,039 votes against Azmin's 9,185. After that defeat Fuad never recovered politically.

"I can't say whether there is any correlation between Musa suddenly bringing up his brother's name at this point in time and the resurfacing of Azmin Ali's 17-year-old corruption case, which has been reopened by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. But the facts are there and I leave it to the people to make their own assessment," Mat Zain said.

Musa's statement that the HKL doctor, Abdul Rahman, was appointed by former attorney-general, the late Mohtar Abdullah, was another distortion of facts, he added.

He said Abdul Rahman was appointed on Oct 26, 1998, by Gani, who was then a senior deputy public prosecutor in the AG's Chambers.

"This fact is clearly stated in Dr Abdul Rahman's first expert report prepared on Abdul Gani's instructions. The doctor's appointment was made despite my objections. 

"I have discovered that Dr Abdul Rahman was under police investigation for ‘criminal intimidation', based on a report lodged against him by another doctor who prepared Anwar's official medical report."

NONE"Mohtar then ‘reappointed' Dr Abdul Rahman on Dec 1, 1998, to cover up the first appointment that was made by Gani. Dr Abdul Rahman, then went on to prepare another two more expert reports which contradict each other, making three expert reports in all, including the one instructed by Gani, although the doctor appointed by the AG did not make any physical examination on Anwar," Mat Zain revealed.

Abdul Rahman, the former top cop said, went on to give his evidence in the Royal Commission of Inquiry, which contradicted not only his expert report but his statement to the police as well.

This, Mat Zain said, was a clear cut perjury but no action was taken against Abdul Rahman. 

Musa, he added, also claimed the AG Chambers did not have any intention of fabricating evidence in the black-eye investigation and that it had the right to call its own experts.

"To this I must say that if Gani did not have any intention of fabricating evidence, then he would not have arm-twisted Dr Abdul Rahman into preparing those three expert reports. Gani knew Dr Abdul Rahman was under police investigations as I told him. 

"Musa also cannot deny the fact that he and Gani were present at the 30th floor of the Bukit Aman police headquarters on the night of the black-eye incident and they would have known what exactly happened in the lock-up that night.

"They must realise that any attempt to change the true facts which they both knew as the truth is mere distortion of facts. 

"Again, I would suggest that Musa insists that Najib seeks the Agong's consent to have a tribunal set to investigate this matter and see whether Gani and Musa himself can be cleared or otherwise," Mat Zain added.


SIPITANG: Many local fishermen in Sipitang feel they are being sidelined by those in position to assist them in the ever increasing competition to earn a simple decent living. While the new comers to Sipitang favoured by Sipitang leaders because they are the fixed deposit of BN, said Hj Amde Sidik, the Deputy President of SAPP last night in a talk he gave in Kampong Guruh Guruh, about 3km from Sipitang Town.
“Distribution of facilities to fishermen in Sipitang has always been based on connection, especially family, relatives and close friends; in many instances one has to declare that one is UMNO supporter, otherwise the ‘official’ wouldn’t bother listening, this is why we think we look forward to a new style of leadership here,” said Ahmad (not his real name) from Kg Buang Sayang, Sipitang for fear of his family being harassed and old pension being stopped.
According to him-Ahmad, UMNO leaders here are capable in threatening people to live in fear for the past twenty years. YBs are given the names by their spies; spies likewise, work rightly or wrongly based on hearsays.
“We orang laut where else do we go? Yet all fishing activities are not without limit - kind of nets used, how far we go to the sea, how big the size of our equipments, the kind permit issued, what is it we catch, etc.
Sipitang has no more fish around. Sabah Forest Industry- SFI could be blamed for this; there is no assurance that toxic disposed by SFI hasn’t killed the fish or dwarfed the growth of marine life around here. Many years before SFI existed, fish, prawn and crabs are plentiful, one didn’t need to go very far off the shore. Today, our catch is based on the luck of the day ” Ahmad said.
A part from that, our Department of Maritime based in Labuan in their usual way- pay more attention to small prey like us, run amok inspecting every conceivable things in our boats in what they called it based on report by someone rather than by someone in authority, may be we can call it ‘bodek’ to get Datukship. Yet smugglers of liqueur, cigarettes and what have you are continually operating lucratively on the shore of Sipitang and Menumbuk.
According to Amde it really is sad to hear, people are pouring whatever left to be said. They can rest assure; he said that he wouldn’t leave issues like this un attended.
Among those present at the function were SAPP CLC Sindumin Committee members including its Treasurer, Sarudin Maidin. - Sabahkini


THE LEADER of a ruling BN Chinese political party in Malaysia recently said, “An opposition party has given a false impression or lied that Penang has a successful administration to impress the Chinese community”.
In order to convince the voters in Penang, BN will have to do a lot of work to ensure that they have in fact in the past umpteen years done better than the opposition in administrating Penang compared with the opposition’s 4 years. So, the only way is to win back Penang which they claim that they will do at the coming general election. Let us see what will be the voters’ choice.
Many independent world journalists and AFP have reported in several newspapers that the opposition has made great strides in Penang and Selangor since taking over the two states in the 2008 general election. The books, which were coloured red after 5 decades under the control of Malaysia’s authoritarian ruling coalition, were quickly balanced in their 4 years and debts were virtually eliminated.
For a leader of a ruling BN Chinese party to say “that if a certain party gets the Chinese support all the problems faced by the community will be solved”. The same party has for many years got the Chinese support but how come they never seemed to solve many Chinese issues.
Yes, we agree nobody is a 'superman' as he said but give “credit where credit is due”. Don’t we all know that Penang has done pretty well in the four years since 2008 – a visit to Penang would be the best way to judge for oneself, other than reading from parliament reports?
Former MCA President Tun Dr. Ling Liong Sik was quoted in the newspapers saying that many opposition leaders in PR states were not bogged down with moral and corruption issues. He even said that Selangor Mentri Besar Khalid Ibrahim and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng as examples of PR leaders untainted by corruption and abuses of power.
In Penang, CM Lim Guan Eng has launched a campaign to halt official corruption. Penang and Selangor are the first states in Malaysia to have the Chief Minister and all its excos declared their personal assets and income to the public.
Many credit Lim’s attempts to clean up the rampant backroom deals and political patronage that are typical of Malaysia. Lim said, “What is sad about Malaysia is that things that are the international norm (clean government) are abnormal”. And he continued, “If you can show that you can govern well, it will be a model, a showcase… a precursor of governing the federal government”.
Tun Dr. Mahathir recently talked about greater skill in managing the country and the difficult task of managing a democracy in this modern situation. He cited, “Human rights, various forms of freedom that could lead in destruction and instability… and a little democracy would be good”.
What is he hinting at? Does he want an authoritarian government forever or do Malaysians want or need many “Changes” on governance? BN has been the government for more than 5 decades. He knows that the minority has never in history affected BN, and never will because they are minorities. Perhaps he is feeling “the East Malaysian wave or the wind of change” that probably may affect the voters’ decisions in the ballot boxes in the coming 13th general election.
In a recent newspaper report, the DPM was saying that “The Malays depend too much on government”. I agree with him because they are spoon-fed by the government. He expects the Malays to gain control of the economy. Is the government giving equal chances to all Malays (including Malays from all walks of life) in Malaysia to participate in all economic and business activities?
The government has just allocated RM500 million 'grant' to cover 10% of the costs of projects in Sabah worth about RM5 billion that includes an international convention centre and infrastructures such as roads, lamp post, water, electric and drainage system among others… the timing of this grant is perfect.
In Malaysia, instead of categorizing people as Malays, Chinese, Indians, natives, lain-lain, etc, why do we not start calling ourselves “Malaysians” to justify PM’s “1Malaysia concept”? In the USA everyone is called American regardless of different races and ethnic groups. So, today a great grandson of a slave in USA is the first black American President.
We have seen major changes in Malaysia over the last few years and are getting a certain level of political maturity yet not enough to fully practice a two party system seen elsewhere overseas. We should really start thinking that “we are Malaysians” rather than categorizing ourselves as people of different races. In Sabah and Sarawak, people have been very closely knitted and the 1Malaysia concept is nothing new. People of all races and religion mingle freely all these years and inter-marriages were very common.
As an East Malaysian, I find it hard to understand why Malays in Semenanjung Malaysia would want to avoid sitting in a Chinese coffee shop. In Sabah and Sarawak we are very flexible and tolerant because we have more rural areas where people sit in any 'kedai kopi' or stall for refreshments when they break their journey.
I worked in Kuala Lumpur and many states of West Malaysia for more than 10 years - people tend to be oriented towards “UMNO for Malays, MIC for Indians, MCA for Chinese, etc” since the independence of Malaya. I think it is time to start orientating ourselves to be Malaysians in spirit to be truly Malaysians.
Until we really “Change or Ubah” and become Malaysians, we stand segregated. - Sabahkini

The Great Debate

The hall was packed with thousands of people from all walks of life. Some were wearing yellow t-shirt. Some wore red t-shirts. Some wore white t-shirts. But the odd thing was, everybody was wearing a t-shirt with logos on it. Nobody was wearing any shirt at all. Or baju kurung. Or baju batik. Zilch. Nada. Null. சுழி. Zéro. 零. Well, you get the idea.
I was trying to move, inching my way toward the stage. And it was damn difficult to do so because of the crowd. Somewhere in the middle of the crowd, I could see Rais Yatim with a tasbih. Strangely enough, when I was near him he turned to me, smiled and as if knowing my puzzlement as what he was doing with the tasbih, he explained, “I am doing head count Bro…”
“Oh…..no wonder…” I thought. As if he knew what I was gonna ask next, he said, “I think there are 22000 people in this hall,” smiling. “Oh…okay…” again, I thought.
As I arrived in front of the stage, Irshad Manji was adjusting her short skirt and tight t-shirt. “Hmmm…even the debater is wearing t-shirt,” I told myself. Irshad was sitted to my left. Her white t-shirt says “Lock up your dotters, I am lezbie.'’
Sitting to my right was a goateed guy in a kain pelikat and green t-shirt. His t-shirt says “MasyaAllah, Na’uzubillah, neraka jahannam.” He looked like he was an officer from JAIS. Or something like that.
Adorning the wall behind both of them was a huge banner. It reads, “Welcome to the great debate.”
The crowd was getting restless. The debate was scheduled to start at 1pm. And it was already 1.30pm. Yet there was no sign the debate was going to start any soon. Outside the hall, there were about 6000 policemen, 5 tanks, and about 20 armoured vehicles. The Deputy IGP was seen ordering some thosai telor at a stall set up by some Indian NGOs nearby. Anwar Ibrahim was rolling his hands, as if to signal something to Azwan Ali, eh…I mean Azmin Ali.
Not far from that, Umi Hafilda was screaming through a loud hailer, “Al-Juburi, Al-Sodomite, Al-Adulterer, Al-Kohol…” over and over again, like she was on repeat mode. In front of her, about 5 people would repeat what she said.
Over at the other end of the spectre, there were burger stalls. Nobody bought their burgers. And so they were giving them away for free. Even then, nobody took their burgers. Earlier in the day they were telling me, “bisnes teruk la Bang….rugi besar ni….” I saw “NFC” written on their beef burger wrapping. “Hmmm…that prolli explains it all,” I thought. Again.
Suddenly there was loud music. “I want your ugly, I want your disease, I want your everything as long as its free…” the speakers were blaring them out. Hamaigawd…Lady Gaga.
And there she was. In all her sinful glory. She was wearing…err…not so much really. There was this black pvc bra with a hole in the middle of each of the cup showing her nipple. And a skimpy pair of red pvc panties with a heart in the place where her “anu” is. And knee-high black leather boots with what looks like a 1-foot heel each.
Jesus Christ, Lady Gaga was the moderator.
She went to the mike. “Afternoon guys and gals, lezboz and homosexuals, welcome to THE debate,” she proclaimed to loud cheers from a section of the hall. The goateed guy was almost in a state of delirium. I didn’t know whether it was out of sheer fright, joy, sickness or all three.
After some pleasantries, and a short explanation of the rules of the debate, Irshad Manji took the mic.
“I don’t understand why my book is banned by JAIS. Isn’t Islam about tolerance? Isn’t Islam about the eternal search for the truth? Who owns the truth? Not me. And surely not YOU!” she said while pointing to the goateed guy.
“After all, Caliph Al-Mahdi used to debate with Timothy 1, the Nestorian patriach. They would do it at the Caliph’s palace, in front of everybody.
“The Caliph would say, O Catholicus, it does not benefit someone like you, someone of learning and experience, to say about God Almighty that He took Himself a wife and bore a son.” To which Timothy 1 would retort that God did not have a wife and someone who said so was a blasphemer.
Timothy 1 would then say that “it is not my business to decide whether [the Quran] was from God or not…but all words of God found in the Thorah and the Prophets, and those of them found in the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles have been confirmed by signs and miracles; as to the words of your book they have not been corroborated by signs and miracles. Since signs and miracles are proof of the will of God, the conclusions drawn from their absence in your Book is well known to your majesty.”
“Well, did the Caliph ban Timothy 1 after that? Did the Caliph order Timothy’s death after that? No. He did not. In fact he invited him to a sumptuous banquet and later he invited him again and again for such debates in his palace. If your faith is strong and you believe in God, why must you fear opposite  or differing views?”
“If a Caliph could behave in that way, why can’t we? Why can’t you?” she asked to the thunderous applause of some very liberal looking guys and gals wearing Pink Floyd t-shirt and baseball cap in the hall.
Lady Gaga then stood up and took a whip and whipped the floor of the stage. “That was freakin’ good arguments youall!” “Cheers to Irshad. Cheers to Irshad,” she exhorted. Quite obviously, she was not impartial. “Well, I am not impartial, okay…, just like some of your Judges in your country,” she screamed.
I could then see VK Linggam giving a thumbs down sign. “Boo…,” he was saying.
The goateed guy stood up. Went to the mike. “Assalamualaikum…,”he said. “Irshad Manji is a threat to Islam. A threat to our akidah. A potential resident of hell. She is a lesbian too. I demand that the government revokes her citizenship.”
He then went back stage. Everybody was astounded. Several minutes later he came back with a big box. He opened it on stage. And out came what looked like Hassan Ali doll. And the damn doll could move and talk. “Damn, an electronic Hassan Ali,” I whispered to myself.
The doll took the mike. “I have proof of proselytisation efforts by Christian mercenaries. I will show you in a minute….”
Suddenly a section of the crowd in red t-shirt moved forward. Then they turned around, their back now facing the stage. Lady Gaga the said, “oh oh…it is senaman bontot time…”
The crowd in red t-shirt, their back facing the stage, started to wiggle their derriere, in various shapes and forms.
Then the President of the Petty Trader Malaysia came out from his Lamborghini Gallardo from no where. He went on stage. He said, “come to my shop and eat some ikan, and you could win this car…”
He then got into the car again. And HomaiGawdilinggam…he drove the car straight toward me. He was going to run me over.
Bang, boom, crash….suddenly I was awake. I had fallen off the bed. My wife was laughing at me.
“Bad dream eh?”, she asked….

SUHAKAM independence questioned

Its already almost six months of wait for an appointment with SUHAKAM Chairman, Tan Sri Hasmy Agam. We came to know of this distinguish diplomat of ours who used to serve at the United Nations from other NGO work.

We may have to tolerate and expect the wait to be long with him visits to the interiors of Sabah and Sarawak to understand and explore the NCR land issues there.

And we've come to expect private secretaries of big people in Government can be rather short in the courtesy department to even bother to give up-date of our appointment request and are not guilty making us wait forever.

But several news relating to SUHAKAM comes out rather odd.

It made us ask whether our Human Rights Commission is truly independent, impartial and objective body on human rights matters or has it been "penetrated"?

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Malay: Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Malaysia) better known locally as SUHAKAM is the national human rights institution (NHRI) of Malaysia. Like MACC, and other Commission status body, it is synonymous with independence.

SUHAKAM was established by the Malaysian Parliament under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, Act 597 arising from protest from political parties and NGOs on human rights practises in Malaysia, inclusive of those stated in the Federal Constitutions relating to freedom of speech, gather and movement.

It began work in April 2000 was mandated to promote human rights education, advise on legislation and policy, and conduct investigations. The first commissioner was Tun Musa Hitam, then replaced by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman in April 2002 and current Commissioner for 2010-2013 is Tan Sri Hasmy Agam.

As we understand in our deliberation of United Nation Declaration on Human Rights 
here, the Declaration acknowledged that the freedom and rights in any country is limited by its law as long as the law is considered just and consistent with the Declaration. (Article 29)

Article 20 provide for freedom and right for assembly but it is described for "peaceful assembly." Article 3 provide for rights to security.

Our motivation to question SUHAKAM arise from several curious news reports and blog postings, such as the following report in The Star, below:


Tuesday May 29, 2012

Don’t appeal NCR cases, says Suhakam

KUALA LUMPUR: The Government should not appeal court decisions which favour and recognise the customary and land rights of the orang asli in the peninsula and indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak.

“In my view, if the Government is serious about respecting the land rights of indigenous peoples, it should not have appealed in some of the cases,” said Suhakam commissioner Jannie Lasimbang.

Read on here


That statement from Suhakam commissioner Jannie Lasimbang is certainly strange and one sided.

While the customary rights of the indigenous people is acknowledged under the Constitution and law, it is unbecoming of her to demand the Government to not pursue the process of law.

While she is known activists and advocate of Sabahan native customary rights, she has to acknowledge that she must remain impartial in her role as a Human Rights Commissioner.

The Human Rights Declaration clearly appreciated the law as limitation to unlimited freedom and rights. The freedom and rights of an individuals or group of individuals need to be balanced with the freedom and rights of other individuals or groups of individuals.

At the end of January, 2012, a blogger, RBF Online here questioned the remarks made by a member of the Commission, Muhd Sha'ani Abdullah.

This was made while receiving a memorandum from a group calling themselves as ABU or Asal Bukan UMNO against alleged police actions to disperse their scheduled event in Jalan Kebun Shah Alam on January 21st 2012.

During the event, a group from the Indian group Hindraf made noises in a Malay area at about the time of the Muslim eveningmaghrib prayers and this received a bad reaction from the locals, including Malay opposition supporters.

Police had to step in to calm the situation and they requested ABU to disband their event to prevent further disturbance.

The Commissioners remarks was reported by Free Malaysia Today as below:

In the report, he made the following claims (in Malay):

Shaani berkata polis sepatutnya mendidik masyarakat supaya tidak mengambil tindakan yang bertentangan dengan undang-undang dan bukannya menggunakan hukum sendiri dengan menyerang majlis ceramah tersebut.

“Majlis diadakan oleh badan yang sah, bukannya majlis anjuran kongsi gelap. Kalau rakyat marah, pergi buat aduan polis bukan guna hukum sendiri,”

Basic questions arised from his remarks. Does he realised that ABU is an unregistered entity? Since when was Hindraf a lawfully registered body?

In midst February, the Ministry of Home Affairs had extradited Saudi Arabian writer, Mohammad Najeeb A. Kashgari who insulted the Prophet Muhamad back to Saudi Arabia. Blogger Anak Seberang posted Bice Chairman of SUHAKAM, Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee remarks here.

An extract in Malay below:

Naib Pengerusi Suhakam, Prof. Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee berkata, pengusiran beliau menjadi satu kejutan walaupun rayuan bertulis telah dibuat oleh Suhakam kepada Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein untuk mempertimbangkan kesnya agar selaras dengan prinsip hak asasi manusia dan khususnya prinsip bukan 'refoulment' di mana seseorang yang menghadapi penganiyaan di negara beliau tidak perlu dikembalikan ke negara tersebut.

"Pengusiran pulang Mohammad Najeeb akan mempunyai kesan negatif kepada negara kerana telah melanggar undang-undang dan instrumen hak asasi manusia antarabangsa," kata beliau dalam satu kenyataan dikeluarkan lewat malam tadi. Katanya, kolumnis itu telah pun dinafikan hak-hak tersebut di mana kes beliau telah menarik tajuk-tajuk utama media antarabangsa.

Hishammuddin appropriately explained that Malaysia will not harbour a criminal wanted by his home country. Malaysia is not a transit point for such criminals.

Article 9 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights clearly established the rights of Malaysia as a sovereign nation to refuse anyone deemed as broken the law of a particular country.

Why is SUHAKAM raising this as an issue? Is SUHAKAM subjecting itself to Western interest and values and also their interpretation of freedom and rights?

On to a more current and heated issue on the probe on police brutality to the April 28th 2012 Bersih 3.0 demonstration, there are strange arguments and decisions of SUHAKAM.

Before that, hear this You Tube recording of comments by Member of the Commission, Dr James Nayagam m,ade the police acted.

Seriously his view seems inconsistent with the spirit of the UN Declaration deliberated here.

Is the schedule time really pragmatically relevant and fundamental issue?

Dr Nayagam and Prof Khaw expressed strong opinions against police brutality during the probe for Bersih 2.0.

Will they show that independence, impartiality and objectivity for the probe on Bersih 3.0 with the police clearly at the receiving end and had to resort to force consistent with the Police Act (readhere)?

What about the rights of the police to perform their job without harassment and brutality by the unruly crowd on the police accorded under the UN Declaration?

And now to this The Star's report below:


Wednesday May 30, 2012

Bar: Why have two inquiries?

PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council has questioned why an independent panel is conducting a probe on the Bersih 3.0 gathering when Suhakam is also holding its own public inquiry on the incident.

Council chairman Christopher Leong said it was strange that the panel was proceeding with the inquiry when Suhakam, a statutory and independent commission, had stated that it would undertake a similar move.

He added that the Bar Council had stated that it would take part in the Suhakam inquiry and that it would not serve any useful purpose to duplicate the process.

“What purpose will it serve to have two inquiries?” he said yesterday.

He said Suhakam was the proper body to conduct the inquiry given that the commission had the experience, statutory mandate and legal framework to do so.

Leong said the Suhakam Act also provided the commission with all the prerequisites needed to carry out the investigation into the rally.

He also reiterated the council’s opposition to former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar’s appointment as panel chairman.

“This is not about his integrity. The Bar Council does not question his integrity and respects that Tun Hanif has given invaluable service to the country.

“It is, unfortunately, about the perception of independence and public confidence in the panel,” he added.

Leong, however, said the Bar was willing to meet Hanif to discuss the matter.

It was reported that Hanif was willing to meet the Bar Council as well as Bersih leaders as part of the panel’s investigation, saying he wanted the inquiry team to be given a chance to carry out its duties without “suspicion” from any parties.


It strange for Christopher Leong to claim that The Bar Council did not question Tun Hanif's integrity. Who is he trying to bull when Bar Council and Bersih in unison with the opposition clearly stated in the Malaysia Insider's report here to criticise Tun Hanif's appointment.

This is the bloke criticised by Hantu Laut here for making the oxymoron statement: "He said the council holds strong to its position that Tun Hanif Omar should be disqualified from the post of the panel’s chairman as the latter had already previously indicated his anti-Bersih views"

Then he said "however, that the council was not questioning Hanif’s integrity as it respects the former Inspector-General of Police’s contribution to the country"

On May 12th, Hasmy Agam was reported byThe Malaysian Insiders [read here] as willing to give the IAP committee a chance in their call for the panel to be impartial. He was quoted as saying:

“The Commission awaits the determination of the terms of referenceof the Panel in the hope and expectation that they are consistent with the requirements of an inquiry that will conduct its work in a manner that is independent, impartial, transparent, and with integrity and without fear or favour.

“It is extremely important that any such inquiry... be conducted expeditiously, but also with great care so as to ensure that its process and outcome will... restore public confidence in the authorities, which is an essential attribute of a fully functional democracy which the people aspire for.”

Before Government could announce the 10 point term of reference (which was only annlunced recently on May 28th), SUHAKAM announced on May 21nd decided to go ahead with their own probe on the rally.

This impatience act is rather odd. Was it the Chairman decision or the influence of the Committee?

Predictably, the opposition biased Bar decided to not participate and view it as pointless to participate in the Panel established by the Government. Christopher Leong was quoted by The Malaysian Insider dated May 29th [read here] as saying:

“We do not see the purpose to duplicate the process... we already said earlier that we would participate in Suhakam’s inquiry. There is no public purpose served by duplicating the enquiry process.

The Bar Council is losing credibility and is under heavy criticism. They showed themselves to be clearly bias for Bersih 3.0 in their report (read our criticism here). The most embarassing thing is Bar Council had allegedly illegally endorsed the paper EGM which allowed legal trainee to vote.

Is SUHAKAM playing to the opposition and NGOs gallery and working in concert with Bar Council?

As a Government body, SUHAKAM should at least be supportive and complimenting other Government effort. As The Star wrote in their The Editors column, Tun Hanif should be allowed to carry his job.


Wednesday May 30, 2012

Time to let Hanif’s advisory panel get on with the job


ON May 9, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein announced the setting up of the independent advisory panel on the Bersih 3.0 rally to be headed by former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar.

In the highly-charged and emotive atmosphere prevailing at that time, when charges and counter-charges were continuously hurled by various parties over what actually went wrong on April 28, the announcement obviously did not go down well with many.

The debate over whether Hanif was the right person to head the panel was acrimonious, and at times, personal. Amidst the fog of uncertainty, one wondered whether anyone was serious about wanting to see the real picture.

To his credit, Hanif did not get rattled by the attack as he saw his appointment simply as his duty to serve the nation and unravel the truth.

He wanted the public to judge the panel on its work and not through some preconceived notion that this would be an exercise in futility with a foregone conclusion.

Let's give him and his team the chance to get on with their work.

From the 10-point terms of reference revealed on Monday, it is clear that the panel knows what are the issues that the public want addressed.

The panel has agreed, among other things, to establish whether:

> the authorities adhered to lawful procedures and actions, particularly in the use of force including tear gas and water cannons;

> there was random and widespread physical assault and brutality by the police;

> there was unlawful confiscation and/or destruction of photographs and video recordings made by members of the public and media professionals;

> there was unlawful, unwarranted arrest of the public and media professionals, and whether anyone was assaulted and beaten while in police custody; and

> lawyers were unlawfully denied access to their clients in police custody.

It has taken an open approach to consult all individuals and parties concerned to find out the cause of the disorder at Dataran Merdeka and the surrounding areas that day.

It is time for these individuals and parties to step forward to assist the panel.

As Hanif puts it: “It is my hope that this panel will be given the space to carry out its duties without any prejudice from any party.”

The Hanif panel is seeking to also review police standard operating procedures on crowd control and compare these with the practices recommended by the United Nations and other democratic societies, with a view to making recommendations if necessary.

That is a noble thing to do and we should give the panel our fullest cooperation.

Let us not be held to ransom by those who want to continually see things in a divisive manner, who want only to have things that will go their way.

Ironically, even those who demonise the judicial system or the electoral system continue to run to the courts for justice and stand for elections.

The question to ask here is not who is right, but what is right. To be sure, there are imperfections in every system but we must be committed to working to make things better.


The independence, impartiality and objectivity of the members of SUHAKAM and their perceived syncronicity with the Bar Council is really put to question.

Does this inclination has to do with the fact the then Bar Council Vice Chairman, Lim Chee Wee sat in the three man panel appointed by the Prime Minister to select the candidates for the Prime Minister and Agong to appoint as Members of the SUHAKAM.

Read this 2010 news report below:

Did Lim had a strong influence to sway the nine candidates selected as to ensure that SUHAKAM will have biasness for the opposition and their left leaning NGOs, including the Bar Council?

The nine candidates proposed for the 2010-2013 members were Malaysia’s former permanent representative to the United Nations Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, Universiti Malaya deputy vice-chancellor (Development) Prof Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee, International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation deputy dean Prof Datuk Dr Mahmood Zuhdi Abd Majid, Sabahan native customary rights advocate Jannie Lasimbang, Sarawakian lawyer Detta Samen, Children’s rights advocate Dr James Nayagam, Women’s rights advocate (and Bersih 3.0 Committee member) Maria Chin Abdullah, Fomca secretary-general Muhammad Sha’ani Abdul­lah and Former Abim president Ahmad Azam Abdul Rahman.

Subsequently, the names of Maria Chin and Ahmad Azam was omitted in the final list of members.

It is a non issue because already an influencial Malay-language blog, Sanggah Tok Janggut here express observation that SUHAKAM as not an independent, impartial and objective body and claimed they have succumbed to the opposition party political agenda. An extract from his blog below:

SUHAKAM bukan lagi badan bebas malah Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia ini sudah terjebak malah menjebakkan diri dalam politik kepartian dan ada angggota mereka berselindung di sebalik nama Hak Asasi sedangkan dalam masa yang sama sedang mencucuk jarum serta memainkan peranan untuk Suruhanjaya ini menjadi tunggangan kepada pembangkang.

Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi ini yang sepatutnya berfungsi sejajar dengan kehendak Perlembagaan Persekutuan, peruntukan undang-undang sedia ada dalam konteks Negara Malaysia iaitu demokrasi berparlimen dan Raja Berperlembagaan sudah tergelicir dari landasan asas penubuhan mereka kerana suruhanjaya ini lebih mengambil pendekatan hak asasi Negara barat untuk diaplikasikan dalam Negara ini.

He alleged that four out of the seven SUHAKAM members are pro-oppositions and acting as "gunting dalam lipatan". That speculation looks probable.

Hmmm ... could the Chairman be under the control of the four that we are kept waiting to eternity for our appointment? That is an abuse of our human rights to not be deprive of public service!

- Another Brick in the Wall