My CONTACT :
Tel : 06-2347011 & 06-2347012
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
"Let us walk the talk"
"I am no sleeping PM"
"I don't know"
"I decided that I am the Prime Minister for all states including Kelantan".
"We can still talk"
Famous phrases by our dear PM. I am still waiting for more beautiful words from him....
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
©The Sun (Used by permission)
PETALING JAYA: The prime minister has asked his officers to verify complaints that Malacca Chief Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam made disparaging remarks against other mentri besar during the People‘s Progressive Party‘s (PPP) Malacca annual general assembly last week.
Sources said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had asked the officers to investigate complaints made by PPP members that the Umno vice-president had, besides asking the PPP to leave the Barisan Nasional, also insulted other BN and Umno leaders.
Mohd Ali, who opened the PPP state convention on Oct 15, had, in his speech, told the PPP it could leave the coalition if it was not satisfied with the lack of seat allocation.
What did not make the news was his alleged use of disparaging remarks made about other leaders.
Following his speech, Mohd Ali told journalists covering the event that his remarks were meant for delegates and that they should not publish it.
”There is decorum to be practised among BN members. They don‘t go around talking bad about fellow members. So the PM is concerned about this,” said a source. “The PM has already asked his aides and officers to investigate.”
“We don‘t know how the PM is going to deal with it, but the findings will be discussed behind closed doors at the Umno Supreme Council meeting since the alleged remarks were directed at Umno members,” said another source, adding that the PM‘s aides are obtaining a recording of the day’s events to verify these accusations.
“If proven true, Ali Rustam will be asked to explain and may face censure,” the source added.
PPP president M. Kayveas declined to comment, merely saying he has informed Abdullah of Mohd Ali‘s remarks.
Monday, October 15, 2007
I caught this in my camera. So is the police exempted from rules and regulation? Parking bays are there for cars to be parked nicely. In the picture above it is NOT. I have also seen many police patrol car driver and passenger flouting the road transport rules without wearing the seat belt. AND THAT IS THE NORM. So my QUESTION IS ARE THEY ABOVE THE LAW?
I purposefully refuse to obliterate the plate number and hope the authorities will do something about it if they are within the laws of course....
It was also reported that the floor of the main hall is laid with top-quality marble and chandeliers hang from the ceiling. He really knows how to enjoy. Probably he may want to choose to sleep in the hall on top of the top-quality marble. I wonder how much he earns as a Selangor state assemblyman and a councillor (or rather was) with the Klang Municipal Council.
as we all know he is a former railway gate-keeper who became one of Selangor Umno's most powerful politicians.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
PRESS STATEMENT BY UNCLE KIT ON NAZRI'S STUPID STATEMENT
Has the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, let the cat out of the bag – that there would be no further inquiry into the Lingam Tape if its authenticity could not be fully determined with the maker of the tape showing and owning up?
New Straits Times front-page headline has put it most bluntly: “NO SOURCE, NO CASE – SAYS NAZRI”
If the whole idea is to stymie any full inquiry into the serious allegations of the Lingam Tape about the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court decisions, this is as good a stratagem as any.
Of course, even if the makers of the Lingam Tape show up, there is no guarantee that it would be followed up with a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years since 1988.
I am completely baffled by Nazri’s reference to the Witness Protection Act (Star, Sun) which he said assured protection to the person or persons who took the Lingam Tape. New Straits Times reported him as referring to the Witness Protection Bill, “tabled recently in Parliament” – which is untrue, as no such bill had been tabled in Parliament.
I had been pressing for a Whistleblowers Protection Act to give meaning to a national campaign to expose corruption, misuse of funds, government scandals, criminal breach of trust and all forms of malpractices and abuses of power but the government had been dragging its feet and there are no signs that the government is ready to present a Witness Protection Bill to Parliament.
It is the height of irresponsibility for Nazri to give assurance of protection under a law which does not exist, but it is an even greater height of irresponsibility to envision a scuttling of all investigations into the Lingam Tape, its allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years under a “No Source, No Case” scenario.
If the Prime Minister and Cabinet are serious about restoring national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary after the ravages of 19 years, an important element to enhance our international competitiveness, the Lingam Tape should be sufficient ground for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry unless there is evidence that it is complete fake.
Let the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullahh Ahmad Badawi confirm whether what Nazri disclosed represents his official position – that unless the maker or makers of Lingam Tape show up, further inquiries into the Lingam Tape will ground to a halt. This will indeed be a national shame and tragedy.
Anyway for a de facto Minister of Law referring to a non existing law is to my mind a really stupid remark made by a MINISTER. I guess he must be sleeping away in Parliament. I think it is so true that he should be referred to as minister of tables and chairs in court room rather than minister of law who is also overseeing the Chief Justice. I think that makes the Chief Justice looks stupid too since the Chief Justice have a really stupid minister who loves calling everybody stupid except himself.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Bar Council notes with concern, following from the press conference held by the panel investigating the video clip, the narrow scope of the panel’s terms of reference which appears to be restricted solely to determining the authenticity of the video clip. The Bar Council is also concerned that the panel, having acknowledged its lack of powers in compelling the production of evidence, does not intend to invite any person to come forward to assist the panel or to give a statement. It further has no power to direct investigations. Neither has it immunity.
It would appear, therefore, that the Panel is wholly dependent on the investigations carried out by other agencies. The Bar Council hopes to raise these issues with the panel shortly.
It has always been the stand of the Bar Council that this panel can only constitute a first step in the wider process of ascertaining the facts and inferences in relation to the video tape. A Royal Commission is required for this purpose for the very reasons the panel has put forward about its powers and immunity, among other things.
The action taken by the ACA, at this stage of the investigation, to find out about the whistleblower, is worrying and most discouraging. It shows the misplacement of focus, and creates an impression that the authorities are more interested in going after the whistleblower than in discovering the truth of the alleged wrongdoings.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
I am so happy to hear stories like this. It is not merely Ketuanan Melayu but a ketuanan rakyat Malaysia. It shows racial harmony not just tolerating one another but accepting one another, like in this case, Hui Yi, between a Malay and Chinese family. Compared to that to the racial crisis in Kampong Medan, or the pig farming in Paya Mengkuang or the sharp division we see now days in University among the various races.
I just hope, and I am still hoping with this incident, everybody will remember the true expression of RAKYAT MALAYSIA. The love for one another that goes beyond race and religion instead of calling each other names.
Friday, October 5, 2007
© The Sun (Used by permission)
by Llew-Ann Phang
KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 4, 2007): The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) has compelled Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)'s vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah and party adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s political coordinator Sim Tze Tzin to reveal the source of the eight-minute video clip, or face action under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.
Sivarasa and Sim were served with a notice to provide information under Section 22(1)(c) of the Act in the ACA office, here today. It was signed by ACA headquarters Special Action Branch enforcer Chua Lay Choo.
"We understand from the attachment to the notice that they want to know the identity and full details of the source," Sivarasa said.
Both Sim and Sivarasa have one week to comply or face two years jail, a fine of RM10,000 or both.
He said they had not responded yet but will discuss with their lawyers and the party leadership before deciding on their next move.
"They are using the law to reveal the source and ACA justifies it to their need to compile evidence to determine the authenticity of the clip," he said, adding that this will further reduce the public’s confidence in the government agency.
The recording was of a telephone conversation purportedly between a senior lawyer and a "Datuk" believed to be a senior judge.
PKR released the clip – originally 14 minutes long – in a Sept 19 press conference and Sivarasa lodged a report with the ACA the next day.
He said PKR gave the source a guarantee of protection from the start and added that he (Sivarasa) and Sim were willing to take the penalties in efforts to protect the source.
PKR, he said, was disappointed over the directions of the investigations and questioned ACA’s technical investigations to determine the authenticity of the clip.
Investigations in the technical sense can be done if the tape is handed over to its video experts or they could even call the people in the video but they are asking for the details of the source, he said.
Sivarasa said investigations had taken a wrong direction - similar to the nude ear-squat recording in 2005.
Investigations in that incident, he said, were centred on the person who captured the video and not the offence of misconduct where the woman was made to strip and carry out the act.
"I told Chua it is the same here. Instead of investigating the root of the problem – corruption (within the judiciary) – they are going after the source of the video," he said.
Sivarasa and Sim both said that without the formation of a Royal Commission, the source would not be revealed because of a lack of immunity.
Sivarasa and Sim were accompanied by lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
I am sad.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
I have few questions that need answers and I believe other wants to know too
(i) Will the holder of the video recording be protected the moment he tells all?
(ii) With due respect to the panel, in what power does the panel has in compelling witnesses to come and aid in their investigation?
Simple questions want simple answer. A Yes or a No is good enough.
© The Sun (Used by permission)
by Llew-Ann Phang and Terence Fernandez
KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 3, 2007): The panel investigating the authenticity of a video clip showing a senior lawyer purportedly discussing the appointment of top judges over the telephone today asked the person who recorded it to come forward "for the sake of Malaysia".
"Somebody out there (has) the original video. Does he have the responsibility (to come forward)? There may have been others who were there (during the incident). Have they got the responsibility?
"If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us," said panel member Datuk Mahadev Shankar.
Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) revealed the eight-minute-long video clip on Sept 19, withholding about six minutes at the end of the video to protect the identity of the person who took it. Several other people were also in the video, said to be taken in 2002 at the home of the senior lawyer, believed to be Datuk V.K. Lingam.
Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak had announced the setting-up of the independent three-man panel (headed by fomer Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor. The other member is National Service Council chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye) on Sept 25. It has 30 days from Sept 27 to complete its assignment and report to the government.
Mahadev, a former Court of Appeal judge, urged "anyone with knowledge on the authenticity of the video to come forward to provide evidence" through its secretariat – the Putrajaya-based Prime Minister’s Department Legal Division.
"Make sure that the evidence is reliable, relevant and we will have to decide on its admissibility."
He said witnesses should provide their names, IC number and how they can be contacted should the panel need more information. Evidence submitted would be weighed against the standards set by the Evidence Act 1950 and sources would be called if the panel was interested.
The panel met for the first time today in the Malaysian Human Rights Commission’s (Suhakam) Menara Tun Razak premises on Jalan Raja Laut. The meeting lasted four hours.
Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Gani Patail, Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) director-general Datuk Ahmad Said Hamdan and his deputy Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed each spent between 10 and 30 minutes with the panel.
Haidar, whose appointment has been questioned by certain groups because of the role he played during the judicial crisis of 1988 when then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas was sacked, said the panel discussed its next steps and procedures. The meeting with the four top lawmen was to see how the agencies could extend their cooperation.
"We hope to meet them in two weeks or when they are ready to give us more (information)," Haidar said.
Mahadev said the panel had no legal powers or legal immunity as it was not a Commission of Inquiry but its only authority were the terms of reference - compile a report and send it to the appointing body.
"The only immunity we have is our conscience, our good faith and the honesty of our purpose," he said.
On protection for voluntary witnesses, Mahadev said: "The truth is the best protection. People who have got that knowledge will have to be bold enough to come (forward) if not for anything, for the sake of Malaysia."
Mahadev also made an observation of "harmful information" on Haidar and Lee circulating on the internet. "We have no vested interest here. All we want to do is finish our job as quickly as possible and go home," he said.
To questions on PKR's claims of conflicts of interest - Haidar on his role in the 1988 judicial crisis and Lee on his public and private positions, namely the NS Council chairperson which had its own scandals involving the death of its trainees, and his position as a Media Prima Sdn Bhd director – Haidar said he could not stop people from questioning the panel members’ ability.
"Our conscience is clear. Anybody can make allegations," he said, adding that he "did not want to enter into arguments" when asked on his role in the Salleh's sacking.
Earlier, 20 PKR members and concerned citizens gathered at the Suhakam office to present a memorandum on their lack of confidence in the panel and its limited terms of reference, and to call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. However, they could not do so as Haidar did not want to interrupt the meeting to meet the group.
It is learnt Lingam, who the ACA had been trying to contact to help in its investigation, is expected to be called up by the panel.
Sources said Lingam returned from abroad several days ago. Investigators contacted him in London and he told the Malaysian authorities that he will cooperate.
Officials from the A-G's Chambers and the ACA have declined to comment.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
I think Mr Minister has misunderstood not once but many times in his expression from the letter. Either he misunderstood or that he just cannot understand simple English. Remember, the Bar march not to see the sacking of the CJ, but merely to ask for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to set up due to the recent scandal and a wash up in the judiciary so that the public will have greater confidence in it.
As such his explanation is nothing more than just denial after denial by people in high places.
Nazri explains statement on 'lawyer's protest'
© The Star (Letters Section) (Used by permission)
WHAT I like about your paper is because it has been very fair to me. Once again, I seek your forbearance to allow me to explain my statement about "Lawyer's protest" which was quoted and commented upon by Wong Chun Wai in his recent article.
Fundamental to the concept of an independent judiciary is the non-interference of either the executive or the legislative in the judiciary.
I believe this was the reason the lawyers in Pakistan protested, because there was interference by the executive in the judiciary when President Gen Pervez Musharraf sacked the CJ of Pakistan.
However, in Malaysia, it is the other way around. Lawyers took to the streets to ask the executive to interfere in the judiciary. They were asking the Prime Minister to take action against the CJ.
Hence the term "unbecoming" used by me in describing the action of the lawyers.
As to the immediate dismissal of their proposal, it is only because I have dealt with this matter earlier with the members of the Bar, including attending a forum organised by them on the same issue and on both occasions I have said the stand of the government is No.
Also, as an insider, I do know the Government is comfortable with the present arrangement in appointing judges as accorded by the Constitution, coupled by the Prime Minister's stance of keeping at arm's length decisions made by judges.
The Deputy Prime Minister has also said there is no necessity at the moment to form a Royal Commission to appoint and promote judges.
I have always been direct, and see no point in giving hope when there is none.
I have been informed there are 13,000 registered members of the Bar, and 1,000 protesting lawyers is hardly a majority and compared with the 10,000,000 voters, it is a drop in the ocean.
I believe the opposition will make an election issue out of this. Let us wait for the people to decide in the coming general election.
I do not know whether I am right or wrong but if I do err, I am very sure it is on the right side.
Monday, October 1, 2007
|Monday, 01 October 2007, 07:45pm|
© Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
“I think that for the moment, it isn’t necessary for there to be a royal commission to look into the judiciary in total,” he added when met after a protest march to the Burmese embassy in Kuala Lumpur.