Thursday, March 11, 2010

Chua Jui Meng said Anwar's injury in jail was self inflicted.

Chua Jui Meng said Anwar's injury in jail was self inflicted.


Chua Jui Meng said Anwar's injury in jail was self inflicted.

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 09:24 AM PST

In a 2001 report, Anwar's current strongman told the world that Anwar's injury in Sungai Buloh Jail was not inflicted by any guards or the police or anyone else but self inflicted.

If the news is reported in NST or Utusan only then I guess Anwar fanboys would take out their well rehearsed contempt but this report is culled from the archives of Malaysiakini...

At least now we are reminded of this statement by Chua Jui Meng, who was then the Health Minister

 everyone who meets Jimmy Chua Jui Meng should ask him about Anwar's in-jail injury and remind him of his statement to the Press.

Either Jimmy will admit that he is a liar or he will have to admit that Anwar is one...Aaah the agony of choice

If Anwar fanboys say that Jimmy was told to lie, then it serves them right to have such a spineless person as part of their leadership


A father's love ~My snapshots of human endeavor

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 09:16 AM PST

As I traveled around in the old parts of Kuala Lumpur, especially in the area of the Chow Kit Wet Market, I came across this heartwarming sight of an Indonesian migrant worker laboring to transport goods from the delivery trucks to the stall operators there.

With his infant son snugly held by a cotton sarong, this loving father held his son with one hand and pulled a delivery trolley full of goods with another.

My emotions swelled with admiration for this man and I just had to capture them both visually so that I can share these snapshots of human endeavor fused with love as a reminder that no matter what, we ought not lose our appreciation for those who mean a lot to us.

I lost my son and daughter when I divorced and separated from their mother but my heart is always filled with memories when I carried them in more around the same fatherly manner in a life that is past but never forgotten.

* Click on to the photos to view them better in a new window.
DSC_5630-1.JPG
DSC_5632-1.JPG
DSC_5631-1.JPG
DSC_5629-1.JPG
I wasn't able to learn more about this man's story but I pray for his well being in order that he may continue to fend for his child and that they be safe from harm's way whilst seeking a better life here away from their homeland.

Ameen.


MAHATHIR MADE THE MALAYS A BEGGING COMMUNITY,

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 09:04 AM PST


If someone were to ask me- what do you think of the round table discussion sponsored by the Malay Consultative Council (MCC) I will answer as follows.
I did not attend that forum although I did get an invitation to go there. I was gladly spared the preaching of Ibrahim Ali and the sleep inducing drone of Mukhriz Mahathir. I have read the statements of the gadfly from Pasir Mas- Ibrahim 'Stopa' Ali( he is also known as stopa among his local supporters) and also the bloody hazy but almost sounding meaningful noises from MUkhriz Mahathir.
PERKASA Dengan Satu Melayu Pariah
Ihe economic ideas of Ibrahim Ali and his cub friends are not difficult to identify. He has supporters of such economic ideas among old school UMNO leaders. His PERKASA has the support of Dr Mahathir who can largely be credited with putting in place many of the economic measures which the current PM is seeking to dismantle.

It's all about placing near absolute powers in the hands of an economic clique which alone will determine what's good for the Malays at large. It's a benevolent despot's version of economics. It has been a system that has created, in the words of Mr. Walla the following situation:

"In the last almost forty years, the entire political script of this country has been written by a bunch of racial hypomaniacs and rent-collecting cronies which have chalked up their personal bank accounts by running this country into the ground".

That's the crux of the matter really. Prime Minister Najib must clearly disengage his administration from this apparition called PERKASA and Majlis Perundingan Melayu (Malay Consultative Council–MPM).

Maybe it's just a Trojan horse backed by Dr.Mahathir Mohamad who is stalking PM Najib. How do we know, perhaps the PERKASA and MPM are actually the extensions of the hawkish side of UMNO and its presence is countenanced and supported by the life giving system of UMNO style intrigue and political subterfuge?

To allay our apprehensions and suspicions, the Prime Minister must distance his administration from Ibrahim Ali's guerrilla groupings. Why is the Deputy head of PERKASA appointed as the boss of JASA? The truth is, Malays at large don't require some supranational body to speak on our behalf anymore. They and those before them have screwed up everything. Let me put it in blunt terms.

Look at the whole government system. All the district officers are Malays. Most of the ADOs are Malays. The officers too. All the Pengarahs are Malays. All the MBs are Malays. The heads of the Judiciary, Police, Army and other uniformed bodies are all Malays. The Kings and Agongs are all Malays. You have Malays in power since 1957 and these Malays have put in place a governing system that is supposed to uplift all Malays.

Now look at the accomplishments. Out of the 10 wealthiest persons in Malaysia, only 1 is Malay. Out of 40 richest, maybe only 15 are Malays. Out of 10 business premises, almost all are owned by non -Malays. In almost every aspect of economic life, they are all dominated by non-Malays.

This environment is the direct result of the system put in place by the very ideas that are being bandied around by Ibrahim Ali. I want to ask the Malays this question. Suppose the entire population of Malaysia is made up of Malays. We see this kind of disparity around, who are we to blame? We blame the system that has been perpetuated and perpetrated by the social and political elite, whose membership is eagerly sought of by Ibrahim Ali.

The government will announce its NEM (New Economic Model) soon. When, we don't know. It was supposed to be the end of March. Perhaps some people have warned the government about the ides of March when great misfortunes have befallen many a Caesar. Prime Minister Najib doesn't want to be a Caesar and so has decided that the announcement of the NEM be done away with. No ceremony. No pyrotechnics. No dancing to be provided for by Rais Yatim. No chance for shameless Rais to showcase his latest technique in apple polishing.

(Tan Sri) Amirsham will just present his findings to the Prime Minister, who will in turn do some tweaking here and there and incorporate the recommendations of the NEM into the 10th Malaysia Plan. That will be sometime in June, I think. There have been some reservations about certain aspects of the NEP that caused some 'trepidations' among Cabinet members. What could possibly spook the Cabinet members to that extent so as to lead them asking for revision?

It could only be implications of the new approach to embrace competition which challenges the standard operating procedure of UMNO-BN leaders learned in the ways of command centre economics supported on the outside by one of the beneficiaries of patronage economics– Ibrahim Ali.

The government has only to ignore Ibrahim Ali. Ask him to debate about this in parliament instead of agitating for changes using extra-parliamentary ways. Why should Mukhriz be there at all in the first place other than motivated by his own selfish desire to look good among the Malay hawks?

The NEM offers an alternative to the "we-command and we control kind'"of economics so favored by people like Ibrahim Ali and his friends in the Cabinet.The Malays at large are ready to embrace a level playing field provided the tools by which to compete are made available to them.

What will happen when Malays at large embrace the competitive spirit of the NEM? Ties that were built on patronage, dependency on others for economic succor will be broken and along with these, possibly allegiance that has so far produced nothing except serfdom. The ideas of NEM are dangerous to mentally challenged people like Ibrahim Ali and his ilk.


suddenly realised this. Between the posturing of Ibrahim Ali and his MCC and the clueless MUkhriz , the whole shebang about fearing or hoping for Malay economic salvation is just hot air and a blatant excuse for some special Malays to make more money. Yes sir- it's all just an excuse for some people to make money and to ensure the way to make money stays there in the NEM.
Ibrahim Ali can continue making money for championing Malay economic interests. He can build more bridges, have money to send people for Haj or Umrah, he can get more land from Menteri Besars etc. People like MUkhriz Mahathir can also continue making more money fighting the imaginary dragons that are coming after the holy economic interests of the Puteras. If you look at his Fibre Optic business- his is probably the only Malay name of significance there and his brother's Kencana Petroleum or whatever, is just another Chinese moneyed company.
We are fooled people.
Hold on- before you readers say- you are denouncing Mukhriz because you are a supporter of KJ. Allow me to quickly say that KJ is quickly building up frustrations and disillusionment among his supporters. Young Man- stop mollycoddling the human apparition called Dhalkari. His master is Mukhriz still. Our advice to him is stop uncleToming around.
He must live up to his vocation as the real ketua Pemuda UMNO- the voice of conscience of UMNO- not the voice of the mindless herd. He must live up to what he represents- the possibilities of the nameless average Joes in UMNO. His victory in the Ketua Pemuda race previously showed to the world, that you can succeed without having to carry the name of bin Tun Razakbin Hussien Onn or bin Mahathir. Anyone with above average intelligence can succeed in UMNO. He has proven that and must live up to that symbolism of opportunity. And remember, it was the Ketua Pemuda who decided the outcome of the contest between Dr Mahathir and Tengku Razaleigh in 1987.
But first:-
Allow me first to elaborate on what I think has become a standard operating procedure by UMNO people and their soul mates outside. Let's start by stating that Ibrahim Ali is UMNO in its worse form. Let's talk about the way they force things in their favour.
When a few churches were burnt to the ground, we didn't see any riotous response. There may be a number of reasons why that is so. Maybe its Christian teachings- I don't know which. Maybe, because PM Najib handled it the way he thinks is the best way- give money to burnt churches. We saw young Christians offering flowers to people in the streets, something strange in a Muslim dominated country.
We did not reach that calamitous level of church burnings, we can already see the different manner of reactions. Any hint at all of some impairment to the much worshipped concept of Malay dominance is likely to result in near mutinous reaction.
It has been a number of months, since PM Najib started dismantling some of what he thinks are impediments to greater competition. He has liberalised some subsectors in the service industry. In one of my articles, I have pointed out that these subsectors are of no consequence to Malay economic interests as Malay participation in those is very minimal to start with. As early as that time, Ibrahim Ali regarded that move as a challenge and threat to Malay economic interest. Inadvertently he was saying- PM Najib isn't Malay enough.
Even then, Malay groups were agitated. UMNO hawks are also seething over the abolishment of a Ministry which was tasked at looking at Malay economic interests. In effect, they were looking at the economic interests of special Bumputeras only. The abolishment of that ministry is therefore sacrilegious.
People like Ibrahim Ali responded the only way he knows best- carry out some form of riotous actions. Go to Penang, herd all those impoverished traders who were impoverished since Gerakan time with collusion from UMNO Penang. Demonstrate here and there. Create anarchy where possible. Cow the government into submission.
So UMNO some in a prized cattle or sow.
If we were to study the statements given by Ibrahim 'Stopa' Ali and the convoluted ideas of Mukhriz Mahathir, we wonder actually what the round table on the NEM is all about. Ibrahim Ali is at least true to form- he wants the NEM to reflect the dominant and overriding interest of Malays. By Malays he meant the puteras in the Bumi. Hence article 153 should be read into every economic measure taken by the government.
But Mukhriz? We don't know what his message is. No the NEM does not sideline the NEP. Maybe the MPM is misunderstood. Hello, Minister- the MPM is pressing for more intense affirmative strategies- something you should be criticizing unequivocally as they are rejecting the dismantling of the economy. MUkhriz is more interested in not offending the MPM as they have a large Malay membership. MUkhriz was careful not to jeopardize a potential support base. So he does what a generic politician will do- hunt with the dogs and run with the hare.
Its time all Malays see the real agenda of the economic measures insisted upon by MPM and the new measures that are waiting to be announced. They are actually two sides of the same coin- the same coin representing an excuse for privileged Malays to make more money.
Several years ago, I came across an article titled Six uniquely human traits now found in animals. While it was all undoubtedly interesting, tool use fascinated me the most. Until reading the article, never did I imagine that such behavior would be inherent in certain animals. The animal featured in this section of the article, the New Caledonian crow, is one of a number of species that uses tools in its search for food.

We are not talking about using ready-made tools like hammers and screwdrivers which may have been left behind by humans. Instead, it is even more ingenious as these tools are crafted by the crows themselves, from twigs and such. An excerpt from Wikipedia:

'The ability to fashion tools has always been held as uniquely primate, distinguishing us from (apparently) less intelligent creatures. But humans and apes are not alone in having tool-making

skills. Crows amazed the science community in October when footage recorded using tiny 'crow-cams' on the tails of New Caledonian crows showed the birds creating advanced implements. One crow was observed whittling twigs and leaves with its beak to fashion grabbers designed to retrieve grubs from the ground.'

Intrigued, I navigated my browser to YouTube in the hope of finding footage of these birds in action. YouTube did not disappoint, displaying a fair number of results for a rather obscure subject. There are some really remarkable videos in there and after watching them, I wondered how the term 'bird brained' was coined to describe humans who have sub-par intelligence.

These birds appear significantly more intelligent and resourceful than a large number of people that I know of and have the unfortunate pleasure of working with. Let us use this video as an example. In this particular video, our corvid friend is being put to a test where it has to earn its food. Instead of food being served to it on a silver platter, it is placed into a tiny bucket which is then dropped into a tall thin beaker. The opening at the top of the beaker is much too small for the crow's head, leaving the bucket out of its reach.

So what does it do? Sit around, mope and die of hunger eventually? As pointed out earlier, the New Caledonian crow is adept at not only using tools but also making them. The crow uses a wire that is left inside the room to lift the bucket out of the glass. It is just a plain wire and using it in its present shape is just as good as not using it at all. Some ingenuity is called for.

The crow can be seen hopping around the glass, assessing the problem at hand. Eventually, it bends the wire into a suitable shape and successfully uses it to extract the bucket from within the beaker. Dinner is served. Simply marvelous, isn't it? Even more marvelous is the fact that these birds were never trained to do this; it comes to them naturally.

Contrast this against individuals such as Ibrahim Ali and his ilk. When pitted against a problem, they behave in a rather uncouth and uncivilised manner, threatening those who disagree with them. Behavior such as this would not look out of place in the Middle Ages, which we have long since passed.

The fact is, protesting and shouting loudly is in itself not an easy task. It takes time and effort to organise these rallies and to write these hateful speeches, no matter how nonsensical they may be. If only they could channel this energy into a more productive force, perhaps they too can enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Abantika Ghosh, 08 March 2010, 04:08 PM IST

It has been sixty years since the constitution of India that guaranteed reservation for people from the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes came into effect. Reservation was in place even before that. It was a means of empowerment.
Tellingly, even now, politics is played out over nights spent in the huts of people from these communities and over meals shared with them. Assemblies witness noisy scenes over an MLA being called a chamar. And a student of the country's premier medical institute commits suicide, allegedly because he is discriminated against.
How then, has the notion of reservation as the panacea for all social ills survived? Facile politics or just an laziness in getting down to the real issues and addressing them effectively? Probably a mix of both.
The top down approach works politically almost as well as the symbolism of introducing a bill pending for 14 years on International Women's day.
Far more difficult is to ensure right to education at all levels that would make women more equipped to empower themselves than probably fighting an election in a constituency reserved for them which otherwise, may be the husband would have fought. If reservation is empowerment then a former chief minister of Bihar should be its biggest mascot.
She became the chief minister of a state because her husband – now one of the staunchest critics of the Bill for his own entirely political reasons – wanted to keep it reserved for himself. In much the same way that passengers in Howrah's local trains put a handkerchief or an umbrella to "book" their seats.
It is outrageous how a country that, decades after it had talked of equal rights for all in its constitution, could not even safeguard the right to live of the unborn girl child and is now talking of almost pushing her into the Parliament without even granting her the resources to present her case cogently.
Is that the kind of elected representatives we want? Somebody who will be just a rubber stamp of her fathers/brothers/husbands? Because without the wherewithall that is exactly what she is likely to end up becoming.
A survey by an independent research agency has shown how in the present Lok Sabha, women members, who make 11% of the strength, have participated in fewer debates than their male counterparts, asked fewer questions and have essentially made up the numbers when it comes to voting.
Where is the ground for the assumption that simply trebling their numbers – which would also mean a lot of women being elected merely because the parties need to be seen to be adhering to the legislation they managed to clear so painstakingly – will have a multiplying effect on their effectiveness too?
I would rather have a male MP who – hopefully – talks about issues that concern me than a woman who is there merely because of her sex. It is a waste of my vote.



Looks like strangled, feels like strangled, but can't confirm if TBH was strangled...

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 08:38 AM PST

Now, doc says Teoh wasn't strangled

(The Star) - The inquest into the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock was once again enveloped in uncertainty when a government pathologist testified that the deceased had not been strangled or choked prior to his fall. Sungai Buloh Hospital Pathology Unit chief Dr Shahidan Md Noor said all Teoh's injuries were consistent with falling from a height, except for the red bruises on his neck, which he admitted could be pre-fall injuries from some form of pressure exerted in the area. (EWO: So...yes, he was strangled?)

"What I am saying is that the internal injuries were consistent with the fall from a height but injuries on the neck suggest there was some form of pressure (EWO: So...confirm he was strangled la?) but this did not cause his death," said Dr Shahidan when cross-examined by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) counsel Datuk Abdul Razak Musa.

According to Dr Shahidan, who was ordered by coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas to conduct the second post-mortem, there was no sign of asphyxiation. (EWO: So...his neck was squeezed hard enough to damage the muscle but no, he was NOT strangled?)

Ironically, on March 1, Dr Shahidan had agreed with Teoh's family lawyer Gobind Singh Deo and state-appointed counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar during cross-examination that Teoh may have been strangled or choked prior to his death. (EWO: So...yes, he was strangled, then?)

Yesterday, Dr Shahidan reiterated that Teoh's death was purely due to falling from a height and it was unlikely he had been clobbered on the head with a blunt object. (EWO: So...er...yes, he was strangled...but at least he was not strangled to death and that should be a good enough standard for MACC interrogation methods, is it?)

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

The official obfuscation and the media's collaboration is just absolutely disgusting...

Dey...this is not about being caught on video doing naughty things with good friends, or even about whether lawyers cavorting in the sun with senior judges.

This is possible homicide and definite assault.

Isn't it the first duty for everyone involved in the inquest to find out who the responsible parties are? And isn't it the media's duty to report accurately, fairly and truthfully?

If these people and their media dogs can make such a flippant and frivoulous case of a person's suspicious death...what hope is there for our country with these people still being allowed to be doing whatever it is they are doing?


Ibrahim Ali: Malaysiakini causing 'unrest'

Posted: 10 Mar 2010 07:50 AM PST

exclusive Pulling no punches, Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali explained why Malaysiakini is not in his good books, citing the 'nonsensical' and 'irresponsible' reporting of this news portal which he claimed has caused much public unrest.
Views: 322
9 ratings
Time: 07:48 More in News & Politics


Ibrahim Ali: Market economy a threat to Malays

Posted: 07 Mar 2010 10:15 PM PST

Pugnacious Perkasa chairman Ibrahim Ali came out fighting, arguing that he is battling against the encroachment on Malay economic rights which is a danger to their welfare, amidst the impending liberalisation of the economy in Premier Najib Abdul Razak's soon-to-be announced New Economic Model. In a Malaysiakini exclusive, he highlighted the dangers of a purely market-driven economy to the Malays and Bumiputeras who he claimed, still lag behind their better off Chinese and Indians.
Views: 514
5 ratings
Time: 06:13 More in News & Politics


Ku Li - A federation in name only

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 07:26 AM PST


Malaysia was formed in 1963, when the eleven states of the previous Malayan Federation came together with Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore to create the Federation of Malaysia.

Federalism is a system of government in which legislative power is divided between a central or federal legislature and a number of state legislatures. Both levels of government derive their authority from a written constitution.

Unlike in a unitary state, sovereignty in a federal state is decentralized. Thus the rights of citizens are secured at two levels, federal and state. In Malaysia, federation was a way to accommodate the different histories and pre-existing sovereignty of the member states of the federation.

Federalism is a way of dividing and sharing power. In the system envisaged in our constitution, this division and sharing of power is part of a system of checks and balances meant to protect the rights and freedoms of our citizens. The separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive are part of that complex interlocking system.

People often remark at how complex this country is, made up as we are of a patchwork of ethnicities and religions. But we are also complex in our political history. The nine sultanates of peninsular Malaysia, did not suddenly acquire their sovereignty upon the Federation Agreement of 1948. Instead it is by their voluntary coming together in that agreement that the federal authority was created.

Federal sovereignty and authority, although wider than that of the member states, is derived from the prior sovereignty of the states. In the nine sultanates of the peninsula, for example, we had sovereign states before we had a federation, and before the various forms of colonial rule.

The federation derives it powers by the voluntary and binding agreement of the states, not the other way around. This conviction was well tested in the way the Malayan Union proposal was rejected.

Thus we had an auspicious start as a country, because our political arrangement guaranteed our rights within a system that reflected and protected our cultural and historical diversity. Federalism provides for the right measure of local autonomy.

Decision-making, particularly about the allocation of resources, could be made in a way that more closely reflected the interests of people on the ground, that is to say, more efficiently.

This system did was not born overnight. The sovereignty of our member states is hundreds of years old. Our constitution was established on an 800 year old tradition of constitutional law. These are solid foundations for constitutional democracy.

If Malaya were not already a federation, Sabah and Sarawak would not have come together with us to form Malaysia in 1963. Federation is the only political basis on which Malaysia is a viable political venture.

Restating foundational truths

In present company these facts must seem so well-established that I hope you will forgive me if I come across as stating the obvious. Today we find ourselves in the position of having to state and re-state foundational truths about our country.

As a country we have come unmoored from our foundations in constitutionalism and federalism. We are now, for most intents and purposes, a federation in name only.

The central government hands out allocations that belong by right to the states as if these were gifts from on high. State governments are starved of resources, particularly if they are governed by the Opposition. How has this happened?

We have undergone two and a half decades in which, while hard infrastructure has sprung up everywhere, the deep infrastructure of the constitution has suffered great damage. Our federal arrangements provide for a fine balance between state and federal powers which provide multiple levels of assurance for the rights of citizens.

That balance has been removed as power has been concentrated in the federal government. Within the federal government that power has come to be centralized in the executive. In the executive, that power is concentrated in the hands of the prime minister

This forum addresses the question "should states be given more power?", but really what needs to be done is to restore the constitutional rights of the states first.

The constitutional rights of the states are clearly violated in the way petroleum profits are being distributed and managed.

The federal government says Kelantan and Terengganu have no right to the "cash payments" agreed between the states and Petronas. These denials have been published in the newspapers and are repeated by official representatives of the government.

The full implications of their denial are not trivial. The federal government's authority over these resources, as in all other things, is an authority derived from the original sovereignty of the states.

By the Federation Agreement of 1948, the states of the Malayan peninsula came voluntarily into a federation and created a common federal government. As part of that agreement, the federal government had jurisdiction over waters beyond three nautical miles. The states had jurisdiction within three nautical miles.

Oil had not been discovered in Malaya at the time. Had it been found, however, anything within three nautical miles would have belonged in its entirety to the state, and anything beyond that to the federal government. In 1974, we formed Petronas as a common trust between the federal and state governments for all petroleum found anywhere in Malaysia, onshore or offshore.

We did this by persuading the states governments, one by one, to vest their entire rights and claims to petroleum, onshore or offshore, in perpetuity to Petronas. The federal government did the same.

By design, this obliterated any considerations of whether the oil was found within or beyond three or 12 nautical miles. So long as Malaysia had any share in the oil, the profits would be divided between the federal government and the relevant state government according to a simple formula: five percent to each.

That series of vestings was secured through deeds signed according to the Petroleum Development Act. As the founding chairman of Petronas I signed these deeds with each chief minister and with the federal government.

Selective denial of fund

The federal government's refusal to pay Kelantan, and it's arbitrary treatment of Terengganu's oil money – on and off according to whether the state was in Opposition hands—is in violation of a solemn contract, sealed in an Act of Parliament, between the state governments and Petronas.

The federal government is reneging on a contract and in contempt of Parliament. Its attitude to these oil payments is transparently based on one criterion: those states whose legislatures are not controlled by Barisan Nasional are denied payment.

This practice punishes citizens for their choice of state government. This is an attack on the right of the people to choose their own government within our system of parliamentary democracy. Oil payments are just one form of selective denial of funds to the states.

Putrajaya behaves as if we are a unitary state and not a federation. Ironically we have become in practice the Malayan Union which an earlier generation resisted and defeated.

The autonomy of the states, their rights to development and to the husbandry of their own resources, and the proper role of the rulers and the way in which religion is governed in public life are displaced in favour of increasingly centralized and absolute power.

This is unconstitutional and must be resisted with just as much vigour as we resisted the Malayan Union. Malaysia is not viable in the long run as a unitary state.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is Umno's MP for Gua Musang. These remarks were made at 'Conversations on the Constitution - Federal–State Relations: Should states be given more power?' which was organised by the Constitutional Law Committee, Bar Council of Malaysia on March 11, 2010.


Ong Ka Ting to make a comeback?

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 07:08 AM PST


Will former MCA president Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting make a political comeback? Following the party's dismal performance in the 2008 general election, the former Housing and Local Government Minister had decided not to defend the top post.

Nevertheless, it is learnt that several party grassroots leaders have been pushing for Ka Ting's return as they felt he could strengthen and unify the embattled party.

Among them is Gurun assemblyman Dr Leong Yong Kong who yesterday, made a public appeal for the former party president to come out of retirement and save the "sinking ship" or "save the party".

Party sources said Ka Ting's former close aides are also talking to him into make a comeback, reasoning that none of the current crop of leaders are able to unite the party which is scheduled to have a fresh poll on March 28.

But some grassroots leaders said Ka Ting, who could not be contacted for comments, would stay out as his elder brother and former secretary-general Datuk Seri Ong Ka Chuan has expressed intention to contest in the election.

Ka Chuan lost in the battle for the deputy president's post to Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek in the 2008 party poll.

Last week, the party's leadership crisis saw a dramatic twist when 22 elected central committee members resigned, including Chua and all four vice-presidents.

Meanwhile, Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha hinted today that he might go for the party deputy president's post.

"I will either defend my vice-president position or might go for deputy president. It has not been decided yet. I will let you know when the time is right," he said.

Nomination for the party poll will be held on March 22 and party president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat is said to be planning to announce his move to defend the post today.

- Bernama


Understanding the Oil Royalty issue

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 06:02 AM PST


What both Hafarizam Harun and Rahman Yakub failed to take into consideration were the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on what constitutes Territorial Waters and the international agreement on the Exclusive Economic Zone of each country.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Kelantan is not entitled to claim oil royalty outside its territorial waters because the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1969 is still enforced, said a law practitioner.

Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun said provision No.7 of the Ordinance stipulated that the state's boundary which is the state's land mass and its territorial waters stretched three nautical miles measured from the low-tide water mark.

However, two oil wells disputed by the Kelantan state government are located outside the 'area'.

"To my knowledge, the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1969 is still in force and has not been abolished by the government. In fact, there are Ordinances formulated at that time, such as ESCAR (Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975), which are still in force," he said when contacted by BERNAMA, here today.

READ MORE HERE

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

Hafarizam Harun is a lawyer. I am not. So certainly Hafarizam Harun's interpretation of the law must be more accurate than mine. Or so the common perception would be that. Nevertheless, I am of the 'unqualified' opinion that Hafarizam Harun did not take into account many other factors in his assumption.

Hafarizam Harun said that the oil wells are outside Kelantan's three nautical mile territorial waters. They are in fact 150 nautical miles from the Kelantan coast. Therefore, argues Hafarizam Harun, Kelantan is not entitled to any Oil Royalty.

One-time Chief Minister of Sarawak Rahman Yakub in turn argued that Sabah and Sarawak are entitled to the Oil Royalty, but not Kelantan (and he was silent on whether Terengganu too is not entitled to the oil Royalty just like Kelantan) because Queen Elizabeth had declared in 1954 that the East Malaysian state's territorial waters extended beyond the three-nautical-mile limit.

What both Hafarizam Harun and Rahman Yakub failed to take into consideration were the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on what constitutes Territorial Waters and the international agreement on the Exclusive Economic Zone of each country.

Malaysia's Territorial Waters is 12 nautical miles from its coast while its Exclusive Economic Zone is 200 nautical miles, as is so for all countries. This overrides what Queen Elizabeth ruled in 1954, before Malaya gained independence in 1957 and the creation of Malaysia in 1963. In 1954, Sabah and Sarawak were British Colonies. That has since changed. Can Malaysia argue that detention without trial (a 1960 law) is illegal because the Queen said so in 1954? Since Merdeka in 1957 Malaysia has introduced many new laws that replaced the pre-Merdeka laws.

We must remember that when Malaya was created there was an agreement that certain matters are federal matters while certain matters are state matters. Resources are state matters. That is why the states decide on matters such as land, timber, water, tin, gold, and what have you. In that sense, oil and gas are state matters since these are also resources.

If oil and gas are not included as state matters and if the federal government can automatically take over all the oil and gas in the state, why then the need to introduce the Petroleum Development Act in 1974? The federal government can just take all the oil and gas in the various states without introducing a new law allowing them to do so.

But no, the federal government had to introduce the Petroleum Development Act in 1974 because oil and gas belong to the states. And as long as it is within 200 nautical miles from the coast then the federal government can't touch it. It is the property of the states.

Basically, the Petroleum Development Act of 1974 was aimed at making it legal for the federal government to take over the oil and gas that actually belonged to the states. If not it would be illegal for the federal government to do so. But they also provided for the states to be paid 5% of whatever the federal government took from them.

Then they made all the states sign an agreement with Petronas. The Petroleum Development Act alone was not good enough. The states could still refuse to allow the federal government to take its oil and gas. So they forced all the states to sign an agreement with Petronas, which they did although reluctantly.

In 1976, Petronas signed a Supplementary Agreement with all the states. This Supplementary Agreement made it clear that the 5% that Petronas paid the states was to be called Royalty and that payments would be made in cash, twice a year, in March and September.

All this was not mentioned in the Bernama report above.

What the Queen did in 1954 is no longer relevant. Other things have since happened in 1957, 1963, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1982 and 1997. These are the new arrangements. Since then the Territorial Waters have been extended to 12 nautical miles. The Exclusive Economic Zone has been extended to 200 nautical miles. The federal government took over the oil and gas, which rightfully belonged to the states, through an Act of Parliament. Petronas signed two agreements with all the states in 1974 and 1976. And this means the oil and gas, which is 150 nautical miles offshore, and which therefore belongs to the states, was taken over by the federal government, and the states are entitled to a 5% payment twice a year that is to be called Royalty.

As I said, I am no lawyer and it would be foolish of me to rebut the opinion of a lawyer. But then this lawyer failed to take into consideration many other factors in his opinion. So that does not make him a very good lawyer if a non-lawyer like me can shoot his opinion full of holes.

Read also: Ku Li: PDA supercedes all pre-Merdeka oil contracts

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

Exclusive Economic Zone

A maritime zone adjacent to the territorial sea that may not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources, both living and nonliving, of the seabed, subsoil, and the subjacent waters and, with regard to other activities, for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone (e.g., the production of energy from the water, currents, and winds). Within the EEZ, the coastal state has jurisdiction with regard to establishing and using artificial islands, installations, and structures having economic purposes as well as for marine scientific research and the protection and preservation of the marine environment. Other states may, however, exercise traditional high seas freedoms of navigation, overflight, and related freedoms, such as conducting military exercises in the EEZ. Also called EEZ.

http://www.answers.com/topic/exclusive-economic-zone

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

Exclusive Economic Zone

Under the law of the sea, an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a seazone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources. It stretches from the seaward edge of the state's territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from its coast. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit.

Generally a state's EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline. The exception to this rule occurs when EEZs would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical miles (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual boundary. Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the most proximate state.

A state's Exclusive Economic Zone starts at the seaward edge of its territorial sea and extends outward to a distance 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the baseline. Thus, the EEZ includes the contiguous zone. States also have rights to the seabed of the continental shelf up to 350 nautical miles (650 km) from the coastal baseline, where this extends beyond the EEZ, but this does not form part of their EEZ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone

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

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th state to sign the treaty. To date, 158 countries and the European Community have joined in the Convention. However, it is now regarded as a codification of the customary international law on the issue.

While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however, a role played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (the latter being established by the UN Convention).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

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

Territorial waters

Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.

The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

courtesy of malaysia-today.net


SAPP denies teaming up with Ibrahim Ali

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 07:00 AM PST

The two Sabah Progressive Party (Sapp) MPs have denied links with Pasir Mas MP Ibrahim Ali, who claims to lead the 'independent bloc' in the Dewan Rakyat.

sapp chua soon bui eric majimbun 110310In a statement today, its president Yong Teck Lee stressed that two MPs - Eric Majimbun (Sepanggar) and Dr Chua Soon Bui (Tawau) - were Sapp members and not independents.

"They are from Sapp representing Sabah interests. Ibrahim racist chauvinism is totally contrary to Sapp's non-racial politics," he said.

He was referring to Malaysiakini's exclusive interview with Ibrahim, published yesterday, where he claimed Majimbun and Chua would join him and four former PKR MPs in the 'independents bloc'.

Yong said these four former MPs, along with Ibrahim, had no credibility and would be rejected by voters in the upcoming general elections.

He also reiterated the party's stand that it had lost confidence in Barisan Nasional, which Sapp was a part of until September two years ago, because they had failed to resolve woes faced by Sabah.

"This is why Sapp is co-operating with Pakatan Rakyat in Parliament to topple the BN administration," he added.

However, Yong said Sapp will still join forces with anyone that promotes Sabah's interest.

"On this basis, Sapp's two MPs are part of the parliamentary caucus on petroleum led by (Gua Musang MP) Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah because this directly affects Sabah's interests," he said.

courtesy of Malaysiakini


Abdul Ghani Ahmad ~ Antara Penyanyi, Pelakon & Pelukis - Kenapa layanan berbeza? Dikemaskini.

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 02:50 PM PST

Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

Semalam, saya sempat bertemubual dengan seorang pelukis tanahair kita bernama Abdul Ghani Ahmad di Pasar Seni semasa saya berkunjung ke sana.
DSC_5738-1.JPG
Memang teruja saya melihat hasil seni lukisan beliau yang memaparkan keindahan alam sekitar flora dan fauna serta pemandangan rumah rumah Melayu tradisional, anak anak sungai, sawah bendang, paku pakis dan periuk kera,dsbnya. Beliau adalah seorang pelukis alam semulajadi ~'realist painter'.

Lukisan lukisan beliau terbukti amat berkualiti dan setaraf dengan hasil seni pelukis tersohor tanahair yang lain seperti Dato Jaafar Taib dan mereka yang seangkatan dengannya.

Pelukis Abdul Ghani Ahmad meluahkan rasa kecewa beliau dengan kurangnya perhatian pihak berwajib dan juga Media Perdana yang seolah menganaktirikan para pelukis tanahair dengan tidak membuka lebih banyak ruang dan peluang kepada mereka yang juga menyumbang sedikit sebanyak kepada perkembangan dunia seni halus tanahair.

Kecenderungan masyarakat untuk hanya mengikuti perkembangan semasa para penyanyi, pelakon dan tokoh tokoh hiburan tanahair seolah meminggirkan para karyawan seni lukis dari dihargai oleh badan badan penyiaran rasmi dan juga pihak swasta.

Saya dapat merasa akan kekecewaan pelukis terkenal ini dan berasa simpati kepada beliau. Makanya saya telah mengambil keputusan untuk mewawancara beliau dan terbitkan luahan jiwa beliau untuk tontonan kita bersama didalam bentuk video yang Alhamdulillah telah selamat diproses dan dimuatnaik ke akaun You Tube saya.

Saiz fail videonya besar tuan puan. 850MB diproses muatnaik selama 16 jam lebih. :D

Alhamdulillah, dapat saya tunaikan amanah pelukis ini dan menyempurnakannya pagi ini.

Semoga suara Abdul Ghani Ahmad terngiang ngiang ditelinga Dato Menteri dan Ketua Pengarah Balai Seni Negara serta semua pegawai pegawai kementerian yang terbabit.

Insya Allah.
DSC_5740c.jpg

Kenang kenangan beberapa anak muda bersama pelukis Abdul Ghani Ahmad.


This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Muka sebenar Taliban Zul

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 05:18 AM PST


Oleh Anak Mami

Pemecatan Zulklifli Nordin selaku MP dapat diibaratkan sebagai mencabut gigi buruk. Zul bagai gigi buruk yang menyakit kepala PKR , saraf gigi buruk ini bukan sahaja membusukkan mulut malah apabila bila bertutur akan mengakibatkan mulut busuk

Pemecatan Zul dapat diibartakan bagai si pemuda di lamun cinta dengan gadis idamannya. Bila Gadis jelita mutuskan hubungan dengansi pemuda itu, maka si pemuda cuba memburukkan namanya, dengki, maki hamun, hingga ingin lakukan sumpah keatas si gadis itu. Begitulah Zul perangai biadap yang konon perjuang Islam tapi tiada sikap Islamic value.

Zul memang memahami sikap Anwar, dimana sejak PKR mengambil tindakan keatasnya, mula lah beliau menceritakan sejarah lama beliau dengan Anwar, seolah olah ingin minta balik jasa dan budi, dimana kes qazaf, Zul sanggup lakukan sikap kepariahan, sikap melayu haprak yang bengong.

Zul sebagai MP. Pengemis undi dari rakyat, dimana beliau tidak memahami beliau telah hutang budi keatas rakyat, khasnya kaum tionghua dan kaum India di Kulim. Bila sudah dapat memegang kuasa, maka tunjuklah muka sebenar yang bertopengkan perjuangan Islam. Tidak merasakan sensitivi pengundi pengundi terhadapnya. Nampaknya Zul adalah lebih teruk dari anjing jalanan, dimana anjing memang mengenang budi, tapi Zul tidak mempunyai sikap keanjingan ini.

Zul berangan angan ingin memegang Anwar, dalam strateginya beliau memikir sekiranya dapat memegang Anwar maka dapatlah beliau memegang Parti PKR, sering kali Zul menanggap PKR adalah milikan Anwar, maka Anwar tidak berani mengenakan apa apa tindakan keatasnya. Sebagai seorang penguam dan MP , kecetekan pemikirannya amat memalukan.

Apabila Zul dipecat serta merta sikap dan personalitinya berubah ubah, tanpa mengawal sikap emosi dan keterlanjuran mengeluarkan kata kata yang pariah, low class, di mana beliau kutuk Wan Azizah dengan sarung tangan sehingga mengjatuh hukuman bahawa Wan Azizah mengamalkan pseudo Islam, adakah Zul mempunyai hak keistimewaan dari Allah untuk membidas dan mengkritik amalan seseorang?? Ini lah cita cita Zul ingin menghitamkan PKR sebagai Parti Taliban bila berbicara tentang Islam.


Women reclaim the night

Posted: 10 Mar 2010 09:51 PM PST

"Women need to reclaim the night so that they can walk safely even after the sun has set." Amnesty International Malaysia (AI-M) executive director Nora Murat made this remark as International Women's Day was celebrated last night with poetry recitals and a street theatre skit at the Arab Park in Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur. Performed to an audience of predominantly younger people, the skit portrayed a victim who was chastised by members of the public after she had been robbed. Reporter: Christine Chan Editor: Lydia Azizan Camera: Amir Abdullah
Views: 214
0 ratings
Time: 07:28 More in Nonprofits & Activism


The Federation of Malaysia

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 04:09 AM PST


A federation in name only
Reported on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 HERE http://freemalaysiatoday.com


By Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

Malaysia was formed in 1963, when the eleven states of the previous Malayan Federation came together with Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore to create the Federation of Malaysia.


Federalism is a system of government in which legislative power is divided between a central or federal legislature and a number of state legislatures. Both levels of government derive their authority from a written constitution.


Unlike in a unitary state, sovereignty in a federal state is decentralized. Thus the rights of citizens are secured at two levels, federal and state. In Malaysia, federation was a way to accommodate the different histories and pre-existing sovereignty of the member states of the federation.


Federalism is a way of dividing and sharing power. In the system envisaged in our constitution, this division and sharing of power is part of a system of checks and balances meant to protect the rights and freedoms of our citizens.


The separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive are part of that complex interlocking system.


People often remark at how complex this country is, made up as we are of a patchwork of ethnicities and religions. But we are also complex in our political history.


The nine sultanates of peninsular Malaysia, did not suddenly acquire their sovereignty upon the Federation Agreement of 1948. Instead it is by their voluntary coming together in that agreement that the federal authority was created.


Federal sovereignty and authority, although wider than that of the member states, is derived from the prior sovereignty of the states. In the nine sultanates of the peninsula, for example, we had sovereign states before we had a federation, and before the various forms of colonial rule.


The federation derives it powers by the voluntary and binding agreement of the
states, not the other way around. This conviction was well tested in the way the
Malayan Union proposal was rejected.


Thus we had an auspicious start as a country, because our political arrangement guaranteed our rights within a system that reflected and protected our cultural and historical diversity. Federalism provides for the right measure of local autonomy.


Decision-making, particularly about the allocation of resources, could be made in a way that more closely reflected the interests of people on the ground, that is to say, more efficiently.


This system did was not born overnight. The sovereignty of our member states is hundreds of years old. Our constitution was established on an 800 year old tradition of constitutional law. These are solid foundations for constitutional democracy.


If Malaya were not already a federation, Sabah and Sarawak would not have come together with us to form Malaysia in 1963. Federation is the only political basis on which Malaysia is a viable political venture.


Restating foundational truths In present company these facts must seem so well-established that I hope you will forgive me if I come across as stating the obvious. Today we find ourselves in the position of having to state and re-statefoundational truths about our country.


As a country we have come unmoored from our foundations in constitutionalism and federalism. We are now, for most intents and purposes, a federation in name only.


The central government hands out allocations that belong by right to the states as if these were gifts from on high. State governments are starved of resources, particularly if they are governed by the Opposition. How has this happened?


We have undergone two and a half decades in which, while hard infrastructure has sprung up everywhere, the deep infrastructure of the constitution has suffered great
damage. Our federal arrangements provide for a fine balance between state and federal powers which provide multiple levels of assurance for the rights of citizens.


That balance has been removed as power has been concentrated in the federal government. Within the federal government that power has come to be centralized in the executive. In the executive, that power is concentrated in the hands of the prime minister.


This forum addresses the question "should states be given more power?", but really what needs to be done is to restore the constitutional rights of the states first.


The constitutional rights of the states are clearly violated in the way petroleum profits are being distributed and managed.


The federal government says Kelantan and Terengganu have no right to the "cash payments" agreed between the states and Petronas. These denials have been published in the newspapers and are repeated by official representatives of the government.


The full implications of their denial are not trivial. The federal government's authority over these resources, as in all other things, is an authority derived from the original
sovereignty of the states.


By the Federation Agreement of 1948, the states of the Malayan peninsula came voluntarily into a federation and created a common federal government. As part of that agreement, the federal government had jurisdiction over waters beyond three nautical miles. The states had jurisdiction within three nautical miles.


Oil had not been discovered in Malaya at the time. Had it been found, however, anything within three nautical miles would have belonged in its entirety to the state, and anything beyond that to the federal government. In 1974, we formed Petronas as a common trust between the federal and state governments for all petroleum found anywhere in Malaysia, onshore or offshore.


We did this by persuading the states governments, one by one, to vest their entire rights and claims to petroleum, onshore or offshore, in perpetuity to Petronas. The federal government did the same.


By design, this obliterated any considerations of whether the oil was found within or beyond three or 12 nautical miles. So long as Malaysia had any share in the oil, the profits would be divided between the federal government and the relevant state government according to a simple formula: five percent to each.


That series of vestings was secured through deeds signed according to the Petroleum Development Act. As the founding chairman of Petronas I signed these deeds with each chief minister and with the federal government.


Selective denial of fund.


The federal government's refusal to pay Kelantan, and it's arbitrary treatment of Terengganu's oil money – on and off according to whether the state was in Opposition hands—is in violation of a solemn contract, sealed in an Act of Parliament, between the state governments and Petronas.


The federal government is reneging on a contract and in contempt of Parliament. Its attitude to these oil payments is transparently based on one criterion: those states whose legislatures are not controlled by Barisan Nasional are denied payment.


This practice punishes citizens for their choice of state government. This is an attack on the right of the people to choose their own government within our system of parliamentary democracy. Oil payments are just one form of selective denial of funds to the states.


Putrajaya behaves as if we are a unitary state and not a federation. Ironically we have become in practice the Malayan Union which an earlier generation resisted and defeated.


The autonomy of the states, their rights to development and to the husbandry of their own resources, and the proper role of the rulers and the way in which religion is governed in public life are displaced in favour of increasingly centralized and absolute power.


This is unconstitutional and must be resisted with just as much vigour as we resisted the Malayan Union. Malaysia is not viable in the long run as a unitary state.


Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is Umno's MP for Gua Musang.


These remarks were made at 'Conversations on the Constitution - Federal–State Relations: Should states be given more power?' which was organised
by the Constitutional Law Committee, Bar Council of Malaysia on March 11,
2010.


Ku Li

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 03:46 AM PST


I swear demi pussy ROSMA to tell the whole truth if it’s convenient, half-truths when it’s necessary, and lies to save some asses

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 02:47 AM PST


We are here, not because we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers – Emmeline Pankhurst

I

There are two ongoing inquests.

Teoh Beng Hock's.

Gunasegaran's.

Both having the same objective.

To get to the truth of why and how these two men died.

Practitioners of the law will tell you that the worth of a witness's testimony turns on how much of what he or she says remains intact and uncontradicted after cross-examination and re-examination.

I have not received the transcript of the testimony in Teoh's case.

Like most of you, I depend on the online alternative news portals for accounts of what has transpired in Teoh's case.

In Gunasegaran's case, I am sent the notes of proceedings taken by someone who faithfully attends court to record as best he can all that is said.

I am behind in reporting to you on Gunasegaran's case. I shall post them as soon as I can.

____________________________________________

On 19th February, the Teoh inquest resumed hearing after having been adjourned to allow for a second, court-ordered, postmortem to be performed on the remains of the deceased. This arose following the earlier testimony of Thai pathologist Dr Porntip Rojanasunand that based on photographs and the first post-mortem report, she suspected that there was an 80 percent likelihood Teoh's death was homicidal.

That second postmortem was carried out by Sungai Buloh hospital resident pathologist Dr Shahidan Md Noor.

He gave his evidence-in-chief on 19th February.

He disputed Porntip's suggestion that there was a manual strangulation injury on the neck of the deceased.

He said that although there was a round bruise "berry" mark on the left side of the neck of the deceased, he believed it was not as a result of strangulation.

"If there was strangulation the degree of force applied by the fingers would be different and would not result in such marks. It would require a great degree of force to result in asphyxia, where there would be signs of force to the neck. The injuries to the neck is consistent as a result of falling from a high place", he is reported to have said.

Shahidan said there was bruising at the thyroid of the deceased and a permanent blood clot at the back of the tongue near the neck. He went on to confirm that the injuries found on Teoh's neck was caused by the fall.

Shahidan also said that the two pathologists, Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim from Klang Hospital, and Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar, from Universiti Malaya Medical Centre, who performed the first post mortem had done their job well.

This aspect of Shahidan's testimony has been extracted from thisMalaysiakini report.

Shahidan was cross-examined on his evidence-in-chief on 1st March.

He said that in any death-in-custody case, two procedures have to be observed:

1) examination for evidence of pressure imposed on the neck, such as signs of strangulation

2) Dissection of limbs and certain muscles would need to be carried out to ascertain whether there were beatings

He agreed that failure to perform these procedures in post-mortems in custodial death cases might suggest an attempted cover-up.

He then confirmed that the limb dissection procedure were not performed during the first post-mortem.

Asked to explain the red mark which stretched from the left to the right of Teoh's neck and was clearly visible from a photo taken during the first post-mortem, Shahidan agreed that this was not noted in the first postmortem report,agreed that looking at the bruises on the neck was an important factor to consider in the case, and was a serious omission on the part of the two pathologists who performed the first post-mortem.

He agreed that the first postmortem might not have been done in a prudent and competent manner.

He could not explain the cause of the red bruise to the neck.

Shahidan agreed that there was a possibility that Teoh may have been choked before the fall, but said it did not cause his death.

Referring to his own postmortem report he said : "There was also a left platysma muscle contusion on the left side of the neck and also similar but smaller signs on the right. This implies there was some form of oxygen deprivation to the blood.Contusion of the platysma could be a sign of choking or strangulation".

Shahidan agreed that Teoh could have been choked or tortured before he fell. "It was a possible scenario but not probable," he said.

This aspect of Shahidan's testimony has been extracted from thisMalaysiakini report.

After a 9-day break, Shahidan was re-examined yesterday.

Shahidan informeed the court that the red mark on Teoh's neck was probably there some 72 hours before Teoh fell.

Shahidan said it was not possible that Teoh was hit or strangled before he fell.

He said there was no injury to suggest that Teoh had been hit prior to his death as there were no defensive wounds.

He could not say for certain whether a choke-hold or neck-lock was applied to Teoh, but he believed Teoh to have been conscious before and during the fall.

This aspect of Shahidan's testimony has been extracted from thisMalaysiakini report.

_________________________________________________

On 5th March, I reported about day 4 of the Gunasegaran caseHERE.

The proceedings on the day saw the cross-examination of the police officer who led the raiding party that arrested Gunasegaran and 4 others.

I reproduce below the relevant part of my report of the proceedings on that day. I have highlighted in red the parts you should note.

______________________________________________

Rajinder said that he was in a room with other colleagues when Subari told him someone had fainted at the back at about 6.45pm.

Visva: Subari was with you in the room. He can't be in 2 places at the same time. I am putting it to you that you are not telling the truth.

Visva then referred the witness to the Markings on a photograph indicating the position of Guna on the floor.

Viava: My witnesses have instructed that Guna screamed in pain.

Rajinder : I didn't hear.

Visva: You said Subari heard something. What did he hear?

Rajinder : I don't know.

The witness said he did not go near the deceased but only saw Guna from the doorway, and did not touch Guna.

He said he saw Zahir sprinkle water on Guna.

Visva: Did you or your men give any first aid.

Rajinder : No

Visva: Why?

Rajinder : (Hesitates) Because Zahir sprinkled water. Besides him, Tuan Azrul sprinkled water and shook his hands.

The witness said nobody gave first aid or called for assistance or ambulance, because suspects usually pretend to be unconscious.

Visva: That is the truth, and so he was assaulted?

Rajinder : Not true

Visva: How long did you witness this sprinkling of water?

Rajinder : About 10 minutes.

________________________________________

The Gunasegaran inquest resumed on 13, 14th, 19th and 25th January, 2010 and, more recently, on 8th and 9th March, 2010.

I have not as yet reported on what transpired on those days in January. I will do that the soonest some aspects of the notes forwarded to me are clarified.

For now, let me reproduce here the unedited report I received of what transpired in court on 8th March.

It is of the testimony of Lance Corporal Zahir, who Rajinder said had sprinkled water on Gunasegaran as the latter lay on the floor of the Sentul police station.

_______________________________________________

March 8, 2010

Day 9 of the Gunasegaran Inquest

The 9th witness, Lance Corporal Zahir took the court by surprise today when he contradicted the testimony of all his collegues on several points.

Four of his collegues had testified that when the deceased collapsed, it was Zahir (who was then taking his fingerprints) who had sprinkled water on his face and moved his hands. However, the witness denied this and went further to say he did not even touch the deceased.

Questioned by the DPP, Zahir said SM Rajinder had sprinkled water on the deceased.

The witness reaffirmed this during cross examination.

Other contradictions

  • The deceased was not handcuffed en-route to the station
  • There were only three persons around when Gunasegaran collapsed, and named Rajinder as one of them, omitting Insp. Azrul.

.The witness also said the arrest report only names 4 suspects and omitted Guna's name because his was a case of drug possession.

Visva: Then why was a separate arrest report not made?

Witness: Because the urine test was not complete, the suspect could not give his urine sample.

Visva: If it was a drug possession case, the urine test was irrelevant.

The witness could not explain.

The Coroner then repeated the question.

The witness paused a while, then said he did not know.

The witness was then referred to the third report made at 8.27pm.

Visva: About an hour after the deceased was certified dead, it is stated that he possessed drugs, that he attempted to run away etc, knowing very well he will not be able to deny it. However no mention is made of his death. Isn't this strange, or is this normal?

Witness: Don't know.

The witness agreed with Visva that it is normal anywhere in Malaysia to make a report when there is a death.

Visva : Why is there no report in Gunasegaran's death?

Witness: I am given to understand the hospital will make the report.

The witness denied Visva's suggestion that he is lying in court, & that he and his collegues had conspired to conceal Guna's death to avoid an investigation.

The witness was then referred to statements of 3 of the suspects.

He agreed the accusations are serious, but denied it is the truth.

Visva: Why would they make such a serious allegation?

Witness: Because drug addicts don't like the police.

Visva then referred the witness to the testimony of Selvaraj, whom the witness affirmed had tested negative for drugs and was subsequently freed.

However, before Visva could proceed further, the witness blurted out that Selvaraj was "drunk with toddy".

Visva: Is this stated anywhere in the report.

Witness: No

Visva then severely admonished the witness for making unsubstantiated statements to mislead the court.

The witness then affirmed that Rajinder had sprinkled water on Guna when he collapsed. When Visva pointed out that Rajinder and his other collegues had testified it was the witness who did it he was silent.

Visva reminded the witness he was under oath to tell the truth and that sprinkling water on an unconscious person was a noble act – there was no reason to deny it if he had actually done so.

Visva: So who is telling the truth? Who sprinkled water and attended to Guna – or nobody at all?

Witness: (long pause)

Asked if he now wants to change his testimony, he said he "feels it was Rajinder".

The witness also affirmed he did not touch the deceased.

Visva: Rajinder said you sprinkled water and moved his hands. Now you say you did not touch him.

Witness. I am not sure.

Visva: You are a compulsive liar. There is no point in going on.

After an hour and fifteen minutes of cross examination, the credibility of the witness was in shambles.

Visva had earlier asked the Coroner to note the delayed answers and demeanor of the witness.

Posted by the taxidriver786



Indira Gets Custody Of Daughter From Muslim Husband - By Clara Chooi.

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 02:47 AM PST

After a long drawn out and bitter battle in the courts, kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi was finally granted custody of her 22-month-old daughter Prasana Diksa at the Ipoh High Court today.

High Court Justice Wan Afrah Wan Ibrahim made the decision in chambers this morning and issued an order for Indira's Muslim-convert husband to hand over Prasana immediately.

Indira's husband, now known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, did not hand over the child immediately however as he had not brought her to the court for today's decision.

Instead, he left the court immediately with the Perak Religious Department officials.

According to the officials, Mohd Ridzuan would not be able to return Prasana to his wife immediately as the toddler was presently in Kelantan.

Indira's lead counsel M. Kulasegaran told reporters outside the courtroom later that the judge had made the decision as it was in the family's best interest for Prasana to return to her mother and be together with her other two siblings, Karan Dinish, 11, and Tevi Darsiny, 12.

"Also, the judge said that Mohd Ridzuan does not even have a steady job," he said.

Kulasegaran added he hoped Mohd Ridzuan would abide by the court's order and return the child immediately.

"The court has also allowed him visitation rights at once a week," added Kulasegaran.

Prior to the decision, Kulasegaran said that the counsels from the Perak Religious Department had objected to Justice Wan Afrah presiding over the case as the matter should be referred to the Syariah Court.

"However, the court decided that it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter as Indira is a non Muslim. Furthermore, being a non-Muslim, Indira cannot go to the Syariah Court," he said.

Meanwhile, in a separate court, Indira's application to seek leave for judicial review to quash the conversion of her three children to become Muslims was postponed to April 3.

Outside the court, a teary-eyed Indira told reporters that she was relieved with the decision and happy that she would finally get to be reunited with her youngest daughter again.

"It has been very difficult for me all this time. I cannot wait to see her again, I hope she will be returned to me as soon as possible," she said.

Indira has been embroiled in a fierce custody battle for her children with her husband since early last year. She has also been trying to ensure that her children, who were converted to Muslims without her knowledge by her husband, remained as Hindus.


Courtesy of The Malaysian Insider


Najib's Orwellian 1Malaysia

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 01:58 AM PST

Datuk Seri Najib Razak was supposed to be a better Prime Minister than Tun Abdullah Badawi. But his charm offensive belies his failure to protect our democracy and our institutions. Najib replaced Pak Lah because of the Umno warlords protecting their own interests, rather than those of the country's; he is a Prime Minister beholden to Umno politicos, not the Malaysian voters.

The biggest problem people had with Pak Lah was that he was weak. He said nice things, but he didn't have the willpower to see them through. He was a career civil servant, not a politician. So we got Najib-a consummate politician.

But Pak Lah's weakness was a double-edged sword. He let a lot of people get away with saying nasty things-our nation's dirty laundry of corruption and racism was aired like never before during his time. But the Sarawak Tribune aside, the Abdullah administration also let people get away with a lot of productive debate. It was a breath of fresh air compared to the Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad regime.

The Najib regime is a return to the era of Mahathir. One of the most pervasive and repulsive examples of this is the insidious 1Malaysia campaign. It's simply a tiruan ciplak of Bangsa Malaysia or Wawasan 2020-a pretence of vision for the country. Nowadays when I go to official events, the emcees greet us: "Assalamualaikum dan salam 1Malaysia." This is nothing more than Orwellian propaganda.

Now, I could tolerate propaganda if this amorphous 1Malaysia idea were actually productive. It seems that Datuk Idris Jala has been working his butt off to make it so. But as The Malaysian Insider has reported, Idris's attempts to redress racial injustices have been rejected by the Cabinet and replaced with vague, token promises of sweet nothings.

Other reform efforts, such as the amendment or abolition of the ISA and our other anti-democratic laws seem to have fallen by the wayside. Despite the fanciful KPIs flying around, the government still cannot convince the public that our law enforcement agencies truly work to uphold justice. In the public's eyes, the MACC is as tainted and politically biased as ever. The constant foot-dragging in the prosecutions for the death of A. Kugan and the multi-billion ringgit Port Klang Free Zone disaster only suggest that Najib has no intention of meaningfully upholding the rule of law.

Under the Constitution, the same laws apply to all Malaysians: if one Malaysian has the right to peacefully protest, then all Malaysians must have that same right. Only a few days ago, the police stopped a major Pakatan rally in Kuala Lumpur because it was supposedly disturbing the peace.

When a bunch of rabble-rousers held rallies outside mosques across the country in January then-rallies where some people had the gall to call for further torching of churches-that wasn't disturbing the peace? Apparently not: Najib's regime protects your democratic rights only when it is convenient.

Now, Najib's government is going further: it is confiscating books simply because it doesn't like them. Cartoonist Zunar's 1FunnyMalaysia is gone-I suppose because the title makes fun of 1Malaysia. Amir Muhammad's Politicians Say the Darndest Things, which was perfectly acceptable for public consumption a year ago, is now gone from the shelves. Nat Tan and I edited a book on police brutality and custodial deaths, such as Teoh Beng Hock's; this book, Where is Justice, is now gone too.

Again, forget the rule of law; these books are not officially banned. (Indeed, in some stores, the sales clerk will sell them to you from behind the counter.) What Najib has simply done is intimidate booksellers into taking these books off the shelves, so you do not even realise they exist. Again, the Orwellian parallels are frightening.

What I liked about Pak Lah is that as bumbling as he was, he was an accidental democrat. Under his still-authoritarian regime, we at least saw the beginnings of some productive and open debate. Heck, he even tried to reform the Anti-Corruption Agency and overhaul some of our draconian laws like the ISA before he stepped down. If Mahathir was Bapa Pemodenan, then I daresay Pak Lah could be Bapa Demokrasi.

Najib is set only on protecting himself and the cronies of his regime, democracy and the rule of law be d***ed. 1Malaysia does not do away with any of the serious injustices in our country; this is not a government for all Malaysians. This is a government for Umno. There is a chance, of course, for Najib to change course, and make 1Malaysia for all; he could, if he wanted to, be remembered as Bapa Reformasi. But unless he takes action, I fear we may well remember him as Bapa Kezaliman.


Sleepy head Abdullah want so much for the police to charge Anwar? Police action shows Umno ‘desperate’, says Anwar

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 02:05 AM PST

PKR leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim giving his statement at the police station, accompanied by his lawyer Sankara Nair. – Picture by Jack Ooi

jeffooi02-1.jpg (372×505)

Posted by taxi2driver on February 18, 2010


UPDATED

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

PETALING JAYA, March 11 — Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today charged that the Umno-led Barisan Nasional are showing signs of desperation by using the police to intimidate Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders.

Anwar claimed that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife are behind the campaign of police harassment against PR.

"I sense this continued harassment by the police by the behest of the political masters and clearly under the administration of Datuk Seri Najib and Rosmah. There is this intimidation using the police. I had to deal with three police reports filed by the police themselves and one by a so called concerned citizen," he told reporters here.

The four police reports were lodged on the 16, 17, 22 and 27 of February.

Anwar said that Umno were using scare tactics to stop the democratic process in the country.

"We strongly resent and protest this continued intimidation by the police force. We also strongly protest how the police is used by Umno leadership of Datuk Seri Najib and Rosmah to hinder the process of democracy in the country. If this is the way to scare us then I would like to guarantee on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat that it does not even bother us a bit

"When authoritarian leaders sense that there is a demand for change and sentiments against their oppressive policies, they normally resort to punitive and oppressive measures," he said.

Anwar gave a statement to the police today — joining the list of Pakatan Rakyat leaders who have been asked to meet the police over their recent public speeches at four gatherings.

Three uniformed and two plain clothed police officers arrived from Penang to interrogate Anwar at party headquarters at noon.

And why does Abdullah want so much for the police to charge Anwar? Simple:
because his Deputy, Najib Tun Razak, would invariably get dragged into this
whole mess.

The interrogators from Timur Laut were led by ASP Mohd Syukry Moh Ali.

Anwar confirmed that he is currently being investigated for unlawful assembly, sedition and criminal defamation.

The Malaysian Insider understands that the interviews are a result of police reports made at Batu Maung, Kepala Batas, Kampung Baru and Kubang Semang.

At these gatherings Anwar spoke about the legislature's and judiciary's loss of credibility, the lost jet engines, the death of the Mongolian model, the second sodomy trial and developments in 'Allah' controversy.

"What is this? What is the purpose? Why is there apparently mention of the Altantuya murder, mention commission of corruption regarding the procurement of two submarines and there is mention of the jet engines and sodomy trial. Why is this a case of concern by the police? Unless there is of course rioting and disturbances. These are peaceful assemblies, many of them with permits and some of them are just tea parties," he said.

So far those questioned have been Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, R. Sivarasa and Salahuddin Ayub. The latter two being vice-presidents of PKR and PAS respectively.

Sivarasa and Salahuddin have had their statements taken following accusations that they made seditious statements at a public rally in Penang early last month.

Salahuddin disclosed that the police inquired about portions of his speech which touched on 'Allah' but the Kubang Kerian MP refused to answer their questions.

Sivarasa, also the Subang MP, was asked about his comments on Anwar's sodomy trial which is ongoing.

Anwar also urged the police to be independent when exercising their duty.

"Our advice to the police is focus on the problem and security. Don't be servants of the Umno corrupt leaders. Let political leaders collide at the Parliament and don't be used by political leaders and concentrate on the problem of increasing crime," he said.



Ku Li: PDA supercedes all pre-Merdeka oil contracts

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 02:00 AM PST


Kelantan's oil royalty champion, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said today that Sarawak's oil royalty may have been arranged when it was still a British colony but as it is now a part of Malaysia, it is subject to the rules laid down in the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974.

The Kelantan prince was responding to a statement from former Sarawak Chief Minister Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub who in an enclusive interview with The Malaysian Insider yesterday claimed the Borneo state's cash payments from the federal government were a result of a 1954 declaration by Queen Elizabeth II that its territorial waters were not limited to only three nautical miles from its coast.

"He's right," Razaleigh replied when asked if he agreed with Abdul Rahman.

But, he added quickly that the arrangement was no longer binding on the federal government.

Sarawak, together with its sister Borneo state, Sabah, joined the peninsular to form the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.

"The Petroleum Development Act supercedes all previous laws and Acts," Razaleigh stressed.

MORE TO COME


No comments: