New Year's wishful thinking...

Dr M and DSAI patching up and bury all the hatchet and hatred. If Dr M and Soros can sit down side by side publicly, I don't see why can't these one-time former number 1 and 2 can't acknowledge each other for the sake of the future of this nation.

This is a genuine and sincere appeal to both parties to work on reconciliation. Life is too short to bitch and whine and bicker and fight till the cows come home. A new and fresh direction is needed in the impending global crisis and we need you both!

Thank you,

A Malaysian citizen.

The Taxi Minister in action

Beh Lih Yi | Dec 16, 08 7:46pm - MalaysiaKini

Prosecutory powers in the soon-to-be established Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) do not solely lie in the hands of the attorney-general, the government said today.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz in his winding-up speech in the Dewan Rakyat today said ‘public prosecutor', who is also the AG, in the MACC Act should not be read so narrowly.

Syed Jaymal Zahiid | Dec 16, 08 10:29am - MalaysiaKini

Peruntukan dalam Rang Undang-undang Perlindungan Saksi yang dibentangkan untuk bacaan pertama di Dewan Rakyat hari ini memberi banyak kuasa membuat keputusan kepada Peguam Negara (AG) dan menteri yang berkenaan.

Cadangan utamanya ialah tindakan dan keputusan pegawai-pegawai penting yang terbabit, tidak tertakluk kepada semakan kehakiman.

Rang undang-undang tersebut dibentangkan oleh Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz pagi tadi.

____________________________________________

kah kah kah..ni mesti nak kenakan Madey, Mat Mongol dan Bik Mama...kah kah kah

Mat Teksi dah pakat dengan Mat Ngantuk dan KJ.. kah kah kah....

nak bagi perlindungan pada sapa? kah kah kah.. bagi pada raja petra? kah kah kah...

memberi BANYAK KUASA membuat keputusan kepada peguam negara? kah kah kah...

kah kah kah..sapa peguam negara? peguam korek korek korek? kah kah kah...right right right.. kah kah kah...

Nostalgia Hisham Rais...

DARI TOK PEKONG KE MELAWATI

Saya masih teringat lagi majlis perasmian pergabungan Parti Keadilan dengan Parti Rakyat di Dewan Perhimpunan Cina pada 3hb Ogos 2003. Tiga hari sebelum majlis perssmian, Kumpulan Teater Bukan Teater telah di minta untuk memberi persembahan yang mengintpretasi makna dan tanda pergabungan. Tiga hari? Iya, kami hanya diberi masa tiga hari sahaja.

Kumpulan Teater Bukan Teater tidak menolak. Kami lakukan persembahan kerana kami di bayar dengan harga yang bagitu mahal sekali - kami di bayar dengan api dan semangat perjuangan.

Saya juga masih teringat Kongres Pertama Parti Keadilan Rakyat pada bulan Disember 2003 di sebuah Tok Pekong di Ipoh. Iya, di sebuah Tok Pekong, bukan di dewan hotel atau gedung mesyuarat yang mewah tetapi di sebuah Tok Pekong. Pada bulan Disember itu saya telah memastikan diri saya ke Ipoh untuk bersama sejarah.

Ketika di Ipoh saya dapat merasakan ombak dan semangat juang membakar terus. Apabila Kongres pertama PKR di adakan di rumah sembahyang Cina maka implakasinya cukup dalam. Inilah tanda-tanda permulaan retaknya konsep Ketuanan Melayu. Inilah juga tanda keberanian sebuah parti politik untuk memulakan politik baru – politik yang bukan berasaskan sokongan bangsa atau agama.

Di Tok Pekong ini jugalah Anwar Ibrahim untuk pertama kalinya berkemungkinan untuk hadir sama setelah bebas dari penjara.

Saya ke Kongres PKR bukan sebagai anggota parti. Saya ingin melihat siapa yang datang. Saya sebenarnya tidak mengenali ramai para pemimpin parti sama ada gedebe nasional mau pun gedebe dari negeri atau bahagian. Untuk saya mereka ini tidak penting. Apa yang ingin saya lihat ialah muka dan rupa betuk rakyat mana yang datang ke Kongres.

Ada satu pekara yang wajib saya perhatikan. Saya hendak melihat apakah ramai anak anak-anak muda yang turut sama merayakan kongres ini. Untuk saya ini adalah kunci. Kekuatan satu satu gerakan – gerakan apa sahaja pun jika tidak ada anak muda yang meminatinya pasti gerakan ini akan gagal. Dalam semua pejuangan merebut kuasa politik tanpa anak muda tidak mungkin ruyung dapat dipecahkan. Sejarah dan pengalaman menjadi guru kita yang terbaik

Pagi Sabtu 29 Novemeber 2008 ini saya ke Shah Alam. Saya amat jarang meninggalkan bilik di hari Sabtu terutama diwaktu pagi. Pagi itu saya memaksa diri saya bukan untuk mendengar ceramah dan ucapan yang gah-gah dari para politkus. Saya datang untuk mencari ambience dan suasana. Saya hendak melihat suasana PKR dan Pakatan Rakyat satelah berjaya menawan 5 buah negeri.

Bila saya melintasi pintu gerbang di sebelah Universiti Malaya dan meninggalkan Wilayah untuk memasuki Petaling Jaya Selangor saya mula ternampak bendera, banting dan iklan Kongres. Hebat. Sepanjang Lebuh Raya Peseketuan hingga ke Stadium Melawati iklan-iklan terpasang di sepanjang jalan untuk menjemput sesiapa sahaja datang merayakan Kongres Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Selangor negeri terkaya di bawah Pakatan Rakyat telah menjadi Tuan Rumah. Kerajaan Selangor telah menyediakan abang-abang berbaju hijau dari pasukan Rela untuk membantu keselamatan. Pekerja majlis Shah Alam yang beruniform siap sedia mengarahkan para tamu. Saya jangka tidak mungkin ada sesiapa yang akan tersesat mencari tempat Kongres walau pun untuk pertama kali turun ke Shah Alam. Persediaan kelihatan lumayan dan tesusun.

Nah… ini amat jauh sekali dengan apa yang berlaku di Ipoh. Di Ipoh dahulu para polis trafik ditugaskan untuk menyaman sebanyak mungkin apa sahaja yang bergerak. Malah ketika para wakil bersidang polis trafik telah datang untuk menyaman kereta yang terletak di pinggir jalan. Polis bersenjata pula tercacak disana sini bukan untuk mengawal tetapi hadir untuk memberi tekanan dan menakut-nakutkan orang ramai yang datang ke Tok Pekong. Di Shah Alam semuanya berbeza.

Ketika saya masuk ke dalam stadium seorang politikus sedang berucap. Sambil memasang telinga mata saya ingin melihat siapa yang datang. Saya tidak ambil pot muka-muka siapa yang duduk di atas pentas atau siapa yang duduk di barisan hadapan. Mereka ini semua pastilah para gedebe.

Apa yang ingin saya lihat ialah orang yang duduk di bawah pentas. Saya kagum apabila melihat rakyat biasa yang memenuhi stadium di pagi Sabtu itu. Mereka tidak berbatik lengan panjang seperti budaya gerombolan. Mereka juga tidak berdasi dan bertali leher. Majoriti dalam stadium adalah rakyat biasa yang mukanya sering saya temui di pehentian bas, di warung-warung atau di pasar malam.

Yang lebih mengkagumkan ialah kepelbagian bangsa-bangsa yang hadir. Untuk saya ini bukan kongres Melayu, bukan kongres Cina, bukan kongres Islam, bukan kongres India, Dayak, Iban atau Kadazan. Kongres di Stadium Melawati dihujung minggu akhir November ini jelas memperlihatkan ke Malaysian - kongres rakyat Malaysia - rakyat biasa.

Saya tidak nampak muka Mak Datin atau muka Minah cun a la Umi Ufilda yang datang berbedak dan bergincu. Atau Mak Datin yang datang dengan tas tangan Prada atau lelaki gendut berbaju batik bercincin besar seperti Ahmad Ismail dari Bukit Bendera. Tidak juga ada kelihatan bentuk Abang Zak yang memakai kaca mata hitam Gucci.

Saya senang hati apabila melihat bahawa Parti Keadilan Rakyat masih lagi dimiliki oleh rakyat Malaysia. Parti muda ini masih dalam keadaan selamat belum menjadi barang dagangan - masih belum lagi ( sic).

Bila sesi persidangan berhenti rehat saya menebeng di tepi pintu untuk memerhatikan muka-muka yang berkongres dengan lebih rapat. Ada Mak Cik berbaju kurung, Pak Cik bersongkok berbaju Melayu, Nyonya dan Amoi memakai gown, wanita India bersari, Pak Lebai dan Punjabi yang berserban rapi. Ada juga yang memakai baju batik berlengan panjang, saya menganggap mereka ini seperti tersalah masuk Kongres.

Di luar stadium pula makanan telah disediakan. Tidak lagi nasi bungkus seperti di Ipoh. Kini mereka yang berkongres dan sesiapa sahaja yang datang mencari ambience seperti saya akan di pelawa makan. Ada masakan Melayu, ada masakan India, ada masakan Cina dan ada masakan sayuran untuk yang tidak memakan hidupan – malah ada banyak pilihan.

Makan tengah hari ini bertambah lumayan kerana satu kumpulan pemusik terus menghibur para tamu dengan lagu-lagu keroncong untuk merehatkan kepala sesudah mendengar ucapan-ucapan dari para pemimpin.

Ketika saya hendak beratur mengambil makanan , saya melintasi satu khemah khusus dengan empat meja besar. Kipas angin terpasang ligat. Sudu dan garpu tersusun rapi. Terhidang indah di meja ini ialah makanan yang pastinya untuk para gedebe.

Saya hairan kenapa para gedebe ini tidak beratur sama seperti orang biasa untuk mengambil makanan. Nampaknya hegemoni budaya gerombolan United Malays National Organisation itu telah menyerap. Ada garis pemisah yang amat jelas diantara para gedebe dengan orang biasa. Lalu saya teringat beberapa minit tadi pemimpin parti telah berucap mengatakan bahawa kemenangan 8 March yang lalu adalah kerana sokongan rakyat bukan kerana kekuatan dan jentera parti.

Nampaknya menyuarakan retorik politik baru ini cukup enteng tetapi melakukan budaya politik baru ini masih amat jauh dari hati para gedebe. Mungkin mereka tidak memahami politik baru juga wajib membawa budaya baru yang bukan budaya feudal.

Setelah makan saya meleser untuk melihat gerai-gerai jualan. Tidak banyak yang menarik. Malah hanya ada satu dua gerai yang berstatus keilmuan menjual buku yang lainnya hanyalah warung-warung biasa yang menjaja khazanah Reformasi yang sering saya temui di ceramah-ceramah besar.

Anak muda ? Mereka kelihatan berkeliaran. Ini seakan-akan pesta untuk mereka. Malah ada yang agak terlalu muda untuk tahu apakah yang sedang berlaku di dalam stadium. Mungkin kerana becuti sekolah, ada anak-anak sekolah kelihatan menjual beg biru untuk dibawa pulang sebagai tanda kenang-kenangan ketika berkongres di Stadium Melawati.

Lalu timbul persoalan - apakah api dan semangat perjuangan masih membara? Jawabnya iya dan tidak. Ketika mendengar ucapan pemimpin di dalam stadium masih ada laungan reformasi kedengaran. Tetapi laungan REFORMASI tidak mengegarkan stadium. Mungkin kerana Angkatan Muda sedang sibuk mengisi borang melamar kerja atau mengisi borang kontrek dari 5 kerajaan Pakatan.

Kongres tahun hadapan saya bercadang untuk datang lagi kerana saya ingin bertanya apakah Angkata Muda telah mendapat pekerjaan atau telah mendapat kontrek. Jika telah mendapat ‘yang diminta’ pasti tidak ada lagi laungan reformasi.(TT)

Tersebut kisah suatu ceritera, hatta ya ampuun baginda razak..

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak. Hamba menulis surat ini kepada tuan hamba agar ianya dapat dibaca oleh anak cucu cicit kita semua. Hendaknya apabila kita semua berada di alam baka nanti maka anak cucu cicit kita akan membaca kembali surat hamba kepada tuan hamba.

Ya ampuun! Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, hamba telah mendengar surah dongeng labun lentong tuan hamba. Hamba bersama teman dan sahabat dengan syiok lagi tawaidok molopong dan terngaga apabila tuan hamba membuka mulut.

Apabila tuan hamba bercakap bahawa kebenaran hanya di ketahui Allah maka meleleh air mata hamba hingga ke lubang peha. Tidaklah pernah hamba melihat satu makhlok tuhan yang bagitu jujur bersilat lidah. Inilah agaknya rahmat Yang Maha Esa yang telah dikurniakan ke atas tuan hamba. Tidak pernah hamba terlihat seorang Syahdu, seorang Sufi, seorang Dukun dan seorang Bomoh dapat berkelentong seperti tuan hamba.

Cakap tuan hamba at the Press Conference itu adalah benar-benar melainkan semua tidak benar belaka.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, hamba juga turut merasa gundah gulana apabila terdengar berita kematian Puteri Mongolia. Hamba bertambah sedih lagi sayu apabila hamba di beritahu bahawa Puteri Mongol ini adalah gundek simpanan Yang Teramat Mulia Raja Muda yang bakal menjadi Raja kita.

Hamba juga mendengar khabar berita tentang betapa cemburunya Permaisuri ketika mengetahui bahawa ada gundek yang lebih disayangi dari Permaisuri. Telah tersebar ke seluruh Melaka tentang api murka yang keluar terpacar dari kopek layut Permaisuri Raja Muda.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, api murka Permaisuri Raja Muda ini bukan datang secara tiba-tiba. Adalah menjadi dongeng rakyat Melaka setiap Permaisuri yang akan naik ke atas takhta maka badannya wajib di ukur dan dikira. Telah tersebar ke pelusuk kampong dan kota, telah di ketahui rakyat jelata tentang berita susuk gedempak Permaisuri Raja Muda melebihi saekor anak gajah simpanan Tun Bendahara.

Adalah menjadi perangai dan sifat anak-anak muda Melaka membuat lawak dan jenaka terhadap gedempaknya badan Permaisuri Raja Muda. Dari apa yang hamba menerima berita inilah punca yang menimbulkan angkara murka. Permaisuri Raja Muda telah mengetahui betapa ramping, langsing lagi ranggi pinggang Puteri Mongolia.

Mengikut yang empunya cerita cemburu melimpah marah bertambah. Mengikut kata yang empunya surah seorang Tamil dari negara atas angin telah datang bersumpah di hadapan Balairong Seri bersama mudim dan pari-pari bahawa si Tamil hitam mengetahui bahawa Raja Muda kita berkemudi di hadapan berkemudi di buritan.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, sahehlah dongeng berita Raja Muda ‘makan di luar dan suka makan di dalam’. Makan di depan makan di belakang telah menjadi nikmat pilihan Raja Muda kita.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, ‘ makan depan makan belakang’ ini adalah surah yang dipungut dan dikutip oleh si Tamil yang hitam dari mulut tuan hamba sendiri. Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, bukanlah niat hamba untuk membuat fitnah, jauh lagi untuk mencerca nama baik tuan hamba. Niat hamba ialah untuk memberi tahu saentero negara bahawa what you said at the press conference the other day was pure bullshit.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, adalah hamba berjanji kepada rakyat Melaka untuk melapor duduk pekara. Adalah juga tanggung jawab hamba bukan menista dengan berita. Hendaklah tuan hamba tahu bahawa tidak ada seorang pun rakyat jelata yang percaya apa yang tuan hamba butirkan itu benar melainkan semuanya bukan benar semata-mata.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, kesah hikayat Puteri Mongol ini berpanjang hendak hendaknya. Adalah menjadi tabiat baik rakyat Melaka mereka amat suka melihat tuan hamba masuk sekali lagi ke penjara. Tidaklah busuk hati nurani mereka melainkan mereka ingin tahu saheh duduk pekara.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, rakyat Melaka dan saentaro belantara dari Melaka ke Mejapahit, dari Jambi hingga ke Pasai telah mendengar cerita tuan hamba menjadi kaya raya kerana membeli dua bahtera. Apakah ini dongeng cerita hamba sendiri tidak terkata-kata hanya tuan hamba tahu duduk pekara.

Mengikut kesah yang empunya ceritera, mengikut surah sumpah si Tamil hitam lagi legam, tuan hamba di lantik menjadi khadam yang kanan. Masuk istana keluar istana tanpa di tegur tanpa di saman. Bukanlah rashia rakyat Melaka untuk berdendam mencari mangsa. Mengikut surah sumpah si Tamil hitam lagi legam tuan hamba menjaga gundek-gundek Raja Muda. Mengikut tuan yang empunya ceritera tuan hamba juga beligar ke kampong beligar ke kota mencari banyak anak-anak dara untuk dijadi gundek-gundek istana.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, adalah kebangaan rakyat jelata melihat punai tuan hamba bercabang tiga. Se jantan jantan anak Melaka tidak ada punai yang bercabang tiga. Malam bergoncang siang berendut. Berselimut salah bergumpal pun salah. Tuan hamba akhirnya bermukah dengan Puteri Mongol gundek kesayangan Raja Muda. Ini bukanlah dongeng rakyat Melaka. Ini surah sumpah si Tamil hitam lagi legam yang punya angkara.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, biarlah hamba meneruskan cerita tentang Permaisuri yang jatuh murka. Telah didengar rakyat Melaka tentang kesah Permaisuri kita yang dahulunya seorang Mak Janda. Bergundek ke hulu bergundek ke hilir membuka kangkang mencari mangsa.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, adalah telah menjadi berita atas arahan siapakah Puteri Mongol musnah derita. Telah di ketahuilah rakyat Melaka betapa Permaisuri cemburu tersangat seperti gajah kena penyengat. Telah di ketahui juga rakyat Melaka Raja Muda sering berduka berkongsi katil memelok saekor unta walhal paduka bemimpi gundek langsing berambut panjang bukan anak gajah berambut kontot.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, tuan hamba dikatakan amatlah ceredik bergeliga mencari untung membeli bahtera.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak biarlah hamba menyampai berita. Dari Naning hingga ke Melaka rakyat tahu duduk pekara. Jangan cuba di bodoh jangan cuba di alpa rakyat sudah faham membaca warta berita. Tidak perlu bergelap tak perlu bersuluh pelita kesah tuan hamba membeli dua bahtera menggunakan duit emas kantung negara telah di ketahui rakyat jelata.

Al-kesah tun empunya cerita Permaisuri telah membadak gegak gempita , lagi marah lagi murka maka di arah Puteri Mongol disula , di seksa untuk menamatkan semua berita. Badan di letup rambut di bakar agar tidak di ketahui janin siapa. Dari atas angin sampailah berita, dari balairong hingga ke rakyat jelata semua ingin bertanya janin ini anak siapa. Anak tuan hamba atau cucu tuan hamba inilah punca murka Permaisuri yang membadak mencela.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, adalah hamba mendengar berita amat saheh lagi nyata tentang Raja Mongolia amat amarah tidak dapat dikata.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, adalah hamba mendengar berita si Tamil hitam lagi legam ditemui sudah. Dia bershaer lagi bermadah menunggu masa untuk mendedah.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, adalah hamba mendengar berita tentang isteri tuan hamba mendapat duit membeli bahtera.

Ya ampuun Baginda Razak, adalah hamba mendengar berita lagi saheh lagi nyata tentang Raja Muda yang akan naik tahta akan di sula rakyat Melaka.

Inilah berakhirnya surat hamba kepada tuan hamba. Ya ampuun Baginda Razak tidak lah ada apa lagi yang hendah dikata. Hendaknya di ketahuilah oleh anak cucu cicit kita nanti tentang kesah murka seorang Permaisuri yang gemuk gedempol, kesah Puteri Mongol cantik bistari, kesah Raja Muda yang takut bini, kesah gundek bertukar ganti.

Maka dibuatlah rakyat Melaka pantun enam kerat untuk ingatan turun temurun:

Tam tam tun
Tak perlu berpantun
Dam dum dah
Tak perlu bermadah
Your Press Conference
Is real poorah.

MISI DAN VISI MALAYSIA TODAY

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have said this before and it looks like I will have to say it again. Malaysia Today is about the fight for social justice. And just what comes under the ambit of social justice? I suppose anything that touches or affects our daily lives.

Racism, inequality, economic disparity, any form of violence, oppression, persecution, a manipulated judiciary, an unfair election system, social problems, any form of slavery, suppression of the fundamental rights of citizens, violation of the Federal Constitution, corruption, plundering and mismanagement of the country’s coffer; you name it and it would certainly be a fight up the alley of Malaysia Today.

These are actually very broad issues and within each issue they can again be dissected into sub-issues. For example, ‘any form of violence’ could be about wife beating, police violence, road rage, the Mat Rempit problem, crime on the streets, and so on. ‘Suppression of the fundamental rights of citizens’ could be about the stifling of freedom of speech, the University and University Colleges Act which forbids students from speaking out or from getting involved in politics, the Police Act which forbids assemblies of more than four people, the Publication and Printing Press Act which makes it mandatory to apply for a licence before one can publish a newspaper and which is renewable every year, and much more.

Okay, those are our focal points. Those are the issues that have become our focus. Most Malaysians would agree that these are issues that ail our society and which need addressing. But how do we address them? How do we attack these issues and grab them by the horns? This would involve a viable strategy and a coordinated and concerted tactical move. Knowing the problem is one thing. Knowing what to do about them would be the more important issue.

Understand one thing, the problems that plague us are merely the symptoms and not the disease. We can’t get rid of the problem by curing the symptoms. We need to get to the root of the problem and attack them there. Once the root of the problem has been eliminated, the problem will cure itself. But too much time is wasted trying to cure the symptoms rather than the disease itself. And this is why we see very little success from all that effort. And this despairs us and leaves us with the feeling that whatever we try to do is pointless. It leaves us with the feeling that it is hopeless to continue because whatever we try to do we will never see changes.

To understand where we are now, we must first understand where we came from and where we wish to go from here. Therefore, it is crucial that we know our history. Once we know our history and understand what went wrong then we will know what needs to be done to be able to put things right.

Malaysia is 51 years old. For me to explain what happened over the last 51 years and to plot the probable scenario the next 49 years and what Malaysia will be like when we celebrate our Centennial would require me to write a thesis. But then I can’t do that in my normal three to four pages and I am really not looking for a PhD. But how do I summarise in 1,000 words what would require 100,000? Let me try.

In any turn-around exercise, you need to look for the top ten problems. Then you attack the top three and most likely the top three would represent 80% of the organisation’s problems. This means just by solving the top three problems you solve almost all the problems. And chances are you need no longer even look at the balance of the problems because by solving the top three, which represent 80% of the problems, the other problems solve themselves. In other words, the other problems are the result of the top three and by taking care of the top three the balance takes care of itself. And even if they don’t you can still live with them if the top three or 80% of the problems no longer plague your organisation.

So what are the top ten problems facing Malaysia and what are the top three? Let us try to look at them in order of importance and in the priority that it impacts society.

1. Violation of the Constitution.
2. Erosion of the independence of the four branches of government.
3. Arrogance of those in power.
4. Denial of the fundamental rights of the citizens.
5. Corruption.
6. Mismanagement of the nation’s coffer.
7. Unequal representation of the people.
8. Lack of understanding of the nation’s history.
9. Distorting of information.
10. Poor education system.

That would be my list in order of priority. Of course, this may not be the list of others and, even if it is, the order of priority could be disputed. And certainly our problems are not confined to just these ten. Nevertheless, my believe is that by attacking the top three problems we need not even look at the balance seven because the balance can solve themselves if we tackle the top three.

For example, items 4 and 7 can be addressed by solving item 1 while items 5 and 6 can take care of themselves if we solve item 3, etc. So, by my reckoning, solve items 1, 2 and 3 and most problems will go away.

The Constitution that we have is already quite complete. But this Constitution has been amended so many times and these amendments have distorted what our Founding Fathers and the British Colonial Masters who gave us our Constitution had originally intended.

Many laws that we have today actually violate the Constitution and were formulated using provisions in the Constitution that allow for ‘illegal’ laws. For instance, Malaysia declared an emergency 46 years ago and, under the emergency provision, laws can be passed which actually take away your rights that were originally guaranteed in the Constitution. But the circumstances (war with Indonesia) that allowed for laws which take away your rights have long since disappeared but the emergency was never lifted and therefore the ‘illegal’ emergency laws, though ‘illegal’ going by the Constitution, remain ‘legal’ as long as Malaysia is still in a state of emergency.

Lift the emergency, repeal the emergency laws, allow the Constitution to revert to how it was intended, and laws such as the ISA and many more would no longer exist. And the same would apply for laws such as the Police Act, Societies Act, Sedition Act, PPPA, UUCA, OSA, and many more, which would no longer be needed as well since Malaysia is no longer in a state of ‘declared’ war with Indonesia.

Most countries have three branches of government -- the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary -- which are all supposed to work parallel to one another and independent of each other. Malaysia, however, is unique. Malaysia has a fourth branch, the Monarchy. If the Executive, Legislature, Judiciary and Monarchy were all independent of each other then we would have a fantastic system of checks and balances.

As it is now, power rests in the hands of the Executive and the Executive tells the other branches of government what it should do.

Imagine a company run by the Managing Director who does the accounts and audits the books plus he is also the Registrar of Companies who is supposed to safeguard the interest of the investors. A well-run company has to have an accountant who manages the books and an auditor who checks the books and a Registrar of Companies who make sure that the MD, accountant and auditor all do what they are supposed to do and according to the law. This means four different parties are involved in safeguarding the company’s money.

In Malaysia’s case the man who runs the organisation also balances the books, check the books, and decides if the books have been cooked -- all four functions in one. How can we expect Malaysia to have any transparency when one man decides all and no one can question or look into what he does?

And this brings us to the third ailment, the arrogance of those in power. The Executive and his band of merry men feel that they are unshakeable and that no one can remove them, so they blatantly do what they want with total disregard for the citizens’ rights and needs. They violate our trust and mandate every step of the way and retaliate with a vengeance if we have the audacity to question them. This is why items 4 to 10 prevail, because they feel they can do what they like and they think there is nothing we can do about it.

Malaysians need to put these people in their place. We need to cut them down to size. We need to show them that the people made them and the people can therefore unmake them. We gave them that power and we can also remove them from power if need be.

Those who walk in the corridors of power are playing the very dangerous divide and rule game. They divide us by race and they divide us by religion. This is similar to a very dangerous time bomb that, if not properly controlled, can explode with drastic repercussions. And this divide and rule game has escalated of late and has become a matter of concern to many Malaysians who realise that not all fires can be controlled, as much as those who walk in the corridors of power erroneously think it can.

So they play the divide and rule game to keep us apart, as they know a united Malaysian bodes trouble for those who wish to cling to power. Then let us too play this same game. Let us too divide and rule them. United, they are too formidable a foe, as would we be too if we are united. So, as they divide us racially and religiously, let us too divide them politically.

We must support Pakatan Rakyat to keep Barisan Nasional in check. When Pakatan Rakyat forms the federal government then we shall support Barisan Nasional to keep Pakatan Rakyat in check. When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was under attack we supported him (at least Malaysia Today did from 2006) to keep Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in check. Now that Mahathir is, again, strong and his ‘kuda’ is about to become Prime Minister we must support Abdullah Badawi to be able to keep Najib in check.

Yes, it’s a dirty game of checks and balances and divide and rule that Malaysia Today plays. So be it. Dirty or otherwise that is the game they too are playing -- and a more dangerous one of race and religion on top of that -- so let us play that same game. If we can’t beat them, we will join them. And all is fair in love and war and is this not just that, war?

So don’t become perplexed when Malaysia Today changes side and realigns itself from time to time. We do what is expedient and what the situation demands at that point of time. We need to see a two-party system emerge in Malaysia. And we will support the weak to match the strong in our effort to achieve this. We work with the underdog whoever that may be. And we are not apologetic about it. This is not about lack of principles. Our principle is: absolute power corrupts absolutely. So no man or political party must be allowed absolute power.

We use our enemies to fight our enemies. Enemies of our enemies become our friends. We keep our friends close and our enemies even closer. That is the order of the day.

And that will be how we address the top three problems that plague this nation of ours. The US works with the Al Qaeda to fight Russia and with Iraq to fight Iran. In this game of denying someone absolute power there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies. Enemies become friends and friends become enemies in the interest of balance of power. Sentiments have no place in this game of power.

DEAR PETE...

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dear Pete,

I plan to get a dog but I live in a neighbourhood where some of my neighbours are Muslims. I was told that dogs are taboo to Muslims and I do not want to upset my neighbours. I also read somewhere that the majlis perbandaran has a team of dogcatchers that goes around mercilessly killing dogs. How can I ensure that I do not upset my Muslim neighbours and will not run foul of the authority?

Mike

*****************************************
Dear Mike,

Muslims do not like doggies licking them as doggie saliva is considered najis or unclean. They have no problems getting licked by pussies though. In fact, they quite enjoy it. Just make sure that your doggie does not lick any Muslim and you should face no problems. The best would be to keep your doggie within your compound and not allow it to stray outside. Anyway, doggies that stray all over the place face the risk of getting knocked down by a car or it might catch an infectious disease. So that is all the more reason to keep them within your compound. And avoid Mongolian breeds as the police SWAT team has been told to be on the lookout for Mongolian bitches, though for what reason I really don’t know.

Pete

******************************************
Dear Pete,

I am engaged in a land dispute and was advised, in the absence of a valid land title, to file a Statutory Declaration to support my claim that I am the owner of the land. Will such a Statutory Declaration stand up in court?

Clarence Tan

********************************************
Dear Clarence Tan,

Statutory Declarations are no longer regarded as having any credibility, like in the past, so the court may not give any weight to it. Anyway, you might run the risk of getting charged in court as, nowadays, those who sign Statutory Declarations are arrested and charged for criminal defamation. Nevertheless, if you sign a new Statutory Declaration within 24 hours to recant what you said in your first Statutory Declaration then you will be exempted from prosecution. Instead of signing a Statutory Declaration, my advice would be to engage a well-connected lawyer with strong links to the Attorney-General and Chief Justice and try to ‘negotiate’ your case ‘under the table’ before it goes to court. Most cases in Malaysia are won on this basis. I could probably give you the name of an Indian-Muslim lawyer whom you can get in touch with if you contact me privately.

Pete

**********************************************
Dear Pete,

I am a Muslim and my ustaz advices me that Muslims should not participate in candlelight vigils, as, according to Islam, this is considered haram. Is this true?

Maimunah Harun

***********************************************
Dear Maimunah Harun,

Yes, that is true. So make sure that the organisers first apply for a police permit. Any assembly of more than four people at a candlelight vigil is haram and you can get arrested for participating in a perhimpunan haram if you do not have a police permit. The police would normally approve your permit application as long as you do not light any candles at the candlelight vigil.

Pete

************************************************
Dear Pete,

Yesterday, the Anti-Corruption Agency arrested my cousin and alleged that he had attempted to bribe a Road Transport Department officer. They found the money hidden in his underwear and said that they had been monitoring his movements for some time on suspicion of handing out dirty money. What should I advice him to do? Should he just plead guilty and hope for a lesser sentence or should he fight the case out in court?

Wong

*************************************************

Dear Wong,

It would be very hard for the prosecution to prove that your cousin had attempted to hand out dirty money unless they can first prove that his underwear was not clean. I would advice him to fight the case out in court. Just make sure that he removes his underwear and lodges it in a safe place or else something ‘dirty’ might be planted on it like they sometimes do in cases such as sodomy.

Pete

***************************************************
Dear Pete,

I run my own business and am engaged in state government contracts. At the end of every year, just before Christmas, I hand out ‘red packets’ to the government officers who sign my contracts. Should I stop handing out ‘red packets’ in the Pakatan Rakyat-run states or is it safe to continue doing so?

Kok Leong

****************************************************
Dear Kok Leong,

I think it would be dangerous to continue handing out ‘red packets’ to the government officers in the Pakatan Rakyat-run states. I would suggest you hand out ‘green packets’ instead, which is more Islamic, and which the PAS members of Pakatan Rakyat would be more comfortable with.

Pete

ENTOT-ENTOT

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia does not state that the Umno President must become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. What it does say is that the Agong must appoint a Member of the House (one of the 222 Members of Parliament) who commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House as the Prime Minister.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal signed the following Statutory Declaration on Tuesday, 1 July 2008. On Wednesday, 2 July 2008, I spent about six hours with him from 6.00pm to midnight where he not only repeated what he said in his Statutory Declaration but much more, which he said would be fully revealed in part 2 and part 3 of his Statutory Declarations that would follow over the next few days. There were six people with us at that meeting, that included three lawyers.

On Thursday, 3 July 2008, Balasubramaniam held a press conference at the Parti Keadilan Rakyat headquarters in Merchant Square, Tropicana. After that press conference we had lunch with about 20 people or so, which included members of the media, and an elated Subramanian told us to wait for SD2 and SD3, which are going to be more explosive than his first Statutory Declaration.

Of course, SD2 and SD3 never happened because on Friday, 4 July 2008, Balasubramaniam signed another Statutory Declaration recanting what he said in his Statutory Declaration of 1 July.

My lawyers tell me that what Balasubramaniam told us on 2 July 2008 is hearsay and therefore not admissible as evidence in a court of law. This means I am not at liberty to reveal what Balasubramaniam told us. It’s a shame really because the story would make a great Bollywood movie script.

On Monday, 24 November 2008, my ‘criminal defamation’ trial will kick off at the Jalan Duta court. This is with regards to my own Statutory Declaration that I signed in April 2008. I have lined up about a dozen or so witnesses who will confirm, amongst others, what I said in my Statutory Declaration, plus of course much more not revealed in that Statutory Declaration of mine.

I am actually looking forward to this trial because this will give my dozen witnesses and me an opportunity to reveal what we cannot say under normal circumstances. Let us see, after this trial commences, whether Malaysians would still want Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to resign in March 2009. My suspicion is most Malaysians would regard Pak Lah as the ‘lesser of the two evils’ and will beg him to stay on till the end of his term on midnight of 7 March 2013.

By the way, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia does not state that the Umno President must become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. What it does say is that the Agong must appoint a Member of the House (one of the 222 Members of Parliament) who commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House as the Prime Minister. And Pak Lah already has 82 Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament with him plus 20 from Umno. All he needs is ten more and MCA, MIC and Gerakan have 20 combined. So, even without the Sabah and Sarawak Parliamentarians, Pak Lah can still remain as Prime Minister of Malaysia.

That is the reality of the situation and this is what the law says. So let us not celebrate the new regime of Najib Tun Razak just yet as it may not happen after all. One week is a long time in politics, let alone four months. So many things can happen. And there are many things that are going to happen over these next four months even if they win their appeal against my release from Internal Security Act detention and succeed in sending me back to Kamunting.

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at [deleted] do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-

25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that [deleted by nat out of respect to the family of the deceased].

25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.

25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-

28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.

28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.

28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

28.6 That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.

33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.

34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.

43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.

45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-

54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.

54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.

54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.

SUBCRIBED and solemnly )

declared by the abovenamed )

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]

this 1st day of July 2008 )

Before me,

………………………………….

Commissioner for Oath

Kuala Lumpur

Analisis Politik Tukar Tiub

HANTU RAYA HIDUP LAGI

Apabila saya dibebaskan dari Kamunting tahun 2003 saya telah mengeluarkan slogan Tangkap! Tangkap Madey ! Ramai yang tersalah faham kenapa saya mengeluarkan slogan ini. Slogan ini bukan kerana dendam. Saya tidak mendendami sesiapa pun. Slogan ini adalah hasil dari analisa politik.

Di hari Madey meninggalkan pejabat PM , pada malamnya saya telah mengadakan pesta yang saya panggil Malam Menghalau Hantu Raya. Di malam itu ramai kawan-kawan datang untuk berpesta termasuk berbelas-belas anggota polis dan Tuan OCPD dari Brickfeild.

Saya pangil Madey Hantu Raya kerana dari mitoloji Melayu ada kepercayaan dimana seseorang yang telah berjanji dengan Setan tidak akan mati-mati. Rasa saya metapora Hantu Raya untuk Madey cukup tepat. Justeru slogan Tangkap! Tangkap Madey! itu semakin terbukti tepat. Dan pesta Megahalau Hantu Raya itu juga memang tepat.

Ramai tersalah baca tentang Hantu Raya. Ramai salah analisa dan tidak memahami perjalanan politik. Salah baca ini muncul kerana: PERTAMA - penganalisaan dan pembacaan politik mereka tidak memiliki asas ekonomi dan kelas. KEDUA – penganalisaan politik ini dicampur adukan dengan harapan dan mimpi si penganalisa itu sendiri.

Politik ialah perebutan kuasa. Kuasa muncul dari ekonomi. Ekonomi ialah harta dan wang ringgit. Politik ialah perjuangan satu kumpulan atau satu kelas yang ingin mendapatkan kuasa agar dapat memiliki punca harta kekayaan. Hukum politik dan kuasa ini tidak akan berubah-ubah sama ada di Saudi Arabia yang Islam, di India yang Hindu, di Nepal yang Buddhist, di Itali yang Katholik atau di Peranchis yang sekular.

Harus diakui bahawa Hantu Raya ini telah meninggalkan kerusi PM kerana telah dihalau oleh ombak Reformasi. Hantu Raya tidak akan pergi tanpa di halau. Keputusan pilihanraya tahun 1999 membuktikan jika Hantu Raya ini tidak pergi maka ombak Reformasi akan melingkupkan United Malays National Organisation.

Ketika Hantu Raya mengundur dan hilang kuasa kita dapat melihat bagaimana polong-polong dan para kroni seperti Halim Saad, Daim Zainuddin, Lim Goh Tong, Ananda Krishan, Eric Chia, Vincent Tan – mula menguncup. Eric Chia di bawa ke mahkamah untuk kes Pewaja, Vincent Tan di bawa ke mahkamah kerana terlibat dalam kes korek korek korek. Malah Hantu Raya sendiri telah di heret ke mahkamah dalam kes pita video Lingam. Ini cukup mengerunkan Hantu Raya.

Polong dan kroni-kroni Hantu Raya telah mula hilang pengaruh dan hilang kunci untuk dapat merompak dana negara dan merompak harta rakyat tanpa di halang-halang. Waspada, kaum pemodal yang menjadi polong ini tidak akan pergi tanpa melawan kembali. Justeru, mereka bersama Hantu Raya telah menyusun strateji untuk kembali berkuasa.

Saya telah banyak menulis dan cuba menerangkan kenapa Hantu Raya ini wajib dilihat sebagai musuh orang ramai. Banyak tulisan-tulisan yang membuktikan bahawa selama 22 tahun Hantu Raya berkuasa banyak porak peranda telah menimpa orang ramai.

Dasar penswastaan atau mengagih-agihkan harta rakyat seperti syarikat MAS, syarikat air, leterik, jalan raya, keretapi, hospital - kepada kroni dan para polong adalah salah satu dari dasar Hantu Raya yang kita semua rakyat merasa parah akibatnya.

Memaksa kanak-kanak sekolah belajar sains dan ilmu kira-kira dalam Bahasa Inggeris adalah satu lagi bukti. Dasar ini dilaksanakan tanpa perbincangan dan pengkajian. Dasar ini telah dan sedang memporak perandakan sistem pembelajaran kebangsaan. Hasilnya bahasa pengucapan kebangsaan semakin parah dan cerca merba.

Hantu Raya juga telah mengusut masaikan dan merobek lembaga kehakiman negara. Kes pembuangan hakim pada tahun 1988 masih dirasakan musibatnya. Lembaga kehakiman negara menjadi porak peranda sehinggakan ada susuk peguam, susuk megistrate dan susuk hakim boleh dijual beli.

Untuk berkuasa kembali Hantu Raya telah merancang dengan licik. Hantu Raya telah membuat kelentong hinggakan Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah merasa yakin bahawa dialah yang layak untuk memimpin United Malays National Organisation. Lihat pula bagaimana Rais Yatim naik ekor dan hampir terpancut apabila badannya diurut-urut oleh Hantu Raya. Tiba-tiba Rais Yatim merasa dialah susuk yang berwibawa untuk menjadi timbalan presiden gerombolan United Malays National Organisation.

Susuk-susuk ini diurut-urut oleh Hantu Raya agar mereka bangun bertandak untuk melekeh dan mengkritik Abdullah Badawi. Tidak cukup dengan ini, Hantu Raya telah menggunakan taktik – polis baik dan polis jahat – untuk memberi tekanan kepada Abdullah Badawi agar mengundur.

Polis baik ialah Najib Razak. Polis jahat ialah Muhyiddin Yassin. Taktik klasik ini selalu digunakan oleh polis semasa melakukan siasatan. Satu orang akan memberi tekanan secara kasar ganas dan yang satu lagi akan memberi tekanan secara halus. Akhirnya Abdullah Badawi terlucut seluar.

Dari tahun 2003 lagi saya telah menulis dan berkeyakinan bahawa pilihan ‘agung’ Hantu Raya ialah Najib Razak. Malah kita jangan lupa hampir tiga bulan sesudah menjadi PM, Abdullah Badawi tidak memilih sesiapa pun sebagai timbalan sehingga Hantu Raya membuat pengistiharan. Abdullah Badawi terpaksa mengiyakan pilihan Hantu Raya. Maka Najib Razak menjadi timbalannya.

Sila lihat patern siapa yang dilantik dan di yakini dalam kabinet Hantu Raya. Semuanya yang dijadikan pemimpin kanan adalah susuk-susuk yang memiliki masaalah. Rahim dengan budak Kecik, Megat dengan Penjual Kedai Video, Nazri dengan taxi-taxinya, Rafidah dengan APnya. Lagi banyak si menteri bermasalah lagi setia menteri ini dengan Hantu Raya. Lagi banyak berasuah lagi senang polong-polong ini mengikut kata Hantu Raya.

Apakah Najib ada masaalah? Saya tidak perlu menjawab soalan bodoh ini. Kalau saekor tikus yang bertanya mungkin saya akan cuba menerangkan kepada tikus ini tetapi kalau warga negara yang celik otak bertanya maka saya meminta orang yang bertanya ini pindah ke Zimbabwe.

Hantu Raya memiliki stateji berjangka panjang. Semuanya telah, sedang dan akan diatur dengan licik. Tujuan akhir ialah untuk menobatkan anak Hantu Raya. Ini untuk meneruskan dinasti dan memastikan harta kekayaan negara ini akan terus selamat ditangan kaum keluarganya. Juga untuk memastikan Hantu Raya sendiri tidak akan di bawa ke mahkamah untuk menghadapi seribu satu pertuduhan.

Siapa sebenarnya yang di wakili oleh Hantu Raya ini? Jawabnya bukan Mak Cik dari Felda Taib Andak, bukan tuan punya warong di Pantai Dalam, bukan ahli United Malays National Organisation Bukit Jelutung.

Hantu Raya mewakili borjuis nasional, cukung-cukung besar – Daim Zainuddin, Lim Genting, Vincent Tan, Ananda, Tin Phek Bakun – ini hanyalah beberapa nama cukung borjuis nasional yang di ketahui umum. Mereka ini semuanya menjadi polong kaya raya menghisap darah kekayaan negara kerana setia kepada Hantu Raya.

Justeru pertempuran antara Hantu Raya dengan Abdullah Badawi wajib dibaca sebagai pertempuran kepentingan ekonomi dari dua kelas yang berbeza. Syarikat Scomi , ECM Libra, atau Syarikat Ethos Capital adalah pendatang baru yang belum bertahap borjuis nasional. Syarikat-syarikat ini kaya tetapi belum cukup kaya raya yang melimpah ruah.

Kumpulan kelas baru ini cuba mengambil punca-punca ekonomi melalui payung kuasa Abdullah Badawi. Inilah sebab musabab kenapa Hantu Raya siang dan malam menggudam Khairy Jamaluddin, menggudam Tingkat Empat dan menggudam Kalimullah Hassan. Peggudaman yang dilakukan oleh Hantu Raya tidak ada sangkut paut dengan Islam, dengan Melayu, United Malays National Organisation, nilai patriot, dasar luar negara dan dan dan…Pergaduhan politik ini ialah perebutan ekonomi.

Pada akhir tahun 2008 ini kuda-kuda tunggangan Hantu Raya telah tersedia untuk di tunggang. Kuda sudah sedia. Celana sudah dipasang. Malaysia akan kembali ke zaman gelap Mahathir Muhamad. Bagaimana dengan Najib Razak? Najib Razak ini siapa?

Change, We Can.

Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama-as prepared for delivery
Election Night
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008
Chicago, Illinois

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.
It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.
It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.
To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.
I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.
It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.
I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor’s bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.
Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Catalyst for Change Come Christmas 2008

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin (LIVE FROM I.S.A.)

There are two types of changes: evolution and revolution. Evolution is the slow change. It normally takes years or generations. Revolutions are immediate, sometimes overnight or abrupt.

They say Malaysia can never see a revolution. This, they say, is because Malaysians are not revolutionary or violent. Well, yes and no. Malaysians may not be violent, at least the majority of Malaysians, but they can be revolutionary when they want to.

Revolutions should not be equated with killings and blood on the streets. You can have a paradigm shift, which is a revolution if done overnight, or a change of mentality, which would be a mental revolution.

Malaysia saw its revolution on 8th March, 2008. It is a revolution and nothing short of that. You can’t really call it anything else.

Revolutions are good, if it can be un-bloody. Bloody revolutions normally never end because there will always be the tendency for revenge. But when there is no other avenue and if a bloody revolution is needed then a bloody revolution it would have to be like in Indonesia and the Philippines who fought against the Dutch and Spanish respectively.

Malaysian at first were quite prepared to allow for an evolutionary change. In fact, they waited 50 years. Then, on the 51st year, they decided that the situation is getting from bad to worse and they can’t expect any improvements so they decided to go for a revolutionary change. And that is why Barisan Nasional did so badly on 8th March 2008.

This triggered other events. The Barisan Nasional component members realized that they too need to change or else suffer death and we began to see dissent in the ranks of MCA, Gerakan, and so on. Umno too is going through change, at least a change of leadership.

But Umno needs more than just a change of leadership. It also needs a change of attitude. It can no longer threaten “another May 13” or ask the “immigrants” to “go back to their own country” whenever they raise “sensitive issues”. Umno must realize that the Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Dayaks, Kadazan, Portuguese, Thai, etc. have as much rights as the Malays. They too have a stake in Malaysia. Did not Tun Dr. Mahathir say that 90% of the income tax is paid by the Chinese?

The fear is that Umno’s leadership change is just that and nothing more; Umno is not going to change its attitude or policies. And why should it? After all, it is not 26 million Malaysians or 11 million voters who decide the Umno presidency. It is 191 division leaders. 191 Malay Umno leaders decide who becomes the President of Umno and ultimately the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

So 26 million Malaysians do not matter. 11 million voters do not matter either. Only 191 division leaders matter. And what matters to these 191 division leaders is what counts.

And what do these 191 Umno division leaders want? They want Umno to continue to uphold Malay rights and special privileges and to defend the New Economic Policy “with the last drop of their blood”. And this is what the Umno President cum Malaysian Prime Minister will have to do if he wants to keep his job. If not then he will be pressured into resigning like what happened to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The Prime Minister normally forgets that he is a prime minister of all Malaysians. Most times he thinks that he is the prime minister of just the Umno members – not even the prime minister of all Malays. And this is not going to change when Najib takes over from Pak Lah.

It is not that Najib does not know. It is just that he has no choice. It is not 26 million Malaysians or 11 million voters who gave him his job. It is the 191 division leaders. The 191 division leaders who nominated him and gave Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah only a single nomination. So he has to cater to their needs and not the needs of non-Umno Malays or the 11 million voters or 26 million Malaysians.

And this is why we need a prime minister from Pakatan Rakyat. We need a Malaysian prime minister, not an Umno division prime minister. And until Pakatan Rakyat takes over and as long as the prime minister is a man nominated by 191 Umno division that would be how long the prime minister will be an Umno prime minister and not a Malaysian prime minister.

But is this going to happen? Will we see a Pakatan Rakyat prime minister? And when will that be?

Yes, I think it will happen. And it may not be too long away, probably even before Christmas. The 8th March 2008 revolution has not ended. It is still continuing. It continued into the Permatang Pauh by-election. It will continue into the Kulim by-election if they dare declare that seat vacant – which was why they dropped the case. And the revolution will only end once the Umno prime minister has been kicked out of office.

The incoming Umno leadership is a Mathathir leadership. Mahathir announced at Hotel Singgahsana in Petaling Jaya that the new prime minister will be guided by a Presidential Council. Who will head this newly set up Presidential Council? Can the people accept the fact that Mahathir will be back in power and will be ruling by proxy? This will be the issue debated these next couple of weeks and which will have a bearing on a Pakatan Rakyat prime minister taking over.

I know many are no longer holding their breath. Most Malaysians have given up hope for Pakatan Rakyat taking over the federal government. Well, it may be too early to give up hope. If by Christmas it has not happened then maybe it’s time to get worried. Until then keep hoping and plan for this year’s Christmas to be the best Christmas in 51 years since Merdeka.

A thought-provoking speech by Dato' Mohd Zaid Ibrahim, author of 'In Good Faith' which I proudly bought

Full speech: M'sia - a lost democracy?

Oct 31, 08 4:08pm

Let me start by inviting you back into history. Imagine that it is the morning of the Aug 31, 1957. At midnight, an independent nation calling itself the Federation of Malaya is to be unveiled. Conceived as a cutting edge model of multiracial and multi-religious coexistence and cooperation, it is poised to stand out as an example of what can be achieved through diplomacy and a respect for the spirit of democracy.

MCPXIt is of great historical significance that the transition from colony to independent nation, so often achieved only at the great price that turmoil and unrest exacts, has been achieved peacefully. Though this is a process that may have been made more difficult without the skill and fortitude with which negotiations to that end have been carried out, they do not define it.

That honour goes to the aspirations of all those who call Malaya home. The quest for self-determination has not been one that recognised race. It has been, simply put, a Malayan one.

I would like to think that as midnight approached, one of the elements that gave confidence to the Alliance leaders and, in fact, all Malayans was the knowledge that a constitutional arrangement that accorded full respect and dignity for each and every Malayan, entrenched the rule of law and established a democratic framework for government had been put in place.

The federal constitution was a masterful document. Inspired by history and shaped lovingly to local circumstance, it was handcrafted by a team of brilliant jurists who appreciated that they could not discharge their burden without first having understood the hearts of minds of those who would call this nation their home and whose children would call it their motherland.

Hundreds of hours of meetings with representatives of all quarters resulted in a unique written constitution that cemented a compact between nine sultanates and former crown territories.

This compact honoured their Highnesses the Malay Rulers, Islam and the special status of the Malays even as it seamlessly allowed for constitutional government and created an environment for the harmonious and equal coexistence of all communities through the guarantee of freedoms and the establishment of the institutions that would allow for the protection and promotion of these guarantees. If at all there was a social contract, it was the guarantee of equality and the promise of the rule of law.

I would say that as at Aug 31, 1957, the Federation of Malaya was set to become a shining example of a working democracy. Though special provisions had been included in the constitution to allow for protective affirmative action measures where the Malays were
concerned, and later the natives of Sabah and Sarawak when these states merged into the renamed Federation of Malaysia, and for declarations of Emergency and the enacting of exceptional laws against subversion, these provisions were not anti-democratic nor were they undermining of the rule of law.

Conversely, if used as contemplated by the founders of the constitution, they were aimed at protecting democracy from grave uncertainties that could undermine the very foundations of the nation.

If I sound nostalgic, it is because in some ways it could very sadly be said that democracy and the rule of law, as they were understood at the time this nation achieved its independence, at a time when I was much younger, have been consigned to the past. Events that followed in history undermined and stifled their growth. To understand how this came about and the state of things as they are, one however must have an understanding of the politics of the country. I seek your indulgence as I attempt a brief summary of key historical events.

A turn for the worst

After the euphoria of 1957, race-relations took a turn for the worst in 1969. The race riots of that year have marked us since. As a response, adjustments were made and measures introduced to keep what was now perceived to be a fragile balance in place. The Rukun Negara was pushed through as a basis of national unity and the New Economic Policy (NEP) was unveiled by which the government was mandated to address the disparity in wealth between the Malays and the other communities, in particular the Chinese, that had been identified as the root cause of the resentment that had exploded into violence.

These measures, in my view, were on the whole positive. They were agreed to by all the political parties making up the government, in part due to an understanding that the NEP was a temporary measure aimed at assisting the Malays that would not disadvantage the other communities. The late Tun Dr Ismail talked about giving the Malays an opportunity to survive in the modern competitive world. It was readily appreciated that unless society as a whole addressed and rectified certain historical imbalances and inequities, the country would flounder. In my view, these measures were easily reconciled with democracy and the rule of law.

The 1980s presented a different scenario altogether. We saw a unilateral restructuring of the so-called social contract by a certain segment of the BN leadership that allowed for developments that have resulted in our current state of affairs. The non-Malay BN component parties were perceived by Umno to be weak and in no position to exert influence.

Bandied about by Umno ideologues, the social contract took on a different, more racialist tone. The essence of its reconstructed meaning was this: that Malaya is primarily the home of the Malays, and that the non-Malays should acknowledge that primacy by showing deference to the Malays and Malay issues. Also, Malay interest and consent must be allowed to set the terms for the definition and exercise of non-Malay citizenship and political rights. This marked the advent of Ketuanan Melayu or, in English, Malay Supremacy.

Affirmative action and special status became a matter of privilege by reference to race rather than of need and questioning of this new status quo was not to be tolerated. As Ketuanan Melayu evolved and entrenched itself, Islam became political capital due to the close links between Malays and the religion. The constitution itself defines a ‘Malay’, for purposes of affirmative action, as someone who amongst other things professes the religion of Islam.

This over the years led to a politically driven articulation of Malaysia as an Islamic state. Again, no questions were tolerated. Majoritarianism had become the governing paradigm of governance as the character and nature of rights were defined by Malay interests and defined by them.

This new political philosophy in which the primacy of Malay interests was for all purposes and intents the raison d’etre of government naturally led to interference with key institutions. I say naturally as it was, and still is, impossible to reconcile the principles of equality and civil rights of the people of this country with the primacy of one group over all others.

Needless to say, a new social order in which some are made to defer to the primacy of others is not going to be easily accepted. As such, in order to enforce compliance and to encourage acceptance harsh measures would have to be taken to quash protest or disagreement. Policy doctrine or diktat not supported by consensus will almost certainly be a subject of contention.

It is for this reason that in the 1980s already harsh anti-democratic laws that allowed for the suppression of legitimate dissent such as the Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Police Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Sedition Act were tightened further.

Where possible, reliance on them was made immune from judicial scrutiny a feat achieved only through a constitutional amendment that suborned the judiciary to parliament. It got to a stage where when more than five friends got together, one wondered whether it was wiser to obtain a police permit. Such was the state of the law, such was the state of democracy.

Pandering to the Umno right

Mukhriz Mahathir will probably be the new Umno Youth leader. In saying as he did recently that there is no need for law and judicial reforms as it will not benefit the Malays, he typifies what is perceived as the kind of Umno leader who appeals to the right-wing of Malay polity. That he may be right is sad as it leads to the ossification of values that will only work against the interests of the party and the nation.

This type of thinking may pave the way to a suggestion in the future that we may as well do away with general elections altogether as they may not be good for the Malays for if the justice that a revitalised rule of law would allow for is not to the benefit of the Malays, what is? More inefficiency, more corruption and a more authoritarian style of government perhaps. We are a deeply divided nation, adrift for our having abandoned democratic traditions and the rule of law in favour of a political ideology that serves no one save those who rule.

How else can we describe the state of affairs in Malaysia? In a country where the rule of law is respected and permitted to flourish, just laws are applied even-handedly and fairly. I can point to
numerous instances where that has not been our experience. Let me point a few out to you.

A gathering of one group constitutes an illegal assembly but not that of another. A speech or publication is seditious or constitutes a serious threat to the security of the nation such as to warrant detention without trial under the ISA if published by one person but not another. This cannot be right even if it were to be to the benefit of the majority, which is not the case.

My belief in constitutional democracy and the rule of law is founded on an acceptance of their functional qualities and the prospect of sustainable and inclusive development that they offer. It is of no concern to me whether Fukuyama was right when he declared that in view of the success of liberal democracies all over the world and the collapse of communism, mankind had achieved the pinnacle of success and history was dead.

There are less esoteric reasons but as, if not more, compelling ones. Indonesia's transition to democracy since the end of military rule in 1998 showcases these. The majority of Indonesians have embraced democracy, religious tolerance, and religious pluralism. In addition,
a vibrant civil society has initiated public discussions on the nature of democracy, the separation of religion and state, women’s rights, and human rights more generally.

These developments have contributed to a gradual improvement in conditions for human rights, including religious freedom, over the past few years. Since 2003, Indonesia has also overtaken Malaysia on the Reporters sans Frontieres Press Freedom Index, moving up from 110th place to 100th out of 169 countries covered. Malaysia on the other hand has dropped from 104th place to 124th place in the same period.

I am not surprised. In 1999, Indonesia passed a new press law
that, in repealing 2 previous Suharto administration laws, guaranteed free press through the introduction of crucial measures. This new law allows journalists to freely join associations, guarantees the right of journalists to protect their sources, eliminates prior censorship of print or broadcast news and makes the subverting of the independence of the press a criminal offence. It also establishes an independent body to mediate between the press, the public and government institutions, uphold a code of ethics and adjudicates disputes.

Progress has not stopped there. On April 3, this year, Indonesia passed its Freedom of Information Act. This latest law allows Indonesia’s bureaucracy to be open to public scrutiny and compels government bodies to disclose information. To enforce disclosures and to adjudicate disputes, a new body has been created under the new law, independent of government and the judiciary. While there remains some debate about the penal sanctions for misuse of the law, the passing of the act clearly is a step in the right direction.

The lessons of the African and the Caribbean states are there for all to see. Do we emulate Zimbabwe or do we take Botswana as our political and economic model? How is it that Haiti is far behind the Dominican Republic in economic terms when they both achieved their independence at about the same time, and have the same resources?

Singapore’s success is mainly attributed to its commitment to good governance and rule of law, even though political dissent is not tolerated. Democracy, a system of government based on fair and transparent rules and laws, and the respect people have for institutions of government – these make the difference. Economic prosperity drives democracy but stifle true democracy and the inevitable outcome is economic ruin. It is useful to remember that freedom is vital for economic development.

The critical feature of a constitutional democracy to me is the test of constitutionality itself. Does the government allow its own legitimacy to be questioned? Does it permit executive decisions to be challenged? Written constitutions normally provide the standard by which the legitimacy of government action is judged.

In the United States the practice of judicial review of congressional legislation ensures that the power of government to legislate is kept under check. Bipartisan debate and votes of conscience are not only encouraged but also expected of congressmen and representatives. More recently the basic law of Germany and Italy provided explicitly for judicial review of parliamentary legislation.

We have the opposite situation here. The jurisdiction of the high court can be, and has been, ousted when it comes to challenges of executive decisions even if such decisions impact on fundamental liberties and other rights under the constitution. For instance, where government compulsorily acquires land for a public purpose, the courts are prevented from questioning the bona fides of the acquisition.

Where a discretion is exercised by the minister of home affairs under the Internal Security Act, the court is barred from examining the exercise of the discretion except so far as to ensure that the procedural requirements have been followed. Such detention without trial would be considered repugnant in any system predicated on the rule of law.

Nation building is not a simple process. It is not achieved through tinkering with political ideologies or injudicious use of the coercive powers of state. These do not promote the lasting peace and stability that we crave for. We have failed miserably in dealing with complex issues of society by resorting to a political culture of promoting fear and division amongst the people.

A renewed national consensus needed

The Ketuanan Melayu model has failed. It has resulted in waste of crucial resources, energy and time and has distracted from the real issues confronting the country. Tan Sri Muhyiddin (Yassin), the DPM-in-waiting it would seem, suggested that there is a need for a closed-door forum for leaders of the BN to develop a common stand; a renewed national consensus grounded on the social contract.

This is positive step but it should include all political leaders and be premised on the social contract that was the foundation of independence. The results of March 8 (elections) clearly show that the BN no longer exclusively speaks for the rakyat. Promoting discourse and dialogue is essential, as we must learn to talk and to listen to one another again.

The recent pronouncement by the Malay rulers underscores the urgency with which we need to look at rebuilding the politics of consensus. Communication and trust amongst the people must be reestablished. The founders envisaged a government for all Malaysians. Even Tun Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) spoke about it. One of the elements of Vision 2020 as envisaged by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed was the creation of a united Bangsa Malaysia.

How can such a vision be achieved if the government is not willing to listen to the grievances of a substantial segment of Malaysians? Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad introduced the idea of Bangsa Malaysia in a speech entitled “The Way Forward”. This is one of nine central and strategic challenges of Vision 2020. Although he only mentioned Bangsa Malaysia once, its use had sparked enthusiastic debates.

The creation of Bangsa Malaysia is the challenge of establishing a
united Malaysian nation with a sense of a common and shared destiny. This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one Bangsa Malaysia with political loyalty to the nation.

Different meanings have been given to that term Bangsa Malaysia. Many believe that it was intended to bolster the non-Malays through the envisioning of a united country where their cultural and religious uniqueness would not be threatened; Tun Dr Mahathir in fact explicitly mentioned this.

On the other hand, some believe that Bangsa Malaysia was just a neat reference to a Malaysia united under Malay or, more appropriately, Umno hegemony. Whatever the case, I would like to believe that whilst the government of BN has done little other than pay lip-service to the concept, principally by issuing pandering slogans, since Dr Mahathir left, the country will nevertheless in the future move towards a more pluralistic society.

The integration of different ethnic groups would occur naturally through the expansion of economic life and through the unintended effects of globalization so much so that ethnicity will be depoliticised. We nonetheless need to actively promote efforts at an institutional level if we want this notion of Bangsa Malaysia to materialise. The political parties making up government may not want to do so for their own short-term interests but as a whole, the people will call for it.

This brings us again to the democracy and the rule of law. We will not succeed in promoting, a united country and allow for the evolution of Bangsa Malaysia if we do not subscribe to the rule of law. We need the openness, freedom and social justice that will be possible only with it in place. and democracy. How do we bring unity to the people if we are not prepared to respect their dignity?

To achieve the aspirations of the New Economic Policy, bumiputras need to be given thinking tools to participate in the global economy. At present their attention is kept focused, almost on a daily basis, on race related issues even though there are serious issues such as the economy and the lack of trust in the institutions of government to deal with.

The obsession with the Ketuanan Melayu dotrine has in fact destroyed something precious in us. It makes us lose our sense of balance and fairness. When a certain Chinese lady was appointed head of a state development cooperation, having served in that cooperation for 33 years, there were protests from Malay groups because she is Chinese.

A new economic vision is necessary, one that is more forward looking in outlook and guided by positive values that would serve to enhance cooperation amongst the races. This will encourage change for the better; to develop new forms of behaviour and shifts of attitudes; to believe that only economic growth will serve social equity; to aspire to a higher standard of living for all regardless of race.

We need to meaningfully acknowledge that wealth is based on insight, sophisticated human capital and attitude change. A new dynamics focused on cooperation and competition will spur innovation and creativity.

Some might say that this is a fantasy. I disagree. How do we go about transforming the culture and values of the bumiputras so that their ability to create new economic wealth can be sustained? By changing our political and legal landscapes with freedom and democracy.

Dr Mahathir was right to ask that Malays embrace modernity. He fell short of what we needed by focusing on the physical aspects of modernity. He was mistaken to think all that was needed to change the Malay mindset was science and technology. He should have also promoted the values of freedom, human rights and the respect of the law.

If affirmative action is truly benchmarked on the equitable sharing of wealth that is sustainable, then we must confront the truth and change our political paradigm; 40 years of discrimination and subsidy have not brought us closer. There is a huge economic dimension to the rule of law and democracy that this government must learn to appreciate.

Syariah or secular principles

Relations between Islam, the state, law and politics in Malaysia are complex. How do we manage legal pluralism in Malaysia? Can a cohesive united Bangsa Malaysia be built on a bifurcated foundation of syariah and secular principles? Will non-Muslims have a say on the operation of Islamic law when it affects the general character and experience of the nation? This is a difficult challenge and the solution has to be found.

Leading Muslim legal scholar Abdullah Ahmad an-Na’im is hopeful. He believes that the way forward is to make a distinction between state and politics. He believes that Islam can be the mediating instrument between state and politics through the principles and institutions of constitutionalism and the protection of equal human rights of all citizens.

Whatever the formula, we can only devise a system that rejects absolutism and tyranny and allows for freedom and plurality if we are able to first agree that discourse and dialogue is vital. Democracy and respect for the rights and dignity of all Malaysians is the prerequisite to this approach.

A compelling argument for a constitutional democracy in Malaysia is that only through such a system will we be able to preserve and protect the traditions and values of Islam and the position of the Malay rulers. For a peaceful transition to true democracy of this country, one of key issue that requires care is the position of Islam and its role in the political system of the country.

In fact I regard this to be of paramount consideration. Although the expression Islamic state is heard from time to time, and whilst it is true that Abim (Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement), PAS and lately Umno had the concept a key part of their agenda, the areas of emphasis differ and are subject to the contemporary political climate.

For reasons too lengthy to discuss now, I would say that the "synthesis of reformist Islam, democracy, social welfare justice and equity" would be sufficient to appease the majority of Muslims in so far as the role of Islam in public life is concerned. This state of affairs could be achieved peacefully and without tearing the constitution apart.

The progressive elements in PAS, inspired by Dr Burhanuddin Helmi in 1956, are still alive. PAS leaders of today who have carried that torch also make reference to a more accommodating vision of Islam that puts a premium on substantive justice and the welfare of the people as major policy initiatives.

Umno's approach (or more accurately Dr Mahathir's approach) to Islamic content in public policies was articulated in the early 1990s. This however achieved little in changing the political system. His "progressive Islam" was more nationalistic than PAS, and designed to usher new elements of modernity into Islam.

Science and technology were touted as the means to defend Islam and the faith. The approach taken was short on the ideas of human rights and social justice, and the rule of law and designed more to convince the rakyat of Islam's compatibility with elements of modernity like science and technology..

Anwar Ibrahim, the present opposition leader, articulated a brand of reformist Islam that was more individual centered and liberal. Drawing its humanist thought from the great Muslim scholar, Muhammad Iqbal, Islam Madani gave emphasis on human rights and freedoms. Islam Hadhari came on to the scene just before the 2004 general elections as another form of progressive Islam, possibly inspired by the thinking of another noted scholar, Ibn Khaldun. Unfortunately, nothing much came out of this effort.

Whichever model or line of thought that will find permanence in our political landscape, Islamic aspirations and ideals will certainly become an important component in the realm of public policy. To prevent conflicts and ensure that various beliefs are absorbed and accepted into the political system, it is imperative that no force or compulsion is used.

This is where the merit of a government adopting democracy and rule of law becomes apparent. The discussions and deliberations of even sensitive and delicate issues will make the participants aware of the value of ideas and the value of peaceful dialogues. Managing disputes through a determined, rules-based process will allow for a peaceful resolution of problems.

The tolerance shown by the protagonists in Indonesia over delicate religious issues bodes well for that country and serves as as a useful illustration of what could be. Approached this way, Islam in the context of Malaysian politics will be prevented from being as divisive and as threatening as race politics.

In this, the issue of conflicts of jurisdiction still requires resolution. Our civil courts are denuded of jurisdiction to deal with matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the sharia courts. No court has been given the jurisdiction and power to resolve issues that may arise in both the sharia courts and the civil courts. The present separation of jurisdictions presupposes that matters will fall nicely into one jurisdiction or the other.

However, human affairs are never that neat. What happens to the children of a marriage where one party converts to Islam and the other party seeks recourse in the civil Court? Or when the sharia court pronounces that a deceased person was a Muslim despite his family contesting the conversion? Or where the receiver of a company is restrained from dealing with a property by a sharia court order arising out of a family dispute? Where do the aggrieved parties go? I had suggested the establishment of the constitutional court, but that plea has fallen on deaf ears.

Marked increase in draconian measures

There is marked increase in the use of harsh draconian measures in dealing with political and social issues. Some people say that groups such as Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force) advocate violence and therefore justifies the use of such measures. They may have overlooked the fact that violence begets violence. Was not the detention of Hindraf leaders under the Internal Security Act itself an act of aggression, especially to people who consider themselves marginalised and without recourse?

It is time that the people running this country realise that we will not be able to resolve conflicts and differences peacefully if we ourselves do not value peaceful means in dealing with problems. The situation has been aggravated by the absence an even-handed approach in dealing with organisations like Hindraf.

While I applaud the prime minister for calling upon the Indian community to reject extremism, should not a similar call be made on the Malay community and Utusan Malaysia? I call on the prime minister, both the outgoing and the incoming, to deal with such issues fairly. Start by releasing the Hindraf leaders detained under the ISA. The release would create a window for constructive dialogue on underlying causes of resentment.

I also appeal for the release of (Malaysia Today webmaster) Raja Petra (Kamaruddin) from his ISA detention. He is a champion of free speech. His writings, no matter how offensive they may be to some, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as a threat to the national security of this country.

The Malays are now a clear majority in numbers. The fear of their being out numbered is baseless; they are not under seige. The institutions of government are such that the Malays are effectively represented, and the there is no way the interest of the Malays can be taken away other than through their own weakness and folly.

The BN government must abandon its reworked concept of the social contract and embrace a fresh perspective borne out of discussions and agreements made in good faith with all the communities in this country. It is time for us all to practice a more transparent and egalitarian form of democracy and to recognize and respect the rights and dignity of all the citizens of this country.

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves what it is that will allow us to protect all Malaysians, including the Malays? Good governance is about good leadership; and good leadership is all about integrity. We must have leaders of integrity in whom people can place their trust.

If there is no integrity in leadership, the form of government is immaterial – it will fail. Integrity in leadership is the starting point to creating a just and fair society. Integrity of leadership does not lie only with the prime minister or his cabinet. It needs to permeate through all the organs of government. A key organ of government, the one tasked to protect the rights of the common man against the excesses of government, is the court. The rule of law in a constitutional democracy demands that the judiciary be protective of the nation's subjects be they, I would say especially, the poor, the marginalised and the minorities.

The courts must act with courage to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of all citizens, even if to do so were to invoke the wrath of the government of the day. Even though not all judges will rise to be chief justice, in they own spheres they must show courage. For example, in PP vs Koh Wah Kuan (2007), a majority bench of the federal court chose to discard the doctrine of separation of powers as underlying the federal constitution apparently because the doctrine is not expressly provided for in the constitution.

This conclusion is mystifying as surely the court recognizes that power corrupts absolutely and can thus be abused. If the courts are not about to intervene against such excesses who is? Checks and balance are what the separation of powers is about. Surely the apex court is not saying that the courts do not play a vital role in that regard?

The reluctance of the court to intervene in matters involving the executive is worrying. In Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Nasharuddin Nasir, the federal court ruled that an ouster clause was constitutional and was effective in ousting the review jurisdiction of the Court if that was the clear intention of parliament. The apex court so readily embraced the supremacy of parliament even though the constitution declares itself supreme.

There is nothing in the federal constitution that explicitly sets out the ability of parliament to limit the court's review jurisdiction. The court could have just as easily held that as the constitution was the supreme law, in the absence of express provisions in the constitution the court’s review jurisdiction remained intact.

Is it not possible that in vesting the judicial authority of the federation in the high courts the framers of the constitution intended the review powers of the courts to be preserved from encroachment by the executive and legislature? In India, the supreme court has held on tenaciously to a doctrine of 'basic structure' that has allowed it to ensure the integrity of the democratic process and the rule of law. Any attempt to denude the courts of the power to review by amendment of the constitution has been struck down.

The rule of law has no meaning if judges, especially apex court judges, are not prepared to enter the fray in the struggle for the preservation of human rights and the fundamental liberties. Supreme court judges in other jurisdictions have done so time and time again. Though it is far less difficult to accommodate the will of the government, that must be resisted at all costs, particularly where justice so demands.

Only then can we say that Malaysia is grounded on the rule of law. To all our judges I say discard your political leanings and philosophy. Stick to justice in accordance with the law. As Lord Denning reminded us: Justice is inside all of us, not a product of intellect but of the spirit. Your oath is to the constitution; shield yourself behind it. Without your conviction, democracy is but a concept.

I would like to say more about law, democracy and about our beloved country. But time does not permit. In any event, I have to be careful. The more we say, the more vulnerable we become. But my parting message is this: The people of goodwill must continue to strive to bring about change, so that we can rebuild the trust of all Malaysians.

From that trust, we can rebuild the country where we do not live in fear, but in freedom; that the rights of all Malaysians are acknowledged, respected and protected by the system of law that is just and fair. There is no quest more honourable and a struggle more worthy of sacrifice.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the full speech delivered by former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim at the LawAsia 2008 conference in Kuala Lumpur this morning.