There’s something about Anwar alright (updated 30/04/08)

We shall start off with this pantun;

“Angkut angkut terbang ke langit,
sampai di langit dimakan merbah,
biar bertangkup bumi dan langit,
setia hamba tidak berubah.” 

Those were the words of an Umno Deputy President during an Umno General Assembly in the not too distant past. During the good old days some would have reckoned. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim verbalized his undivided loyalty towards his mentor, Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad by reciting this pantun at the end of the Umno General Assembly in 1996. The affection being shown at that time by the PM towards his successor was for all to see. Only the most clairvoyant among us can predict what could have been unfold in the next two years after the pantun was recited and immortalized in the annals of Umno history. 

“The prodigal son and the father figure”

This fiery pantun, which embodied an absolute and undying loyalty of a man towards his President no matter what may come, had been truly forgotten by Anwar Ibrahim as he became the fiercest critic to the very same person he held in very high regard several years ago.

In 1996, Anwar was seen as Umno’s heir apparent to Dr Mahathir. Now, in 2008, Anwar is still perceived as heir apparent and prime minister in waiting to the current PM albeit from another political party. Who is Anwar Ibrahim? How did he came about to be what he is today? A political reformer? The people’s saviour? An opportunist? A power hungry extremist?

In order to know a person, we need to know his character, his current idealogy, his belief system, his principles or as some may say it, his ‘centre of being’. We study this, and then we reflect on all his actions through the years we’ve known him during the height of his power, and only then we can gauge what kind of a man he is. As what Abraham Lincoln once said - “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”. 

Read the above pantun again. Has the earth and the sky flipped over each other?

From his May 2007 interview in BBC’s Hardtalk, we delve into the man which some touted as the next best thing in Malaysia.

The Anwar Ibrahim interview in BBC HardTalk            

The issue which was relentlessly hammered on to Anwar towards the end of the interview was his integrity and credibility in leading the fight against the blatant corruption within the Malaysian Government. As the interviewer pointed out, he was in the system itself for nearly 2 decades and did not do anything about it. Although Anwar insisted he fought against the tide, it were only in the forms of words. No actions were done by him. In fact, his tenure as the Finance Minister from 1991 to 1998 was best remembered by his subtle manouevring in forcing Dr Mahathir to resign as Prime Minister in the Umno General Assembly in 1998.

His message was conveyed in the form of his trusted lieutenant, Datuk Zahid Hamidi, the Umno Youth Chief at the time. Alleging that cronyism and nepotism were prevalent within the Umno top hierarchy, and insinuating to the Umno members that Dr Mahathir had too many cronies, it was time Dr Mahathir to pass on the mantle of power to a cleaner leader. However, the plan backfired. We can read to remember about this revelation in Business Times ( 23 June 1998 );

DATUK Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the Umno Youth chief, caused more than a bit of a stir when he spoke of `nepotisma and kronisma’ at the Youth assembly last Thursday, forcing the ensuing three-day Umno general assembly to debate issues associated with these alien terms openly.

The party found itself on the defensive because, as a member of the Umno supreme council, there were questions as to whether Zahid had raised the issues at its meetings chaired by the party president. It led to several significant things happening during the assembly.

It prompted the Government to issue several lists of names of so-called “Government cronies” who had been awarded shares or privatization projects. They included the Prime Minister’s son, the Deputy Prime Minister’s father and brother, Cabinet ministers and members of parliament, aside from hundreds of other names of “ordinary” Malays and Bumiputeras. Even Zahid’s name was in one of the lists.
 

The finality of the findings destroyed Anwar’s reputation as the leading reformer of clean governance as more evidence of his excesses were exposed that year. One such excesses was the purported loss of billions of ringgit in currency hedging by Bank Negara Malaysia. In January 2008, Dr Mahathir had already toying with the idea of capital controls but was shot down by Anwar. He favours the more risky currency trading. As the result, when the ringgit devalued further that month, he directed BNM to intervene;

KUALA LUMPUR 5 Jan. - Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) dibenarkan untuk campur tangan dalam pasaran tukaran wang asing bagi memastikan nilai ringgit dapat distabilkan.

Anwar yang mengulas mengenai kejatuhan ringgit hari ini yang mencapai paras terendahnya 4.0550/50 berbanding dolar Amerika, menegaskan BNM boleh campur tangan sekiranya keadaan itu sangat diperlukan.

Dalam hubungan ini Anwar menegaskan, kejatuhan ringgit sebenarnya disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor serantau seperti nilai baht, peso, rupiah dan won (Korea Selatan).
     

Please note that he stated the ringgit value fell due to external factors. Not due to Dr Mahathir’s fault as he had always screamed after he was sacked from the cabinet. Two days after making the statement above, the BNM used billions of ringgit to stop the further slide as stated in the report below;

KUALA LUMPUR 7 Jan. - Ringgit menjunam ke paras paling rendah terbaru pada 4.8800 berbanding dolar Amerika sehingga terpaksa dipulihkan hari ini melalui campur tangan Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM).

Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, dalam satu kenyataan petang ini berkata, ”operasi-operasi campur tangan” telah dijalankan untuk memastikan keadaan stabil bagi membolehkan pasaran tukaran asing berjalan dengan cekap.

In the end, BNM lost billions as the ringgit sank further. Some speculated the loss reached up to RM30 billion ringgit, similar to the loss he was accountable in 1993. Obviously, Dr Mahathir was furious. Anwar’s mistake was intolerable. But his next action in the coming weeks was even more unforgivable by Dr Mahathir. Anwar had invited the IMF to ‘help’ Malaysia’s ailing economy and the recent loss of wealth.

KUALA LUMPUR 9 Jan. - Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah mengundang Pengarah Urusan Dana Kewangan Antarabangsa (IMF), Michel Camdessus melawat negara ini minggu depan bagi membincangkan masalah ekonomi yang sedang melanda rantau ini.

”Dari situ kita dapat melihat pandangannya serta langkah-langkah proaktif yang sesuai untuk kita ambil,” kata beliau pada sidang akhbar selepas mempengerusikan Mesyuarat Majlis Kewangan Negara 1998 di Kementerian Kewangan hari ini. 

As the result of IMF’s prescription, the economy and people’s purchasing power broke down. The IMF encouraged the Minister of Finance to lift the prices of controlled food items and increase the banking interest rates. Dr Mahathir was wary with the IMF’s prescription. The people in our neighbouring countries Indonesia and Thailand were already rioting due to the expensive cost of living.

KUALA LUMPUR 19 Jan. - Malaysia akan mengkaji cadangan Dana Kewangan Antarabangsa (IMF) supaya kadar faedah tempatan dinaikkan, kata Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad hari ini.

Cadangan itu dikemukakan oleh Pengarah Urusan IMF, Michel Camdessus selepas menemui Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim serta pegawai-pegawai Perbendaharaan dan Bank Negara di sini minggu lepas.
  

But Anwar was adamant. He needed the people to riot on the streets. President Soehatro was already shaky. A new leader was needed to take over this country. He was going to blackmail Malaysia to become the next prime minister through the use of the destructive IMF treatment. In the end, the interest rates were increased. Some was as high as 18%. The non performing loan criteria was shortened from 6 months to 3 months. As the result, the credit crunch in the country was inevitable. By May 1998, President Soeharto resigned. But Indonesia sank further in oblivion for many years after that.

“The leader whom had unified Indonesia as the biggest Muslim country in the world, was brought down by new type of colonialism”

Seeing Anwar was unable to lift Malaysia from the currency crisis, Dr Mahathir appointed the more able Tun Daim Zainuddin as the Minister of Special Functions to help alleviate the Malaysian economy. Anwar was sidelined due to his culpability in managing the country finances. To illustrate this point into perspective, a CFO of a company must surely be sacked if he runs the company to the ground with his reckless methods. That was what happened to Anwar Ibrahim. But Dr Mahathir was still magnanimous in his actions. He was willing to forgive and forget if Anwar would simply lay low for a little while. But matters were not easily understood by Anwar. 

Compounded further was the allegations in a DAP convention by Karpal Singh and poison pen letters in the Umno General Assembly that Anwar Ibrahim was a homosexual. Karpal had even asked Dr Mahathir why is he keeping such minister in the cabinet. Dr Mahathir brushed aside these allegations initially.   

As a desperate act, Anwar employed a machiavellian tactic by using Zahid Hamidi as a tool to incite hatred towards Dr Mahathir in the Umno General Assembly in June 1998. The rest as they say, is history.

In the recent interview with BBC HardTalk, Dr Mahathir mentioned that Anwar was blackmailing VK Lingam via the secret recordings made in 2001. The allegations of fixing the appointment of top judges in the country is not relevant to me. What is more telling was the act of blackmailing VK Lingam itself. The one that was taking the recording was non other than Loh Gwo Burne.

This political greenhorn, who is still learning to speak proper Bahasa Malaysia, became the MP of Kelana Jaya under the PKR ticket in 2008 general election. Although Gwo Burne stated that he recorded the conversation out of boredom, it was a full 14 minutes recording nevertheless. He could test his new found camera at the time to record everything else, but he chose to record VK Lingam’s conversation non stop for the whole 14 minutes. Furthermore, what astonished me was the fact that Anwar kept the original copy all this while. How did he get the copy? From Gwo Burne himself no doubt. 

Now, Gwo Burne is offering his seat for Anwar to contest in the possible by-election. That whole event was suspiciously conspired by Anwar. If blackmailing is Anwar’s modus operandi in obtaining power and gaining political mileage, we will see another round of surrendering our sovereignty to foreign powers.

“Picture says a thousand words”

When he was inside the government, this was what he had to say;

BUKIT MERTAJAM 1 Feb. - Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menolak tanggapan sesetengah pemerhati Barat bahawa kemelut ekonomi dan krisis mata wang di negara-negara Asia disebabkan oleh pengurusan yang lembap, rasuah dan pelbagai gejala negatif lain.

Timbalan Perdana Menteri berkata, mereka memberi gambaran seolah-olah ekonomi terjejas kerana pengurusan yang lembap, gejala rasuah dan pertimbangan semata-mata untuk suku sakat serta kepentingan sahabat handai dan keluarga.

Anwar yang juga Menteri Kewangan berkata, kepincangan dan ketidakadilan juga berlaku di Barat dan salah satunya ialah ketidakadilan sistem perdagangan dunia.

”Sistem perdagangan dunia memberi kepentingan kepada negara-negara kaya dan negara-negara industri dan pada masa yang sama menggunakan institusi antarabangsa mempertahankan kepentingan mereka,” katanya lagi yang menganggap dakwaan yang dibuat amat kritikal.

But he changed his tune when he was booted out from the government. The man whom everyone in the Pakatan Rakyat idolizes as the only clean and liberally democratic politician, has always been the main protagonist of anti cronyism and nepotisme slogans after his sacking. But people forget that underneath the seemingly clean image lies several issues contradicting  and plaguing his reputation. As per the news in Berita Harian ( 8 December 1998 );

Bapa Anwar miliki saham 20 syarikat
KUALA LUMPUR, Isnin - Ketika Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan pengikutnya menuduh Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, mengamalkan kronisme, nepotisme dan kolusi, bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu membisu terhadap kepentingan perniagaan keluarga dan rakan rapatnya. Senarai Pendaftar Syarikat menunjukkan anggota keluarga Anwar dan rakan rapatnya adalah peneraju korporat yang penting.

And another speech he made in 1995 which greatly mirrored the situation in Pakatan Rakyat now;  

Anwar seru rakyat tolak Pas
HULU TERENGGANU, Selasa - Rakyat diminta menolak Pas kerana bersandiwara kononnya memperjuangkan kepentingan umat dan syiar Islam sedangkan pada masa sama membantu DAP melenyapkan kepentingan serta masa depan orang Melayu di Pulau Pinang, kata Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Timbalan Perdana Menteri menegaskan, sebagai contoh beliau mempunyai bukti bahawa calon DAP yang bertanding menentangnya bagi kerusi Parlimen Permatang Pauh, Abdul Raman Manap, adalah Timbalan Yang Dipertua Pas Bukit Mertajam.

Credibility and integrity throughout a political career is paramount in becoming a great and respected leader. Inconsistency in political principles tantamounts to losing both credibility and integrity. Anwar Ibrahim has not properly addressed this. Changing his stand without proper explanation and not supplementing any evidence towards any doubts about his own inconsistent character will prove to be a bane in gaining confidence from the rest of the nation. 

As Stephen Covey once said - “In the last analysis, what we are communicates far more eloquently than anything we say or do”.

A political reformer? The people’s saviour? An opportunist? A power hungry extremist?

You be the judge.   

 

BN now stands for Bloody Nasty

I thought when you have lost huge number of seats and popular votes in the recent general election, you should be more humble and smart in approaching the people to regain back the support. But for Barisan Nasional, it’s a resounding NO!

I really don’t get these people. I cringe everytime I read their stupid statements in the papers. It’s obvious that they are shooting their own foot with all these nasty moves. Just pure vendetta.  

Here are some of the things that I find very nasty for them to do to the people of Malaysia;

1. Azalina Othman cancelling all tourism MOUs with the Pakatan Rakyat states.

2. Barisan Nasional reprimanding Lee Kah Choon over his appointment in Penang Development Corporation and investPenang as a director. This led to his resignation from the Gerakan Party.

3. Balkis’ money (RM9.9 million) was siphoned out from their accounts and the society was dissolved.

4. The Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development funds are re-routed via MARA in the Pakatan Rakyat states just because it do not want the people to be ‘victimised’.

5. When the going gets tough, the tough eats less rice!

‘Eat Less Rice’ can be equated with the other equally moronic and simplistic solution by the government some time ago - ‘Ubah Gaya Hidup’. Now I am certain that BN gonna lose the next general election. For who in their right mind will vote for Bloody Nasty people? 

The Crisis of 1987 - 1988 : Is there a third side of a coin?

Pursuant to the blog article “The two sides of a coin : The Crisis of 1987 - 1988“, I think Pak Lah’s administration had made a grave mistake. It seems like in the haste of trying to be popular, Pak Lah and his advisers had caved in to the demands of a few minority.

A letter  to Malaysiakini by a senior lawyer, P. Suppiah of the Malaysian Bar, sheds light to the judiciary crisis:

The personalities involved in the entire episode are as follows:

* The then Yang Di Pertuan Agong (the King), now the Sultan of Johor

* Tun Salleh Abas, who was then the Lord President

* The prime minister (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Datuk Seri Dr),

* The then attorney-general, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, now Suhakam chief.

The whole episode started with Salleh writing a letter to the King dated March 26, 1988, copies of which were sent to the Malay rulers. On May 27, 1988 the prime minister in the presence of high-ranking government officials informed Salleh that the King wished him to step down (to retire as Lord President) because of the said letter.

Salleh on May 28, 1988 sent a letter of resignation: the next day he withdrew it and subsequently held a press conference. On June 9, 1988 the prime minister made a second representation to the King alleging further misconduct on the part of Salleh based on his undignified use of the press to vent his grievances – such as requesting for a public hearing of the tribunal and asking for persons of high judicial standing to sit on the tribunal.

On June 11, 1988, members of the tribunal were appointed pursuant to the Federal Constitution by the King. On June 14, 1988, Salleh was served with the list of charges against him. On June 17, 1988, Salleh was served with a set of rules to govern the tribunal procedure. On June 21, 1988, on the application of Salleh, a Queen’s Counsel was admitted for the purpose of defending him without any objection from the attorney-general.

Salleh was informed of the tribunal’s hearing on June 29, 1988 and was told he could be represented by his Queen’s Counsel. On June 29, 1988, counsel for Salleh appeared and informed the tribunal that Salleh would not participate in the proceedings. Salleh was making a series of press statements including an interview with the BBC showing unhappiness over the tribunal’s legality.

The tribunal held its proceedings in camera. Salleh was accorded the right to be defended by counsel. His counsel decided not to cross-examine any of the witnesses. The tribunal was made up of the following six persons:

* Acting Lord President, Abdul Hamid Omar (tribunal chairman), who was appointed a High Court judge in September 1968. In 1980, he was appointed a Federal Court judge. On Feb 3, 1984, he was made the Chief Justice of Malaya taking over from Salleh.

* TS Sinnathuray, a Singapore Supreme Court judge (tribunal member).

* Abdul Aziz Mohamed Zain, a former Federal Court judge (tribunal member).

* Mohamed Zahir Ismail, former High Court judge from 1975 to 1982 before assuming his post as a Dewan Rakyat speaker (tribunal member).

* Sri Lankan Chief Justice, KAP Ranasinghe (tribunal member).

* Chief Justice of Borneo, Lee Hun Hoe (tribunal member).

The allegations against Salleh were made known to him in writing (in respect of which the tribunal held its inquiry), and briefly they are:

First allegation: On the occasion of the conferment of the honarary degree of doctor of letters on him by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 in his speech he made several statements criticising the government which displayed prejudice and bias against the government: and these statements were incompatible with his position as the Lord President of the Supreme Court.

Second allegation: At the launching of the book Malaysia Law and Law, Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trend on Jan 12, 1988 in his speech he made several statements discrediting the government and thereby sought to undermine public confidence in the government’s administration of this country in accordance with the law.

In the same speech he made special reference to the interpretative role of judges and advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system not only in the interpretation of the civil law of Malaysia but in its general application.

In particular he advocated thus: “This system consists mostly of the Quran and Hadith (tradition of Prophet Mohammad S.A.W.). The interpretation of these two sources of law is done according to the established and accepted methodology. Volumes of literature have been written as commentaries and exegesis of the Quaranic law the Prophet Mohammad’s Hadith or tradition. In this situation, not only is the judiciary bound by Islamic law as propounded by jurisconsult (muftis, who give legal rulings on particular matters), but as Parliament and the executive too are certainly bound by these rulings.”

His attempt to restate the law generally along Islamic legal principles ignores the character of Malaysian society as one which is multi-religious and multi-racial with deep cultural differences. No responsible government can allow the postulation of such views by the head of the judiciary without causing fear and consternation among its non-Muslim population. Furthermore, his statement violates established principles of judicial interpretation widely accepted in the courts in Malaysia and in the Commonwealth.

Third allegation: He adjourned sine die the case of Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi Pasir Mas, Kelantan and Another (Civil Appeal No 220 of 1986) which involved the issue of a minor’s choice of religion. It was adjourned six times in the Supreme Court – Aug 18, 1986, Aug 25, 1986, Dec 1, 1986, July 30, 1987, July 31, 1987 and Aug 3, 1987. It related to the conversion from Buddhism to the Islamic faith.

Fourth allegation: In his said letter dated March 26, 1988 to the King and the Malay rulers, he stated that it was written on behalf of the judges of this country. This is false as there was no prior consultation with nor approval of all the judges of the country on the content of the letter before he sent it.

Fifth allegation: He, after his suspension as Lord President, made various statements to the media for publication and broadcasting which contained untruths and which were calculated to politicise the issue between the government and himself and to further discredit the government.

The tribunal commenced its hearing on June 29, 1988. Salleh was absent. But his counsel, namely Raja Aziz Addruse, CV Das and Royan were present. The attorney-general presented his arguments to assist the tribunal and set out the facts. In his submission, the AG stated that there was more than ample evidence and justification to recommend Salleh’s removal from office.

In all four witnesses were called and much written material connected with the allegations was made available to the tribunal for its members to rely on. The four witnesses were Sallehudin Mohamed, Sharon Abdul Majid (director-general of Fisheries), Saedon Daud (deputy director of Budget) and Haidar Mohd Noor (chief registrar) who gave evidence with regard to the adjournments of the conversion case mentioned in the third allegation.

The tribunal completed its report on July 7, 1988. In it, it stated that the tribunal was appointed by the King under Article 125(3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution to investigate and submit a report to the King in regard to the representation made by the prime minister that Salleh be removed from office on the grounds of his misbehaviour which show that he is no longer able to discharge his duties and function as Lord President properly and justly.

The tribunal in its report set out the background facts and its findings and recommendations. The tribunal under proof and findings inter alia stated that it endeavoured to follow the well-known principle and applied and followed in such matters and also in regard to the burden of proof and the standard of proof by similar tribunals in other jurisdictions. It dealt with each of the allegations and stated briefly in respect thereof as follows:

Allegations 1 and 2: The tribunal was satisfied on a consideration of the documents containing the speech that had been made by Salleh on the occasion he was conferred the honourary degree of doctor of letters by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 and also the speech made by him on Jan 12, 1988 on the occasion of the official launching ceremony of the book Malaysian Law and Law Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trends at the Shangri La Hotel Kuala Lumpur that the particulars set out in the said allegations have been established.

Allegation 2 (iv) and 3: In regard to allegation 3 the tribunal was satisfied in the absence of any explanation by Salleh that the adjournment was made upon improper and extraneous consideration when the case related to the conversion of a minor from the religion she professed (Buddhism) to the Islamic faith.

Allegation 2 (iv): The tribunal held:

i) that it was manifestly clear in the absence of an explanation from Salleh who made the speech that he was seeking to advocate in the guise of interpretation, the acceptance of the principles of Islamic law as propounded by the ‘muftis’ and to assert that such rulings bound not only the judiciary but also both the Parliament and the executive of the country

ii) that it must be borne in mind that Islam is the religion of the Federation, the Constitution of Malaysia by Articles 3 and 11 assures and guarantees to all persons complete freedom of religion by vesting in every person “the right to profess and practise his religion” in accordance with the law.

iii) that it must also be borne in mind that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. That being so, the assertion of principles as spelt out in the said speech by Salleh is likely to cause not only uneasiness but also fear and doubt in the minds of those who profess a religion other than Islam and do not subscribe to the tenets and principles advocated by Salleh in his speech.

iv) that it must also be borne in mind that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency. Therefore, it was ill-advised for Salleh as head of the judiciary to make an authoritative statement that “Islamic laws bind not only the judiciary but Parliament and the executive also”.

Allegation 4: The tribunal held that for Salleh to say that the letter to the King (copied to all the Malay rulers) was from “all of us” was an untruth and in the absence of any explanation the tribunal held that Salleh had done so in order to ensure that the said letter could carry greater authority and greater conviction than it would have had it been made only by a section of the judges.

Allegation 5: The tribunal was satisfied that in the absence of any explanation from Salleh that he used the media with the view to politicising the issue of his suspension and to gain public sympathy for himself.

The tribunal touched on the meaning of “misbehaviour”: to mean unlawful conduct or immoral conduct such as bribery, corruption, acts done with improper motives relating to the office of a judge and which would affect the due administration of justice or which would shake the confidence of the public in a judge.

The tribunal concluded: “Having regard to the views we have already formed upon the material before us, we are of the opinion, in the absence of an explanation being made by or on behalf of Salleh that he has been guilty of not only “misbehaviour”, but also of misconduct which falls within the ambit of “other cause”, which renders him unfit to discharge properly the functions of his office, as Lord President, as set out in Article 125(3) of the Constitution.”

Under recommendation, the tribunal said: “Salleh has been proved to have behaved himself in such a way as would destroy the public confidence in his impartiality, his honesty his integrity and in his ability to make decisions as a judge and unanimously recommended that he be removed from office, both as a judge and as the Lord President of the Supreme Court, which recommendation was accepted by the King.”

It further stated: “We very much regret that the respondent chose not to appear before us, even though every reasonable opportunity was afforded to him by us. We have, as has been made clear in this report, come to the findings which we have arrived at only upon the unchallenged and uncontradicted material placed before us. Needless to say that had we had the benefit of a plausible explanation from the respondent in regard to the several issues which were presented to us for our consideration, our decision may well have been different.”

Much later in a reply letter dated March 20, 1989 to the International Commission of Jurist, Hamid stated that though Salleh was the Lord President his judicial experience on the Superior Court bench was comparatively short having been appointed (when he was a solicitor-general) direct to the Federal Court (the predecessor of the present Supreme Court) as recently as 1979. Salleh was never a Judge of the High Court and had no experience whatever of trial court work at that level. On the other hand, he (Hamid) was appointed High Court judge in 1968 (11 years earlier).

What prompted me to write this letter is because the topic of Salleh Abas has cropped up in the papers recently with the de facto law minister holding the view that the government should apologise to Salleh for his being sacked as Lord President.

The present prime minister has also advocated in his speech at the Bar dinner last week (nearly 20 years later) that the government would make “goodwill ex-gratia payment to Tun Salleh”. I wonder whether it will be proper to use government’s money for such purpose.

It must be remembered that to this day no one knows what the defence would have been if Salleh had appeared before the tribunal and be subjected to cross-examination. Salleh did not do this as he said he ‘did not recognise’ the tribunal in his interviews. Even if one does not recognise a tribunal, one should appear before it and make the necessary submission and if the submission fails, one should still give evidence (under protest so to speak) setting out the defence.

His version, even if disbelieved by the tribunal, will always be there on the record for everyone to see. In fact the tribunal had stated categorically that if it had the benefit of a plausible explanation from Salleh in regard to the several issues which were presented to it for its consideration its decision may well have been different.

By his refusing to appear and give his version (especially in regard to his advocating the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in the interpretation of the laws as propounded by the ‘muftis’) he in fact had shot himself in the foot. It is no use crying foul when he did not exercise his right to be heard. What would he have done in a similar or other cases presided by him?

To my mind, it is still open to Salleh, for instance among other avenues, to ask for an appointment of another tribunal to review his case (whether there will be any objection to this from any quarters, I do not know) subject however to his agreeing to give evidence as to his defence. The record of the proceedings are still there. Even if this happened he will be running into difficulties because the four witnesses who gave evidence at the tribunal were never cross-examined by his counsel.

One thing for sure, by electing Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, the person who was found guilty of money politics and subsequently suspended from contesting in the Umno elections, as the de-facto Law Minister, really demeaning the words ‘credibility and integrity’. But you are what you are by the circle of friends you promote. Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, Tan Sri Muhammad Mohd Taib, Patrick Lim Soo Kit, Kalimullah Masheerul Hassan etc.    

I would also like to point out that Tun Salleh Abas became a PAS member and contested but lost in the 1995 General Elections under the Semangat 46 ticket. However, in the 1999 General Elections he won the state seat of Jertih in Terengganu under PAS’ banner. I would like the Bar Council explain to us why do they support a man who advocates the setting up of an Islamic country and propagate Syariah Laws as the highest law in the land while all this time the Bar Council champions Malaysia as a secular nation. It would be interesting to know what they can spin from this letter.

It is best to know that in 1988, it was the Malaysian Bar Council who had strongly agree with the suspension of Tun Salleh Abas. And Zaid Ibrahim, as the President of Muslim Lawyers Association at that time, condemned some of the disapproval voices within the Bar Council in questioning the legality of the Tribunal. But he still have the cheek to speak innocently during his speech at the lavish gala dinner celebrating the conferment of Datukship for the Bar President the 5 former top judges:

I am saying that it’s clear to everyone, to the world, that serious transgressions had been committed by the previous administration. And I believe that the prime minister is big enough and man enough to say that we had done wrong to these people and we are sorry.  

And of course, that dinner was hailed to be the turning point in redeeming the judiciary. But it was plainly an act of gaining support from a few minority. It tickles me that Pak Lah was trying to gain support from the leaders of the Pakatan Rakyat. This is a clear case of missing the point. What he should have done was to gain support from the majority public. I do not see those opposition leaders attended had cross over to the Barisan Nasional because of this effort. It was a waste of time and more importantly, money. 

He should tackle the issues of inflation, the rising cost of living of prices, blatant corruption among his family members and the deteriorating crime index first. Those are the main issues. If huge amount of money were spent to lessen the grievances of the minority group, then we the majority would really like to know how much was the ex-gratia payments made to those 5 top judges.

Finally, I pray that our PM had not played himself into the hands of some contemptible politicians.     

Rais Yatim ponders while Lee Kah Choon surrenders

Today, Rais Yatim mustered up courage just to echo what this blog had pointed out a couple of weeks ago;

Rais: Set up commission to probe reasons for drastic drop in support for Umno

PUTRAJAYA: There is a dire need for Umno, which suffered huge losses in the general election last month, to set up a commission to probe reasons behind the drastic drop in support for the party, touted to be the backbone of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN).

Umno supreme council member and Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, in making the call, said the party should also “change” the way it operated.

“If you can create a commission for judges and now you want to create the anti-corruption commission, why can’t you create a commission for Umno,” he said, adding that Umno should go forward now.

I don’t think Pak Lah will be happy with the result of the commission anyway. The remedy of the situation could be a bitter pill to swallow.

Up north in Penang, BN lost one of its valuable member because they can’t see the bigger picture that goes beyond party politics;

Lee Kah Choon quits Gerakan

KUALA LUMPUR, Wed: With immediate effect, Datuk Lee Kah Choon has quit as Gerakan member after he was lambasted for accepting Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng’s offer to become director of the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) and investPenang. “Since accepting the posts was not acceptable to the Gerakan leadership, I believe it is best for me to retreat totally from party politics,” he said in a one-page Press statement. “I hope this puts to rest any discussion on the matter.”

Lee, who was the Gerakan deputy secretary-general, had earlier submitted his resignation letter to the party. By resigning, Lee said he would be able to focus on his new duties.

BN chairman Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in opposing Lee’s move (in accepting DAP’s offer), described it as being against the Barisan spirit.

Gerakan and BN’s loss is certainly DAP’s gain. Surely Lee Kah Choon’s loyal followers will follow his footsteps and find their footing in another party. BN can’t afford anymore disillusioned party members to cross over to the other side. But of course, we have flaky top party leaders who do not understand how to handle damage control.

Surely by now, Rais Yatim has a rough idea on why Umno lost its support.     

Hishamuddin and Khairy are siamese twins while Karpal confirms he is indeed a contemptible politician

Pheww!! Sorry for the long title but I just had to squeeze everything in one line just to save time. Anyway, the lame attempt of the Umno Youth chief to deny his deputy throwing eggs at his face is rather pathetic. 

UMNO Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein has refuted an online news portal’s report that his deputy Khairy Jamaluddin had admitted the keris issue was one of the reasons for Barisan Nasional’s poor performance in the general election.

“It is unlikely that my deputy could have said that because he is always with me,” Hishammuddin was quoted as saying by Mingguan Malaysia.

The news portal reported Khairy agreed that Hishammuddin’s act of wielding the keris in the Umno general assembly had displeased other races.

Mingguan Malaysia also reported Hishammuddin, who is Education Minister, as saying that news and information from websites, blogs or SMS should be scrutinised first because they could affect racial unity.

What an excuse! Is that all he can say to us? Khairy was with him 24/7 and that is why he is certain Khairy didn’t say all those back stabbing words. Okay lah. Whatever you say Big Boss wannabe. You should get a doctor to separate you two. Having your lips permanently attached to his ass is not good for your reputation.

And now lets move on the politician who’s been labelled the “Lion of Jelutong”. This old lion, probably semi-blind, should just play with his pack of kittens at home. I have said earlier that he need to re-evaluate his statements if he wants to gain respect from every Malaysian. And I did ask what has he done to the Malays in Malaysia as compared to what Tun Dr Mahathir had done to the community. This contemptible politician must had thought he had gained a lot of points from the Malays when he said this;

GEORGE TOWN: DAP chairman Karpal Singh said there was no reason for him to apologise or retract his criticism of the Tengku Mahkota of Kelantan for the latter’s speech.

He said the speech could provoke ill will and hostility among the different races in the country.

Karpal said the attorney-general should look into the possibility of directing a police officer to lodge a report against the Tengku Mahkota for going beyond what he claimed was permissible as freedom of speech.    

Now I am disgusted that he did not want to apologise for saying all these. Like what Tun Dr Mahathir said, he is “moved by pure hatred and I (Tun) cannot respond to people who can never accept reality.”

How can you possibly want somebody to apologise but you yourself do not want to do it when it was asked from you? Even your fellow PR leaders told you off.

Secondly, he now proclaimed that freedom of speech should be stifled? Here, he sounded more like Tun Dr Mahathir. Karpal sure have a way of saying things that only suit his political agenda. At least Tun Dr Mahathir has been consistent in his beliefs. I have no doubt that he will again use his parliamentary immunity to slap around Tengku Mahkota Kelantan in the incoming parliamentary session.

The lion and his bitch

 

Khairy, Khairy Quite Contrary

I read with amusement what Malaysiakini reported about this super-menantu. KJ is not that bright afterall is he? He is as clueless as Pak Lah.

“Naib ketua Pemuda Umno, Khairy Jamaluddin hari ini mengakui bahawa isu keris menjadi satu daripada beberapa punca sokongan kepada BN merosot dalam pilihanraya umum 8 Mac.

Beliau berkata, pada keseluruhannya, isu keris merupakan salah satu punca sokongan kepada BN berkurangan dalam pilihanraya umum ke-12.   

“Kita perlu kenal pasti sebab-sebab timbul isu keris,” tambahnya.”

My dear Khairy, YOU are the main reason for BN’s lost of support. YOU. Look in the mirror. You see that face? That is the face which caused a lot of discontentment in BN and the people. I can say confidently that out of 26 million people in this country, at least 50% of us do not like you. That’s 13,000,000 people. See the many zeroes in that figure? It’s not 13 people. It’s not 13 thousand people. It’s a freaking 13 MILLION people in Malaysia. Now Khairy, clearly you’ve been infected by Pak-Lahtivitis. Clearly you’ve lost your mind. But you’re in luck. Here I have enlisted a few momentarily lapse of judgement. Go here, here and here please. Practising blatant cronyism runs deeply in his blood. How else would his schoolmate, Jason Lo, a singer and a radio DJ could become a CEO of an AirAsia subsidiary. And we all know that AirAsia is just a front for KJ and Pak Lah’s family to get more cash. 

“Khairy, Khairy, quite contrary,

How does your wealth grow?

With ECM shares, and Tony Fernandes,

While Pak Lah sleeping in the front row.”

Speaking about Pak Lah, when he was trying to deflect the criticisms of certain quarters about his family members’ involvement in government’s projects, he said this in an interview back in 2006;

“No project had been given to Scomi with my knowledge. I have not personally made any kind of decision to give any favours or concessions or for that matter any projects (to Scomi),” Abdullah said, according to the Star newspaper.

“The newspaper reported Abdullah as saying that Kamaluddin was never involved in government concessions and had never sought help from it.

Abdullah said his son had to search for projects overseas to avoid his business dealings to be linked with Abdullah.     

Last week, Abdullah vowed to apologise to the nation if his son was found to have received business favours from the government.”

But we, the ’stupid’ Malaysians know that he, his family members and SCOMI did received a lot of government projects. Read here, here, here and here.

Well Pak Lah never did apologise, did he?

On another note, we want to know how Kalimullah from NSTP, the top-spinning champion from Kg. Gelam, Singapura can spin himself out of this:

 

Looking on quite proudly is Kalimullah’s trusted lieutenant, NSTP CEO, Datuk Syed Faisal Albar. Kalimullah who had spun endless articles about Pak Lah’s Islamic credentials may actually pull this one off by saying that he was sleepwalking and wasn’t conscious at the time. Look how his eyes were closed shut. He must really have been sleepwalking!     

 

 

The two sides of a coin : The Crisis of 1987 - 1988

Yesterday, I accidentally came upon several interesting articles by Datuk George Seah through Melvin Mah. Took me about 1 hour to read all the articles and comprehend their contents. Please bear with me as I try to dissect one of biggest judiciary issue of all time. This article may be long and tenuous for some so just sit back, adjust your eyesight and just bear with me on this one.

I think people have been grossly misdirected in blaming solely Tun Dr Mahathir for the judiciary crisis in 1988. This is partly because of the strong accusation from the opposition and the silence of Dr Mahathir in clearing the air.  

So what is the judicial and constitutional crisis of 1988? Does it affect everyone? Does it affect our day to day lives? Why are we so angry? Are we assuming that the normal laymen will not get justice in the courts because of what happened in 1988? Honestly, if you were suspected to murder someone, and were dragged to the high court, would you scream on top of your lungs saying that the courts will not be independent or clean because 20 years ago, a Lord President was unjustly dismissed? Is our judicial system unfair in dispensing justice to every Malaysian Tom, Dick and Harry?

A couple of months ago when a rapist was sentenced to a 15 years jail term, was that an unfair judgement by the judge? After 1988, several thousands of cases were dispensed justice by the judges. How come nobody cried foul on all the verdicts? What exactly are we saying when we shout ‘the Malaysian judiciary is in shambles because of the 1988 judiciary crisis’?

Again, did the 1988 crisis affected you directly? If people are still relying on the court to settle disputes then surely the court’s credibility is still intact. Logic dictates, you can’t be accusing one thing for being unjust and unclean but at the same time still believing it to be the sole dispenser of justice. Even the opposition uses the courts to sue the government. If they have no confidence in it, then why use the courts at all? When even the opposition gives this sort of stamp of approval, won’t the public use it in earnest as well? It is highly immoral of some quarters to shout about the so called injustice being done 20 years ago and berating about the downfall of the judiciary system when they themselves benefited from it at one time or the other (e.g., Karpal Singh won several cases in which he was the defence counsel. Did he ever complain about the courts when the verdict went his way?)

Okay, enough digressing. Let’s move on to my next point - What really happened?

I read with keen interest on what Datuk George Seah had to say regarding the matter. What a long read it was. But highly interesting and revealing. In short, in my opinion, it wasn’t entirely the fault of Tun Dr Mahathir. The sacking of Tun Salleh Abas can allegedly be seen as a form of coup d e’tat by the ones who benefit most from the sacking - Tun Hamid Omar, the acting Lord President at that time and several other judges. Compounded by the fact that the Agong at the time was unsupportive and possibly hold a grudge against Tun Salleh. Now, I am not accusing. I am just analysing it based on the turn of events described by Datuk George Seah and also via the admittance by Tun Salleh Abas pertaining his meeting with the then Prime Minister at the latter’s office on that fateful day on May 27th, 1988. We shall explore and dissect the turn of events which had led to my conclusion one by one. Hopefully, the people out there would stop all these blaming game and move forward. No point of trying to gain political mileage if the basis of your accusation is wrong from the start.

Through Datuk George Seah’s articles;

It all started on the 24th April 1987. The then Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad just won a bitterly fought battle for the Umno presidency by a majority of 43 votes. Even though in the run up to the elections, Tengku Razaleigh only received 20 over nominations from Umno divisions as compared to 100 over by Dr Mahathir, the thin majority he received during elections were a surprise to many pundits. Subsequently, the losers (Team B) unable to accept the defeat, began to find faults within the election system. Note that several current ministers in the cabinet now were part of this Team B such as the Prime Minister himself (Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), Datuk Seri Rais Yatim, Datuk Shahbery Cheek, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, Datuk Shahrir Samad etc.     

A civil suit propagated by a meeting at Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s house were filed by a band of 11 Umno members in the high court. Among the plaintiffs’ lawyers were Datuk Seri Sheikh Radzi and Marina Yusuf. They sought to annul the elections based on unregistered Umno branches and therefore hoping the courts would declare that the elections were null and void and have no effect. However in the end, on 4th February 1988, the presiding judge, Dato Harun Hashim declared that Umno itself is an unlawful society (due to some branches were not registered), and since Umno is an unlawful society, the Umno 11 have no legal standing to seek reliefs from the courts. His exact words were:

“as members of UMNO, cannot acquire any right which is founded upon that which is unlawful. The Court will therefore not lend its aid to the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs (UMNO 11). Having said that, I do not think it is necessary to deal with the other issues and I accordingly dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim”.  

In other words, Umno was declared illegal and unlawful through the undoing of Umno 11 who tried to find small technical errors in order to overturn the recent Umno elections to their favour. Basically, the oldest Malay institution were rendered powerless by a bunch of extreme sore losers (Team B). It is so irresponsible for certain quarters to accuse Dr Mahathir as the main villain in deregistering Umno in 1988.

For several months leading to the sacking, the government had lost several landmark cases against them. Even an ISA detainee Karpal Singh, whom had incited racial tension and hatred in October 1987 was released by the Supreme Court only on the basis of a mere technicality. This made the government nervous since having a strong power of the legislation is very important in order to run the country efficiently. Dr Mahathir made scathing attacks towards the judiciary by declaring them to be too fiercely independent up to a point of willing to jeopardize the security of the nation. He famously told Time Magazine about what he thinks of the judiciary:

“The judiciary says (to us), ‘Although you passed a law with a certain thing in mind, we think that your mind is wrong, and we want to give our interpretation.’ If we disagree, the Courts will say, ‘We will interpret your disagreement.’ If we [the government and Parliament] go along, we are going to lose our power of legislation. We know exactly what we want to do, but once we do it, it is interpreted in a different way, and we have no means to reinterpret it our way. If we find out that a court always throws us out on its own interpretation, if it interprets contrary to why we made the law, then we will have to find a way of producing a law that will have to be interpreted according to our wish.”    

With that in mind, several judges began to feel uneasy by the attacks from the legislative branch of the government especially the ones made by the then Education Minister, Encik (now Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim in Penang whereby he accused the judges as wanting to be above criticisms. Hence, a complaint letter was drafted and signed by 20 judges to be sent to the then Agong on 25th March 1988.   

Cross referencing with what Tun Salleh Abas mentioned in his book, May day For Justice, (let me point out here that in its foreword, Tunku Abdul Rahman, our first Prime Minister, claimed that any Lord President is beyond reproach. Lord Presidents must never be questioned or removed as the thought of removing a Lord President is very repugnant. I find it a bit odd as we as a person will not escape making mistakes or immune to temptations. We are not ‘maksum’ like the Prophets of God) he said that Tun Hamid Omar were showing odd behavior prior to his suspension by ways of cutting short his own intended holiday as well as seemingly working against him behind his back. Along with another 3 judges, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani, Dato Harun Hashim and Datuk Ajaib Singh, we can see that a major conspiracy had taken place behind Tun Salleh’s back which was spearheaded by Tun Hamid Omar.

To cut the story short, Tun Salleh was suspended on the 26th May 1988 and was eventually charged on 4 counts of improper conduct and misbehavior unbecoming of a Lord President. Among others, were the distribution of letters to all rulers dated 25th March 1988 which the Agong took exception. This date would be the point of reference for all the subsequent events that will flow through. In other words, the conspirators used this letter to tarnish the Lord President’s good name. As he was on holiday leave in Los Angeles and London and then umrah in Mecca for nearly 8 weeks, there were ample time and space for the conspirators to make their move. Upon returning on the first day of Raya on 17th May 1988, Tun Salleh’s fate had in fact already been sealed.

Please take note that the Prime Minister at that time had no powers to remove the Lord President as evident in the Article 125(3) of the Constitution:

“If the Prime Minister, or the Lord President after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong that a Judge of the Supreme Court ought to be removed on the grounds of misbehaviour or of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, to properly discharge the functions of his office, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with Clause 4 and refer the representation to it; and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the Judge from office.”  

And the infamous Tribunal was duly set up. Headed by Tun Hamid Omar himself as the Acting Lord President. Two days before the commencement of the tribunal, the other rulers met Tun Salleh Abas and they were willing to forgive him for the breach of protocol in the said letter. But to his utter dismay, the Agong was adamant in his decision to suspend him.

In another incident, Datuk George Seah expressed his disbelief in knowing that it was Tun Hamid Omar who had complained to the Prime Minister which led to the setting up of another tribunal, chaired again by Tun Hamid Omar to suspend all five Supreme Court judges. The five judges were deemed guilty by the 2nd tribunal for issuing an Interim Order to challenge the legality of the first Tribunal. 

It was interesting to know that before the Interim Order was sealed by the 5 judges, the most senior judge after the Lord President, Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman had invited Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani to be part of the 5 judges but was vehemently declined by the latter saying that if he did, then they ”would be staging a revolution” which he did not agree with. Around this time, Dato Harun Hashim, the famous high court judge whom had declared Umno illegal a couple of months earlier was promoted by Tun Hamid Omar to be one of the Supreme Court judge. Incidentally, Dato Harun Hashim and Tun Hamid Omar are related to each other as in-laws. Tun Salleh even stated explicitly in his article that he was most suspicious of the conduct of several of his so called friends whom are Tun Hamid Omar, Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani, Dato Harun Hashim and Datuk Ajaib Singh during the preceding weeks leading up to his sacking.  

In the end, together with Tun Salleh Abas, Datuk George Seah and Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman were removed from office. This sad episode actually illustrates the huge chasm of the interpretation of the law between 2 branches of the government. Dr Mahathir strongly believes in the reason and the spirit of the law while Tun Salleh Abas upholds the sanctity and purity of judges and the law. One believes in the power of the legislation while the other advocates the total and absolute independence of the judiciary. Both are correct. Both are wrong. The coin has two sides.        

More interesting also is the revelation by Tun Salleh Abas that - “although the Prime Minister at that time was deemed responsible for bringing down the judiciary, the judiciary itself could not have been brought down without the help of its own self. But there were also desperate judges then who had no qualms about stabbing a friend in his back in order for their own dreams to be fulfilled”.

There were indeed victims of the whole drama. The people involved and the system. Obviously during the fight for supremacy only 1 side will prevail. However it did not justify the use of guile by some of the judges. Tun Salleh Abas stressed that Tun Hamid Omar tried to undermine his appointment as Lord President in 1984 and repeatedly made unilateral decisions during his tenure as Acting Lord President in 1988.

The years of 1987 and 1988 can be deemed as the most trying years for the then Prime Minsiter. Apart from the devastating Umno elections in 1987, which proves to be the watershed for several amendmends in the Umno Constitution and the suspension of the Lord President in 1988, we witnessed the rise of racial tension and an unprecedented power struggle between the Malays and the Chinese. The events were best captured in these articles below:

By Graham K Brown - Balancing the Risks of Corrective Surgery: The political economy of horizontal inequalities and the end of the New Economic Policy in Malaysia

“The first indication that sections within the MCA was willing to push a harder line for the resolution of Chinese grievances came in November 1986, when the Selangor branch of the MCA, which was headed by the national deputy president and Labour Minister Lee Kim Sai, passed a resolution calling for the abolition of bumiputera status for the Malays and the East Malaysian natives. The resolution provoked an immediate backlash from UMNO members, who interpreted it as a demand for the end of the cherished Malay ‘special rights’. Forty-six UMNO MPs wrote to Mahathir, asking him to sack Lee from the cabinet, who himself offered to resign. Whilst the rift was quickly patched over in public – the Selangor MCA withdrew the resolution and the Sultan of Selangor publicly reprimanded Lee and warned him not to question Malay special rights – many within UMNO remained unappeased, and it contributed to deteriorating relations between the parties, most notably in the virtual demonisation of Lee that was to arise later in 1987 (Asiaweek, 23/11/1986).

Tensions between the MCA and UMNO soon spilled over into broader ethnic tension with Malaysian society. Language and education issues – a political flashpoint since the days of the Malayan Union plan in the 1940s and, as we have seen in relation to the Merdeka University controversy, accentuated by the social programme of the NEP – proved to be the spark point for the escalation of tensions.

The first round of protests came in August, when Universiti Malaya instituted a ruling limiting the use of Mandarin, Tamil and English in the teaching of elective subjects. The decision provoked demonstrations from non-Malay students, who interpreted the ruling as an attempt by the administration to boost the academic performance of the Malays compared to the other ethnic groups (NST, 02/08/1987).

The ever-belligerent UMNO Youth soon waded into the controversy, criticising the demonstrators but doing nothing to prevent counter-demonstrations by students supportive of the university’s move (NST, 04/08/1987).

As the protests continued, police were forced to keep the contending groups of demonstrators apart (NST, 18/08/1987).

By October, the DAP had become involved in the protests and the police were making numerous arrests (NST, 10/10/1987).

The Universiti Malaya uproar was soon overshadowed, however, by a national level dispute, also concerning language and education, when the Education Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced the promotion of around ninety teachers who were not educated in Chinese-language schools to senior positions in government-supported Chinese-language primary schools. The promotions caused a storm of protest from the Chinese community, which saw the move as an attempt to ‘change the character of the Chinese schools’, and perhaps ultimately pave the way for their disestablishment (Tan 2000: 244).

Although Anwar quickly backed down over the appointments, Chinese opposition parties and educationalist groups continued to protest, demanding the instant withdrawal of the appointees. Again, the Chinese parties in the BN were clearly pressurised by the protests into adopting a more chauvinistic position, for fear of losing ground to the DAP. In a sensational turn, the MCA and members from other Chinese parties in the BN, again led by Lee Kam Sai, thus joined a protest rally with the DAP and other Chinese-based opposition parties, calling for a boycott of the schools involved (NST, 12/10/1987).

The boycott saw over thirty thousand children kept away from school by their parents (NST, 16/10/1987).

The cycle of protest was intensified by a series of counter-demonstrations organised by various groups with UMNO. On the same day as the MCA-DAP joint rally, some five hundred UMNO members also held a demonstration, but the primary target of their anger was their coalition partner the MCA, rather than the DAP; demonstrators burnt MCA flags and posters (NST, 12/10/1987).

Subsequently, on October 17, UMNO Youth held a rally at a disused stadium in Kampung Baru, a large Malay district in Kuala Lumpur. The rally, attended by some six thousand people, was highly chauvinistic, and the target of the protesters wrath was against the government MCA rather than the opposition DAP. Banners called for the resignation and of Lee Kim Sai, and urged the MCA to ‘go to Hell’ (pergi Jahanam). Other banners expressed broader and often violent anti-Chinese sentiments: ‘May 13 has begun’, a reference to the ethnic riots of 1969, and ‘Soak [the kris] in Chinese blood’ (Malaysia 1988: 17).

The UMNO Youth president, Najib Tun Razak, addressed the crowd, calling for Lee’s resignation and demanding that the MCA acquiesce to government policy, or else leave the BN (Asiaweek, 20/10/1987).

By the end of October 1987, then, ethnic tensions in the country were reaching critical levels. As news spread of freak shooting incident when an army sergeant (Prebet Adam) ran amok killing one Chinese and wounding another Chinese and a Malay in the Chow Kit area of Kuala Lumpur, the centre of the 1969 riots, many people rushed to stockpile food, fearing the outbreak of rioting. Increasing public attention was focussed on a mass rally planned for 1 November to celebrate UMNO’s fortieth year, postponed since 1986 (the actual anniversary) and relocated from Johor (UMNO’s birthplace) to Kuala Lumpur. Up to a half million Malays were expected to join the rally, in what was seen by many as a show of strength by Mahathir against the UMNO dissidents (Asiaweek, 06/11/1987).

With ethnic tensions running high, however, it was feared that the rally would prove to be the spark point for fresh riots. In such a context, there was little doubt that the government needed to take action to calm sentiments and prevent an escalation of conflict.”

Now if you’re the PM, what would you do at this point?

By Khoo Boo Teik - Paradoxes of Mahathirism : An Intellectual Biography of Mahathir Mohamad   

On Tuesday, 27 October 1987, the police launched Operasi Lalang [Operation “Weed Out”] within the first day, Operasi Lalang made fifty-five arrests, all under the ISA [Internal Security Act which provides detention without trial] of DAP (Democratic Action Party) MPs, a DAP state assemblyman, second echelon MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) leaders, Chinese educationists, prominent NGO figures, and university lecturers.

Three newspapers, The Star, Watan, and Sin Chew Jit Poh, were suspended indefinitely.
Over the next few days, more people were arrested, including politicians from Pemuda UMNO (UMNO Youth) … Gerakan, PAS (Malaysian Islamic Party,) and the PSRM (Malaysian Socialist Party,) local Muslim teachers, members of some Christian groups, and other NGO activists.

The arrests spread geographically from Peninsular Malaysia to Sarawak where local environmentalists and anti-timber logging natives were also detained. The waves of arrests, though lessening after October, continued until the number of detainees reached a peak figure of 119 in December.
   

On a side note, after Umno was declared unlawful and cease to exist on 4th February 1988, Malaysia effectively had no Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and many other ministers from Umno. The next leader in line was non other than Datuk Seri (now Tun) Ling Liong Sik as MCA holds the most seats in the Dewan Rakyat. He chaired the subsequent cabinet meeting without the presence of all Umno ministers including Dr Mahathir. Malaysia was effectively ruled by an MCA President at that time even if it was for a short while. MCA could have staged a coup d e’tat of the country on their own but they did not. For that, Umno was forever grateful to the MCA. 

In conclusion, it is easy to criticise in retrospect on what had happened in the past. Being a leader is never easy. Only the brave, the decisive, the intelligent and the wise will succeed. Doing what is right may not necessarily be as vital as doing what is best for the nation and its people. Even when the decision proves to be very unpopular. Only time will tell and history be the judge. Wallahu’alam.

Please note that my observation and analysis is solely based on my opinion on the articles by the affected parties which are available online. Any facts which may have escaped me or some events that happened which were not disclosed to the public may certainly strengthen or weaken my findings above. Therefore I beg anyone whom has the knowledge and evidence to substantiate their own findings to share with us here. However, it is hoped that the evidence and knowledge shared were obtained from the main parties affected and not through hearsay or third party referrals. Thank you. 

Oh well.. so much for listening to the grassroots!

I read this in the news just now;

Malaysian PM Rejects Pressure To Unveil Exit Plan

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Monday he would be re-appointed to the top job by his party in December polls and rejected calls to formalise his plans to relinquish power.

Abdullah has faced persistent demands to quit after the coalition led by his United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) was dealt an unprecedented setback in March general elections.

But despite mounting demands to quickly unveil his plans to hand over to his deputy Najib Razak, he said succession talks would only take place after UMNO’s internal leadership polls in December.

Unbelievable isn’t it? This is what he arrogantly said in his actual words;

“Delegates will continue to give me support during the party election and they will put me as president and Najib as deputy,” he told reporters after a meeting of coalition lawmakers.

“After that Pak Lah and Najib will discuss issues related to transfer,” he said, referring to himself by his nickname. “Why should I not contest the December party polls?”

Sigh. So much for blaming himself. He will never learn, will he?

 Eeeii..! tak malunya aku…!

Note that Pak Lah tries to equate his situation to the smooth transition of power from Tun Dr Mahathir to him. Again, Pak Lah misread it. Tun Dr Mahathir tried to resign voluntarily back in 2002 at the height of his popularity. But was asked to give a proper succession period by the grassroots.  Whereas for Pak Lah, he is ‘asked’ to step down immediately. Please do not be so ignorant in reading the sentiments. You are in no way in the same league with your predecessor. When people do not want you anymore, please do not justify it by telling people about having a smooth and proper transition of power. You need to pack your bags now!    

One Man Independent Panel Review (Part 2)

Continuing from the previous post, we now come to the part where serious action plans are needed to rejuvenate and recover the confidence of the people towards Barisan Nasional.

1.  Dealing with issues

There are a lot of post general election issues which should have been dealt with in a more tactful and intelligent manner. It is best that all issues are answered in a dignified, consistent, with facts and above all, in a non-arrogant way.

Example 1 : NEP-free Penang

The statement by YAB Lim Guan Eng that Penang will be NEP-free should have been dealt with by saying it was just DAP’s gimmick and populist approach in appeasing their Chinese supporters. To begin with, it was actually a non-issue as the NEP came to an end in 1990. It was replaced by Dasar Pembangunan Nasional (DPN) in which it was applied to all Malaysians. Our ‘Misi Nasional’ and in particular, its ‘Teras 3′ approach (Menangani Masalah Ketidaksamaan Sosio-Economi Yang Berterusan Secara Membina dan Produktif) which doesn’t discriminate any race, are proof that the government takes care of all Malaysians without prejudice and favour.

Umno leaders can defend the success of NEP but not to picture it as perpetually active. The knowledgeable Malays weren’t even impressed by the statements and approach of Pak Lah and some of the Umno leaders in chastising Lim Guan Eng. More so, the IDR in Johor Darul Takzim was announced as free of the NEP (again, another mistaken statement) by Tun Musa Hitam and endorsed by Pak Lah in March 2007. Inconsistent leaders invites ridicule and disparagement from the public.

BN leaders should invite the PR leaders to discuss the implementation of Misi Nasional for the sake of national development; but the contrary happens.

Example 2 : Azalina Othman and her antics

Azalina Othman made statements that was smack with arrogance. She is acting more like an Umno warlord in fulfilling her ministerial job description rather than being a minister in charge of the tourism industry of Malaysia. The way she deliberate the ministry’s first pronouncement will likely push the BN supporters to sympathise with the PR states. It is mind boggling how she behaved in an unfriendly manner towards those states as if her party had won tremendous victory in the last general election. Being delusional is one thing, never learn from mistakes is another.

Note that callous remarks from leaders throughout history will often be the cause of their downfall. In this case, her action in terminating the MOUs and channeling the funds directly to federal representatives in the PR states instead to their rightful excos will make her look insensitive and vindictive towards the people in those states.

Example 3 : YB Mukhriz Mahathir

When Mukhriz sent a letter to Pak Lah asking him to resign, some of the Umno leaders should pronounce that the spirit of democracy, liberty and toleration in Umno is alive and well. But in their zest to support Pak Lah’s weak leadership, they failed to realise that they made the statements alone and without the support of the discontented grassroots. These Umno leaders and the mainstream media whom had played up the issue should have instead accept the grouses and criticisms of Umno members with open hearts and eyes wide open; much like how the MCA and Gerakan deal with the same leadership issue.

In the end, no action were taken against Mukhriz and this alienate Pak Lah and his supporters further. 

Example 4 : Issues with the monarchy and Tun Dr. Mahathir

Pak Lah lack of common sense and brash/crude attitude towards the highly respected figures of the Agong, Raja Perlis and Tun Dr Mahathir had tarnished his and Umno’s image even further. It also confirms the allegations that Umno is preaching double standard (vis-a-vis the appointment Menteri Besar Perak fiasco). It doesn’t diminish anyone’s pride to actually meet the Agong before appointing the Menteri Besar of Terengganu. Pak Lah action in trying to discipline the Agong via the mainstream media lacks humility and duty for the Agong which borders treason of the highest order.

The Malays upheld and respect the concept of kindness (budi) and repay with kindness (balas budi). Without it, the Malays would lost their main characteristic. Several past leaders had openly criticise their successors. The proper response to the criticisms from any predecessors is best referred to Tun Dr Mahathir’s attitude towards the previous prime ministers before him. Politeness and humility and the recognition that the past PMs were merely stating their grievances over what they perceived is wrong made Tun Dr Mahathir more objective in his response. But Pak Lah and the Umno leaders fared badly in this department. Some even had the audacity to openly rebuke and scold a renown world leader in the mainstream media without any sense of guilt over their own misgivings. The adage “paku dulang paku serpih, mengata orang dia yang lebih” aptly reflects this attitude.

2. YB Datuk Zaid Ibrahim      

Pak Lah appointed him as the Minister in Prime Minister Department in charge of law. During the recent general election, due to being dropped out from being a candidate, he was reported to being seen as supporting PAS through the free distribution of food for the PAS election machinery. Usually, this act of sabotage would entail him to be disciplined or even be sacked from Umno.

Furthermore, his inexperience in dealing with national issues as well as losing sight as a minister of a Malaysian Cabinet had made him look foolish. Making important statements prematurely and without the good sense in getting the consent from the rest of the Cabinet is deemed as talking without thinking.   

3. Re-delineation of election constituency

Re-delineation needs to be done at least once every 8 years according to Article 113 of the Constitution. This time around, this exercise needs to be done earliest in 2012 or latest in 2013. Potential problems might arise because 5 states within Malaysia are under the control of Pakatan Rakyat. Will Umno have a strong influence in this exercise? If not, then the fate of Umno will be sealed and will be buried in the annals of Malaysian history. 

This exercise has been beneficial for Umno via the use of SPR as it determines the demarcation of the voting areas accoring to racial mix. Previously, the delineation has always been done to ensure the success of BN candidates. Currently, with 5 states under the governance of PR, SPR and Umno may not have the final say during the incoming re-delineation exercise.

4. Housing development area

In several states in Malaysia, housing areas have been built on the so called Malay reserved lands and have been aggresively pursued all in the name of development. Some of the taken reserved lands were not replaced as per Article 89(3) of the Constitution.

Expensive houses were purposely built as a deterrent for the Malays to buy them. Politically, the impact for this move proves to be disastrous as several Malay majority areas like Selayang and Bayan Lepas fell to the Chinese. Subsequently, Perak and Selangor are dominated politically by the Chinese. Negeri Sembilan nearly became one too. What more, one of the reason why the Malays in Kedah and Kelantan voted for PAS is because they are afraid their lands will be taken over by the Chinese due to the establishment of ‘economic corridors’ which was the brainchild of Pak Lah.

Therefore, it is hoped that the Umno leaders as well as the Malay government officers would consciously think about the Malay interests and the repercussions when signing away approvals for any housing developments for the sake of the ’Ketuanan Melayu’ survival.

5. Role of mainstream media

The mainstream media which are controlled by the BN need to change their approach in reporting the news so that they will regain their credibility. Prior to 8th March 2008, news about Pak Lah’s so called brilliance and greatness as well as one sided stories were propagated by the media ad nauseam, which in turn, led to the unprecedented loss of confidence towards the media.

The editors need to know how to balance the news items in a way that will not jeopardize the perception of independent journalism.

6. Internet and blogs

It has been known that the ICT is the main conduit where the PR leaders can reach their intended audience. The reason why BN lost its 2/3 majority is because they had underestimated the power of ICT in this knowledge based society. It is very ironic that in the first place, it was Pak Lah who had pushed for the idea of K-ekonomi through information technology but in the run up towards the recent general election, he and the BN leaders were the ones shunning it.

The importance of blogs cannot be undermined. Each of the PR leaders have their blogs set up several years ago. Even most of PAS’ branches have their own websites for the public to access. Therefore, every component party, especially Umno, must have their own active, attractive and informative blogs and websites to counter allegations and disseminate news to the public.

To just have blogs and websites is not nearly enough. One must have pro BN bloggers who are passionate, interested, enthusiatic, impartial and very well-informed operating it. To gain a lot of readers, the contents must be balanced but critical towards BN. However, the bottomline is, it must be pro BN.

Other ICT conduits must also be used extensively such as sms, mms, web tv, 3G and web portals.

7. Rebuilding Umno

Umno must be rebuilt in the areas of its main objectives and mission. The weakened struggle towards Malay hegemony has been further weakened by the advent of corruption, nepotism, chasing government projects and unabated greed. Umno must reevaluate their direction, mission statement and objectives so that it can stay relevant within the Malaysian context. No more ‘Hidup Melayu’, ’Merdeka!’ or ‘DEB’. It must be changed to ‘Umno for All’, ‘Prospering the Economy For All’ or ‘Clean Party, Clean Government’.

In other words, even with the old slogans, Umno leaders were not serious in walking the talk. The service of political consultants may be needed in order to rejuvenate, reconstruct, reengineer and rebrand Umno so that it can be accepted by whole Malaysians.

8. Capturing the young

It has to be admitted that BTN, Vice Chancellors, overseas MSD and Malaysian ambassadors in foreign countries had failed to influence the students in supporting the government. All these institutions need to be revisited by the BN leaders as the power of the young voters are increasing as per the table of Malaysian population below;

No.	Age	2007	2013		% Change
		Malaysia		Malaysia		Malaysia
1.   2.	21 - 30 Years   31 -  40 Years	4.6 mil   3.8 mil		5.1 mil   4.2 mil		10.9%   10.5%
3.	∑ Population	27.2 mil		30.6 mil		12.5%

Data by Statistics Department

9. Treatment towards public servants

There are about 1.2 million public servants in the government. They are a force which is both influential and requires recognition. They have the average voting power of 5 times more than the rest of the voters. Therefore, they command about 6 million voters or 55% out of 10.2 million voters and not just 1.2 million.

However, in the last general election, most of the public servants voted for the opposition. This is evident in Putrajaya whereby the PAS candidate received about 1,304 votes which is about a quarter of the total votes tallied. How can this be? Main reasons which we can deduce were the ‘broom issue’, no bonuses as well as general mistreatment of public servants. Hence, BN leaders need to tread carefully and change their approach in dealing with this huge voting force so that it can vote for BN next time around.

10. Quick wins

Expediency is the key in regaining the support from all Malaysians. When a government has lost it’s popularity among its citizens, it must behave and react in tandem with the populist demands. In short, the BN must do something popular for the people in order to become popular again. The PR government in Penang and other PR states had waived summonses and decreasing assessment rates for places of worships. This is a populist approach and they had become more popular because of that.

But what the BN had been doing after losing more popularity, was to shoot itself in the foot with the acts of Azalina Othman et al (see above) for instance. They instead must give away ‘goodies’ in the form of quick monetary gains to the people as opposed to the announcement by Pak Lah of some obscure and vague developments of the future. These ‘goodies’ must be benefiting all or almost all of the people in the BN states such as abolishing parking rates for a period of time (small compensation by the states might be given to the parking operators), cancellation of state councils’ summonses (much like in Penang), reduction of quit rents or land assessment rates temporarily for a year or two etc.

11. Conclusion

Above all, the BN must be seen moving in a coherent and united manner. Racial bigotry and demonising other races in each of their own ‘ceramahs’ must be stopped. How can Malaysia achieve prosperity if the main races are wary and fearful of each other? This seems to be the total opposite of what the leaders of BN been preaching all these years – Bangsa Malaysia.

Therefore, the eradication of racial bigotry is imperative in bringing back confidence of the voters. All races need each other. To discriminate excessively (mild discrimination may be allowed) of other races while supporting the Malays excessively is the recipe for disaster. BN may become irrelevant because of that.

In conclusion, the weakened BN especially Umno whom are led and backed by people who has never known the meaning of hard life and the nation’s struggle (KJ take note), usually will not last long in its existence. Thus, it is easily pressured and beaten till it is near death.  

Thank you.

 

Jebat Must Die     

Karpal and Pak Lah sitting on a tree… K.I.S.S.I.N.G.!

Ever since the establishment of DAP in 1966, BN has always been its nemesis. But for the first time in history, the BN Chairman i.e., Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Bin Ahmad Badawi, has received huge