Sunday, August 8, 2010

MCA Should Stop Listening to Islamophobes Like Syed Akhbar Ali

MCA Should Stop Listening to Islamophobes Like Syed Akhbar Ali

MCA Should Stop Listening to Islamophobes Like Syed Akhbar Ali

Posted: 08 Aug 2010 01:15 PM PDT

Chua Soi Lek decided to hug Syed Akbar Ali's theory thigthly. Malaysiakini reports:
According to "Malaysia and the Club of Doom" authored by Syed Akbar Ali, there are 57 Muslim-majority countries in the world and their common characteristics are:
1. They are less democratic because they emphasise more on religion.
2. Although these countries have Cabinets and elections but they also have a Council of Muslim Elders, which enjoys absolute power to override the decisions or policies made by the government.
3. Some of these countries are practicing absolute monarchy.
4. Since these countries formulate their policy using religion as basis, policies formulated will not be in par with the global development requirement. Thus the economic growth of these countries are always not ideal.

As a whole, Syed Akbar Ali's (SAA) contention is the emphasis of religion being the inhibitor of progress in Muslim world.

My first question to SAA is:

Why are multinationals investing billions in countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman etc whom practices absolute monarchies and, in the case of Saudi, practices the Shariah laws 100%?

In fact, the most Islamic of these countries are the most economically advance Muslim countries in the world.

Muslim countries in Central Asia are the most backwards of all the Muslim countries. Yet, they use to b under Communist rule for the last 50 years or so and has no Islamic institutions nor any types of monarchies influenced by Islam.

Yet, they're still backwards. By SAA's logic, they should be most advance as they have managed to shed Islam from all their institutions.

By SAA's logic, countries like Albania should be the most advance Muslim nation in the world. Many Muslims in Albania don't even want to admit they are Muslims. 50 years under Communism had managed to erased most of the Islamic presence in countries like Albania or Central Asia states.

Simple facts like these are enough to render SAA's book trash It's a pity that the entire MCA organization has to lower their standards and base their understanding of Islam on trash writers like Syed Akhbar Ali.

(or maybe SAA had conveniently neglected to study the Central Asian states?)

In fact, the shariah is the only thing preventing countries like Saudi Arabia turning into "totalitarianism". Shariah has managed to ensure "rule of law" existing in countries such as Saudi Arabia. In fact, calling Saudi Arabia as "absolute monarchy" is a grave error.

But, to Islamophobes like SAA, he doesn't care. He just marches on with his lies.
Please read this article from the New York Times entitled "Why Shariah?" by a Jewish gentleman by the name of Noah Feldman.

You will find that those who studies shariah objectively, will not put blame of Muslim's backwardness due to shariah regardless what his/her religion or race is.
In short, Noah says:

a. The Shariah has been the instrument for maintaining the "rule of law" in the 1400 years of Islamic rule, whether it's Caliphate or Sultanate.
b. To Muslims, the concept of "Rule of Law" and "Shariah" is interchangeable. This is because the Shariah has been instrumental in preventing power concentrated to the executive (in the form of Caliphate or Sultans)
c. Since Shariah, derived from Al Quran, As Sunnah, Ijma (Consensud) and Qiyas (allegory) cannot stand on it's own, it requires a group of people in the society to "operate" it. This group of people has come to be known to us as Scholars, "Ulama" or "Mullah".
d. Caliphates and Sultans gains their legitimacy as rulers and executives from the "Scholar"class. In return, the power to legislate and adjudicate are given to the "scholars" thus ensuring the rule of law.
e. The Caliphates are limited to executive decisions and regulations but they have control of the Army. However, since the "Ulama" has control in matters of laws, the balance of power is maintained.
f. In short, "rule of law" and "separation of powers" has been in practice in Islam for the last 1400 years.


Syed Akhbar Ali's book is trash. He conveniently ignores glaring facts to support his Islamophobe agenda. I pity MCA for betting on someone like Syed Akhbar Ali. Ever heard of the saying "The blind leading the blind"?

To me, Syed Akhbar Ali's attempt to blame Islam for the backwardness of Muslims is not only factually wrong but also pathetic.

Tulang Besi

Kg Baru: Pakatan bentangkan pelan alternatif

Posted: 08 Aug 2010 09:05 AM PDT

Menteri besar Selangor Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim memberi jaminan bahawa pegangan kaum Bumiputera ke atas tanah Kampung Baru di Kuala Lumpur akan dikekalkan melalui satu pelan pembangunan alternatif. Pelan tersebut yang dibentangkan kepada pemilik tanah berkenaan hari ini dirancang dengan pembentukan satu tabung amanah untuk mentadbir tanah seluas kira-kira 300 ekar itu. Sesi penerangan di Dewan Kelab Sultan Ismail, Kampung Baru itu dianjurkan oleh pejabat ahli parlimen Titiwangsa dan pejabat menteri besar Selangor. Dalam ucapannya, Khalid menjelaskan bahawa tabung amanah berkenaan merupakan alternatif kepada cadangan kerajaan persekutuan untuk mewujudkan satu perbadanan untuk bagi memajukan tanah tersebut. Khalid berkata, melalui rancangan alternatif itu, kesemua pemilik tanah akan diberikan unit saham mengikut keluasan tanah mereka. Tanah itu juga dirancang supaya ditukar statusnya menjadi tanah komersil dengan pegangan bebas. Dua bentuk saham akan ditawarkan, dan salah satunya diberikan mengikut keluasan tanah. "Saya cadangkan supaya buat tabung amanah tapi sewa tanah dan geran dijadikan unit saham yang boleh dipecah-pecahkan. "Kalau ada 10000 kaki persegi contohnya, boleh jadi 10000 unit saham. "Saham tanah ini tidak boleh diurusniaga melainkan kepada orang Melayu sahaja. Jadi tanah di kawasan pembangunan baru ini dimiliki 100 peratus oleh orang Melayu sahaja," katanya Bagi memberi pulangan kepada pemilik tanah, saham kedua akan diberikan, yang memberi pulangan melalui <b>...</b>
Views: 0
0 ratings
Time: 12:21 More in News & Politics


Posted: 08 Aug 2010 06:37 AM PDT

Story to follow.
Views: 0
0 ratings
Time: 12:21 More in News & Politics

PENGUMUMAN: 766 Peneroka Akan Menyaman FELDA Besok!!!!

Posted: 08 Aug 2010 07:24 AM PDT

Child Marriage Is No Solution

Posted: 08 Aug 2010 01:48 AM PDT

Melaka is a place for good food. Unfortunately, it ends there.

Once upon a time, it was hailed as the cultural and historical heritage of Malaysia, the birthplace of our current nation.

I have been there a number of times, and I see nothing to shout about. Everything is touristy and fabricated. Perhaps I should have headed for the beaches instead of trying to explore the town.

But what can you expect from Melaka, when its state government has decided to allow child marriages to purportedly curtail out-of-wedlock pregnancies?

I won't say more on government policies and the need for restructuring society and addressing social ills, as this entry says it all.

However, I recall a bit of drama concerning teenage parents when I was in the UK last year. Apparently, a 13-year-old boy had fathered a child with his 15-year-old girlfriend.

It was even more befuddling as the kid's voice hadn't even broken yet and he looked like a 9-year-old.

But Alfie Patten was going to raise the child well, he claimed. Never-ending news reports detailed how he had bottle-fed his daughter and changed diapers.

It was very hard for me to smother my cynicism. It is rather difficult for parents in their 20s to cope with raising their newborns - what more for teenagers?

Anyway, it turned out his girlfriend was a bit of a player. After numerous other teenage boys came forward claiming to be the father, Alfie Patten took a paternity test - only to discover that the little girl wasn't his.

So that was that.

I suspect if he had gotten hitched to his girlfriend, that marriage would have ended in divorce.

Children do grow up and change, after all.

I am monitoring China's quiet revolution...

Posted: 08 Aug 2010 01:16 AM PDT

while Malaysian leaders slip back into I970s politics and self-glorification. Or izzit self-flagellation?

Sodomy I was not enought. They now enjoy Sodomy II! Can we expect Sodomy III cometh 2020?
It's not beyond UMNO fools, jesters or plain morons.
While the rest of the world moves ahead, we gostan!

Engines of Growth
By Austin Ramzy Monday, Aug. 16, 2010
Click here to find out more!

People get ready There's a bullet train a-coming. China plans to double the size of its high-speed network in two years
Photograph by Michael Christopher Brown for TIME

* Print
* Email

* Digg
* Facebook
* Yahoo Buzz
* Twitter
Add to my:
+ Technorati
+ reddit
+ Google Bookmarks
+ Mixx
+ StumbleUpon
Blog this on:
+ TypePad
+ LiveJournal
+ Blogger
+ MySpace

* 8diggsdigg

When I first rode the rail line between the eastern Chinese cities of Suzhou and Shanghai in 1996, it felt as if the passengers were fleeing a disaster. Hundreds jammed through the station doors in Suzhou and sprinted for the train. With bags held high or balanced on bamboo poles, they choked the entrances to the cars, jostling for a prime spot on board. Those like me who didn't have the gumption to do the same were left to stand or sit on the floor. I found some room between cars, put my bag down and perched on top of it. The metal floor had rusted through in spots, and I could see the tracks below. For much of the two-hour, 100-km ride, I could smell the tracks too. The train's toilets emptied directly onto them.

Today, rolling suitcases have replaced bamboo poles as the primary means of hauling loads, and the walk across Suzhou station's platforms is a leisurely stroll. My seat is assigned, so there's no need to battle for position. I find my spot and slip into the comfortable reclining chair. The next passenger listens to music on his new Nokia phone as the train accelerates. It feels as though we've hardly left the station when an announcement tells us to prepare for the next stop, Shanghai. When the digital speedometer in the car hits 231 km/h, the Japanese businessmen sitting across from me look up from their laptops and nod in approval. The trip takes 42 minutes and, thankfully, I don't smell a thing. (See pictures of China's infrastructure boom.)

In early July, an even faster line went into service linking Shanghai to Suzhou and Nanjing with trains that can run up to 350 km/h. That sort of relentless upgrading is typical of Chinese rail these days. Of all the infrastructural improvements this striving nation has made in the past three decades, perhaps the most impressive are those to the railway system. In 1981 China had 54,000 km of track; by the end of this year it will have nearly doubled that to 100,000 km. More importantly, China has gone from having one of the world's largest rail networks to also having one of the best. It covers some of the world's most difficult terrain — like the Tibetan Plateau, where workers laid track over a 5,000-m pass and 550 km of permafrost to link the Tibetan capital of Lhasa with the rest of China. The system has also seen a steady increase in average speed, from 48 km/h in 1993 to 70 km/h in 2007. On some routes, averages are phenomenal. The journey from the city of Wuhan in central China to Guangzhou in the south is now covered at 313 km/h. It's the fastest average speed in the world for a passenger train and cuts the trip time from 10 and a half hours to three hours.

Chinese authorities aren't satisfied, however. Spending on railroad construction increased 80% over 2008 totals to reach $88 billion in 2009. It will climb to $120 billion this year and exceed $700 billion over the next decade. The most ambitious focus of that investment is the expansion of China's high-speed passenger rail. Right now, China is the world's leader with 6,552 km of high-speed tracks (defined as those that can carry trains at speeds over 200 km/h). It plans to double that distance in two years. (Read "A Brief History of High-Speed Rail.")

At a time when infrastructure in the U.S. and Europe is aging fast, China's railways may give it a competitive edge over the world's leading economies. Rail would move travelers around the country in large numbers at unprecedented speeds. Smaller cities in the interior would grow in importance as ease of movement allows for longer journeys between them and jobs in larger centers. Fresh passenger lines would also free up older tracks for more freight transport, sending raw materials and finished goods across the country more easily. "Why is it like this?" asks Yang Zhongmin, the director general of the Ministry of Railways Development and Planning Department. "Because we went through 30 years when [rail] development fell behind the national rate of growth. So now we have to go faster." One of the aims is to help fulfill a long-term goal of developing China's western regions, which have not kept pace with the eastern provinces and their export-led boom. High-speed rail will enable growth in the interior "to be almost the same as what it is on the coast," argues Jia Limin, a professor of what the Chinese term railway science at Beijing Jiaotong University. "It will push western development much faster."

Read "Can High-Speed Rail Get on Track?"

See pictures of the largest military parade in China's history.

Read more:,9171,2008791,00.html?iid=tsmodule#ixzz0w04MaLFj

Are you at home, minister?

Posted: 07 Aug 2010 04:10 PM PDT

By Kee Thuan Chye

Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said this at the press conference in 2009 in which he defended the cow-head protesters: "In this day and age, protests should be accepted in this world, as people want their voices to be heard. If we don't give them room to voice their opinions, they have no choice but to protest." He should of course be held accountable for this statement.

Why then did the police clamp down so hard on the people taking part in the anti-ISA candlelight vigil on Aug 1? Why did Hishammuddin not come out to advise the police that this voicing of the people's opinions was acceptable and room should be given for it?

Why was he so understanding towards the cow-head protestors – who were potentially more threatening to national security because they displayed violence against a sacred icon of the Hindus – and so intolerant of the people participating in a peaceful demonstration, some of whom were reportedly singing the national anthem when the police moved in on them?

Aren't those in power aware that this display of double standards will be viewed as such by sensible Malaysians, and that it may come back to haunt them at the hustings? Are they so arrogant about their power and so confident they won't be displaced that they don't have to care about what the public might think?

Hishammuddin has been eloquent in expressing this position. In fact, his track record since becoming home minister suggests that he is not behaving like a home minister who should be looking after the country's internal matters and safeguarding its security for the sake of all citizens. He appears more like a home minister safeguarding the interests of the ruling party and those of selected groups. The rest of us can go to blazes!

Speaking of blazes, he sent out questionable signals on Jan 6, 2010, after the High Court's ruling on the "Allah" issue, when he said he would allow a demonstration by Muslims after Friday prayers at a mosque in Kuala Lumpur's city centre. One day later, churches in KL and Petaling Jaya were attacked with fire-bombs and molotov cocktails. The public reaction to that was that Hishammuddin should be held accountable because he did not forestall any potential undesirable action but instead allowed a sensitive issue to be stoked.

While he had been so assiduous in breaking up other demonstrations, especially those opposing government actions and policies – most of which were peaceful and of little potential danger to society – he was uncharacteristically lax when it came to the "Allah" issue protests. In other words, he put the nation's security at risk.

He did nothing to stop the cow-head protest on Aug 28, 2009, either. Perhaps he couldn't because it happened so fast. Nonetheless, it was one of the most shameful and blatant public demonstrations of religious intolerance Malaysians had seen in a long time. It had the explosive potential of causing inter-racial strife.

Worse, Hishammuddin came out to defend the protesters afterwards. This was almost unbelievable; sensible Malaysians were shocked that a minister was justifying what had apparently been a seditious act. And seated next to him at the press conference was a protestor who had earlier declared that all non-Malays were second-class citizens.

'Pig's head in Umno HQ'

As if that was not enough, Hishammuddin also said that a pig's head had once been wrapped in an Umno flag and dumped outside Umno's headquarters. Why did he have to bring that up? In drawing a parallel between that act and the cow desecration, was he saying that two wrongs made a right? Or, more sinisterly, was he trying to blame another community for having perpetrated that "haram" act as if to plead that the cow desecration was understandable and therefore excusable?

To this day, I have yet to fathom the reason for a home minister to bring up that kind of parallel. To me, it is something that would cause disharmony and divide the people, which a home minister should not do. Was Hishammuddin not aware of the importance of what he said? Is he someone who shoots off his mouth without thinking first?

The prospect of that seems likely – and recent evidence seems to support it. This was in conjunction with his declaration of regret over the mistake made by his predecessor, Syed Hamid Albar, in banning the Catholic Church from using the word "Allah". He added that the mistake would haunt his ministry for a very long time.

Automatically, anyone hearing that declaration would retort, "So what are you going to do about it? Why stop at just expressing regret? It's at your disposal to take action and rectify Syed Hamid's mistake. Why not do so?"

That action would of course be to drop the government's appeal against the high court ruling on the use of the word "Allah". Taking that step would show Hishammuddin's sincerity in saying what he said. Otherwise, talk is cheap, as they say. And people can accuse him of saying it merely as a cheap shot to win non-Muslim and East Malaysian votes.

But what was his reaction three days later? He back-tracked on his earlier statement by saying that the "Allah" matter should be decided by the courts. No, Hishammuddin, it doesn't have to be. The government can choose not to pursue it further – and that doesn't involve the courts.

But that apparently is not what he wants, because he rejoined, "Why would the government retract the appeal, or why would the church retract the court case?" The second part of that sentence is of course irrelevant. Nobody from the church has made any statement recently along the lines of expressing regret for having challenged Syed Hamid's ban.

In dragging the church in, Hishammuddin was displaying the same warped thinking that characterised his mention of the pig's heads dumped at Umno headquarters. In actuality, he was actually trying to deflect the question he should be answering, i.e. "Why shouldn't the government retract the appeal?"

Then he tried to make some excuse for having expressed that regret in the first place, by saying that it should be seen in the context of his giving an answer to a question posed at a students' forum. But why should that be considered less valid? He said it. He addressed the issue. That's the point. Where he said it and in what context are irrelevant.

Wasn't he serious when he answered the student's question? Or is it that he only now realises he shouldn't have said it because it's come back to hold him accountable? And he wants to get out of being accountable by saying it was merely an answer to a student's question? Sorry, my dear man, it doesn't work like that. You can't worm yourself out of the situation with excuses.

Then he got defensive: "I regret that there are terrorists in Malaysia, I regret there are peragut (snatch-thieves) in Malaysia, I regret that this (the word Allah) is becoming an issue. But why pick on that to make it a firestorm or bigger than what it is?"

Any intelligent person can see through the desperation in that defensive drivel. But more damning for him is the fact that by saying it, he was demeaning his earlier statement of regret. He now seemed to be connoting that he didn't really mean it because he was merely speaking off the cuff at the time, speaking impulsively, merely answering a question. It came to his mind and it sounded right, and so he said it. So don't take his word for it. He was merely talking. The bottom line, therefore, is, he wasn't sincere.

If a minister can be like that, talk like that, make impulsive statements and later deny their import, even sincerity, then he has no business being a trusted official of the nation and its people. Perhaps he should do the honourable thing and step down. But then, that might be too much to expect of a man who cannot even stand by what he said.

Dramatist and journalist Kee Thuan Chye is the author of 'March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up'


Tengku, oh Tengku, engage brain first before opening mouth

Posted: 11 Mar 2007 03:57 AM PDT

Publicity is one of the staple diets of politicians. They will probably do, eat and say anything to be noticed, hoping to score points. It matters not either whether the outcome be good or bad. As long as they be the first to do it they will come out looking like heroes.

Close to home, our latest hero is none other than our Minister of Tourism, Tengku Adnan. Does he not realise that he had scored an unprecedented idiotic first in many categories? Foremost of which is, for making a sweeping statement that all bloggers are liars. Another, that he makes a wild claim that out of the 10,000 unemployed bloggers he purportedly knows 80% are women, which is ludicrous. Yet another, that bloggers do not like national unity, which is a laugh.

Where have you been, Tengku? The fact that most bloggers – despite their colour, creed, standing and belief – are coming together on issues that affect the small guy and general public shows that there's national unity – and not as you have otherwise claimed.

Don't you think first before shamelessly issuing forth a bad case of rheto-rrhea? (A condition loosely associated with brainless rhetoric and verbal diarrhea.)

Your comedy of errors, sir, culled from your statements in Sin Chew on 09 March 07, just probably prove you are hopelessly devoid of grey matter. The followings are your doing. You make sweeping statements. You make up figures. You lack good sense for whacking women (bloggers) just hours after International Women's Day was launched. You probably scare away tourists during VMY 2007 when it is your paramount responsibility to ensure that they come. You accuse….

I ought to end … with something for you to ponder over. Think before you speak, sir. When you don't look good, you make us Malaysians not look good. Your latest issue has stained us worldwide and the stench reeks and lingers as far.

I hope you are happy you are a hero now.


Anwar Ibrahim – the most dangerous man in our country today

Posted: 07 Aug 2010 10:08 PM PDT

I used to support this man's mission "A New Dawn For Malaysia" with a passion and would go all out to help put him on the road to the highest office in Putrajaya.

Today, I feel differently. Today, I fear for my country -  should he succeed in becoming the country's numero uno.

Since September 16 2008, I have had enough time to see through his hollow political antics, deceitful 'nato' rhetorics and stupefyingly inept leadership to convince me this man just don't cut it. I honestly cannot reconcile the fact that a leader who is utterly clueless at solving his own intra-party problems that had led to mass abandonment of the PKR ship could be effective in administrating a country!

Seriously, the weakest link in the chain of parties in Pakatan Rakyat at the moment has to be PKR. And the same ineffective leader of PKR is the ketua umum of PR? PAS better has an exit plan fast lest the deadweight of this man's ignominy pulls it down into the depth of its political death.

Anwar Ibrahim of late has been in the news for the wrong reasons. I am not referring to his Sodomy Trial II which may have all the appearances and makings of a trumped-up charge. I pray for justice to prevail and the judges bold enough to set the innocent man free or convict the guilty as charged should the evidence be overwhelming and beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Anwar Ibrahim, I pray to God that you'll be proven innocent and set free to continue with your mission. But as a free man, I will hound you, watch your every move and make sure to do my part to help stop you from achieving your dream. The premiership of my beloved country is far too dangerous for a man who kow-tows to, seeks the help of and consorts with Zionists on a regular basis. (PAS, now you know where I am coming from, don't you?)

The Zionist agenda is and always will be to seek world domination, one country at a time. The people involved are hell-bent on sowing discord, ensnaring a nation's top or likely to be top honcho and coveting its natural resources. Don't be fooled by their outward show of solidarity. In order to achieve their goal, they will initially bend over for you (no pun intended), do your bidding, even finance and fight 'your wars' and when the time is right (i.e. when you become the chief executive of the country) they will require your pound of flesh. Invariably you will be persuaded (read Confessions Of An Economic Hitman and The Secret History Of The American Empire by John Perkins) to sell-out yourself and the country. Namely, while you will be enticed to enrich yourself, your family and your cronies, the rest of the citizenry will bear the burden of your treasonous folly. For sure, our national resources will become theirs to own. Our domestic and foreign policies will be theirs to wreak havoc with.

Are you aware of this hidden agenda, Anwar Ibrahim? Are you as afraid as me of this scenario taking place - once you become the top administrator?

As far as I am concerned, you have already sold your soul for what you have been doing and reported in the news lately. Read here, here, here and here.

As for me, I will endeavor to protect mine and my country's fellowmen and womenfolk's.

For the uninitiated, be mindful and watchful, the Zionists tentacles are far-flung, deep-reaching and their covert activities fronted by organisations (and their off-shoots) that include The International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Bank, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Rothschild Foundation, The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) and The Bilderberg Group.

Tagged: anwar ibrahim, pakatan rakyat, PAS, pkr


Posted: 07 Aug 2010 07:07 PM PDT

---->蔡细历(面向镜头左)与党员握手交流,其身后:马华玻州主席傅子初。 (图:星洲日报)







The judicial rot deepens

Posted: 07 Aug 2010 08:33 AM PDT

By Kim Quek

COMMENT Justice Azahar's Mohamed's decision to strike out Zaid Ibrahim's application to annul Malaysia's dirtiest by-election - for the Hulu Selangor constituency - was completely within my expectation.

In fact, the moment I learned that Chief Justice Zaki Azmi - a former Umno stalwart - had appointed Azahar to handle the case, I knew that Zaid's prospect was doomed.

For, wasn't Azahar the judge who handed out the atrociously "double-standard" judgment in the Perak Speaker vs Speaker case on Sept 8, 2009? In that judgment over the chaotic state assembly sitting on May 7, 2009, he rejected Pakatan Rakyat speaker V Sivakumar's complaints against Barisan Nasional speaker R Ganesan on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to intervene into affairs of the assembly.

But he failed to realise that by declaring Ganesan's election as speaker during the same assembly sitting as a lawful act, he was in fact committing the same intervention he said he wanted to avoid in the first place. (Azahar's self-contradiction was so blatant that it earned the title of "Speaker vs Speaker: Judge Azahar slapping his own face?" to an article in my book "The March to Putrajaya").

Judge Azahar's reputation dubious

And, wasn't Azahar also the prosecutor accused of fabricating false evidence against Anwar Ibrahim during the infamous Anwar corruption trial a decade ago which was resoundingly condemned around the world as a heinous travesty of justice and an outright political persecution? (This is an accusation that Azahar was not known to have denied, see Note 1 below)

What sort of outcome can you expect when a former Umno stalwart appoints a judge of such reputation to hear a case of such high political stake?

Now let us get to the nitty-gritty of Azahar's judgment.

Azahar allowed BN's P Kamalanathan's application to strike out Zaid's petition on the following grounds:

* Zaid failed to identify the recipients of the alleged corrupt act.

* Zaid failed to show how the alleged corrupt acts have altered the outcome of the election.

* Zaid failed to provide a full text of the speech or transcript of the alleged bribery.

Zaid Ibrahim's allegation of corrupt acts in this petition was focused only on Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's offer of RM3 million to a Chinese school and offers of cash to Felda settlers, though there were innumerable other material inducements by BN amounting to many millions during the election campaign.

Evidence of bribery monumental

When Najib made the offer of RM3 million on the eve of polling day, he told the electorate in Rasa that they could come to his office to secure the payment the next day of election if Kamalanathan won. But he added: "If we lose, don't have to come." This sensational bribery offer was instantly splashed all over the Internet which was read around the world, in addition to appearing in some local newspapers the next day.

Much to the amazement of many, Najib not only failed to feel guilty, he seemed mighty proud of this act when he cited this incident as proof of his "trustworthiness" during the subsequent Sibu by-election campaign when he made a similar offer to the Sibu electorate on the eve of polling day. This time, his full speech was captured in video and uploaded in You Tube which attracted a world-wide audience.

Najib's cash offer to the Sungai Buaya Felda scheme was: RM160,000 to former settlers for every acre of land developed, and RM50,000 for the next-of-kin of settlers upon their death. These offers were publicly announced and reported in the media.

Do these acts constitute election corruption and bribery under the Election Offences Act 1954"?

Let us take a look at Sections 32(a) and 32(c) of the same Act, upon which Zaid based his petition.

Section 32, titled "Avoidance of election on election petition", reads: "The election of a candidate at any election shall be declared to be void on an election petition on any of the followings only which may be proved to the satisfaction of the Election Judge:

(a) That general bribery, general treating or general intimidation have so extensively prevailed that they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result of the election.

(b) ………..

(c) That a corrupt practice or illegal practice was committed in connection with the election by the candidate or with his knowledge or consent, or by any agent of the candidate.

(d) ………." (There are five sub-sections under Section 32).

Grounds of judgment ridiculous

Would any common man, after reading this, have the slightest doubt that bribery to induce votes have indeed taken place? Wasn't it crystal clear that the offer of RM3 milion was a trade-off for the electorate's votes for Kamalanathan? Wasn't the cash offers to Felda settlers an outright inducement for their votes for BN? Don't our judges have the same kind of common sense that our common folks have?

Judge Azahar says that the recipients of bribery must be indentified and evidence produced that the alleged bribery has in fact altered the election results before he would even begin to hear the case proper.

But isn't an attempt to bribe sufficient to constitute an offence?

Why must the judge insist on such exhaustive details at such a preliminary stage when the respondent is asking the case to be thrown out without actually hearing it? Isn't there sufficient evidence at this stage to at least arouse the judge's curiosity to hear further so that justice may not be aborted. What is Judge Azahar here for – to serve justice or to serve something else?

Does Azahar realise that he is doing our judicial system, nay our entire democratic system, a grievous injury when his judgment on such a watershed case is even perceived to have transgressed justice, not to mention that it has actually done so.

Coming back to Azahar's various grounds upon which he decided not to hear Zaid's petition.

He said, the recipients of the alleged bribery have not been identified. Aren't the electorate of Rasa and Sungei Buaya the recipients? If the entire country, and even the world, have already had access to this news, why should Azahar be so doubtful of this fact that he refuses to hear further?

Azahar said Zaid has not produced evidence that such alleged bribery has affected the election results. What kind of evidence does he have in mind? Does he expect voter A to swear that he wanted to vote for Zaid, but due to Najib's offer, he changed his mind and voted for Kalamanathan?

If voter A really does that, would Azahar accept voter A's word as gospel truth? If not, what other evidence does Azahar have in mind before he would agree that pervasive offer of inducement has in fact swayed the decision of voters? Come on Judge, let us not carry such nonsense to the bizarre.

Azahar also said he had to throw out the case because Zaid did not provide a full text of Najib's speech or a transcript; but if the whole world has known his speech and he even bragged about it himself, isn't Azahar making a fool of himself by rejecting the case on such flimsy ground?

We have seen enough nonsense and treachery in our courts. What Zaid must do now is to appeal all the way to the highest court. Let the whole world see how bad our judiciary is. And let all Malaysians realise that the only way to get justice in this country is to change the government.


Note 1: Azahar, then a prosecutor, was accused of fabricating false evidence against Anwar together with Gani Patail during the corruption trial in 1999 in the Zainur Zakaria vs Public Prosecutor case. The Federal Court subsequently stated that there was a prima facie case justifying the application to disqualify these two prosecutors, noting that both had not denied the accusation at the material time. This statement has not been contradicted or challenged to date. You may refer to the following Malaysian Bar website for further details.

1 comment: