Hisham's non-apology apology (Malaysiakini)

We've all said and done things that we wish we could take back. Hishammuddin Hussein surely must rue the day he first raised that keris at the Umno general assembly in 2005.
He probably had no idea that the image of him waving that keris with a look of fierce determination would forever haunt him.A picture speaks a thousand words and this one was used to good effect by the opposition in the recent election. He was given the moniker 'Kerismuddin' by some and that issue was to dominate subsequent Umno general assemblies.Once Hishammuddin had let the keris out of the bag, so to speak, there was no way of putting it back in. He simply could not fail to raise the keris at subsequent general assemblies because it would have been seen as a sign of weakness. He had gotten himself onto a one-way street with no U-turns.While he himself did not pay a personal electoral cost for his actions some of the electoral fallout on the Barisan Nasional component parties could be attributed to the keris-waving incident.And so we come to last week, when Hishammuddin apologised for his actions. Was it a non-apology apology? Some people think so, for good reasons.Firstly, he said he was sorry 'if' he had offended the non-Malays. Is there any doubt that they were not just offended but outraged by it? Even party veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah attributed the keris-waving as one of the reasons why non-Malays were willing to vote PAS over Umno.Secondly, in the same breath, he also apologised to the Malays for failing to defend the use of the keris as a Malay symbol. How does he expect anyone to interpret his apology as sincere when he takes back with one hand what he extends with the other? While we understand that this was a political move to defend his position within Umno, it would only provide fodder to those (such as ourselves) who question the sincerity of such an 'apology'.He’s a fake ultraThe sad thing about this incident is that we do not believe Hishammuddin to be a traditional Malay ultra. Like his deputy, Khairy Jamaluddin, he is what you'd call a fake ultra – someone who tries so hard to be an ultra for the sake of drumming up grassroots support.His upbringing and demeanor certainly gives no indication of any deep ultra roots. His father, was third prime minister Hussein Onn, who probably had as many non-Malay friends as Malay ones. His grandfather, Onn Jaafar, famously tried (but failed) to open up Umno to non-Malays.Furthermore, Hishammuddin's track record as the minister of education has not been a bad one, especially when it comes to giving financial assistance to Chinese and Tamil schools and making it easier for them to relocate. But with one movement of his arm, he undid much of the goodwill that would have come his way from the non-Malay community.His apology has resulted in calls from within Umno for him to resign but for different reasons.An Umno leader in Johor came out to say that the apology was not sufficient and that Hishammuddin should step down because his actions led to the historic electoral losses. This could have been a strategic ploy to weaken Hishammuddin and strengthen the hand of another Johor Umno leader who is poised to take on Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for the presidency of Umno.Meanwhile, another Umno figure from Cheras has come out to call for Hishammuddin's resignation for giving into the demands of the non-Malays! This is probably more reflective of the general sentiment within Umno, especially in Umno Youth, but even if they feel this way, these days they would generally think twice before articulating it.While Hishammuddin would like this matter to be put behind him, the whole issue of the keris (should it be raised again or not?) and the apology (was it insufficient or was it not even necessary?) will bound to emerge from time to time, and especially when the Umno general assembly draws near.Hishammuddin has refused to say whether the keris will be raised again but we think that given the events of the past two months, it's highly unlikely that it will be raised - at least not in the same belligerent fashion as before. It might still make an appearance but in a non-threatening way.Ol' Blue Eyes once sang: "Regrets, I've had a few, but then again too few to mention." Hishammuddin might not have too many regrets in his life but if he were to ever write an autobiography, the one regret that he would probably mention is his decision to raise the keris on that fateful day in 2005.Let this be a lesson to others aspiring leaders within Umno.

Gobind challenges Khairy to apologise (Malaysiakini)

Deputy Umno Youth chief and Rembau parliamentarian Khairy Jamaluddin should follow the example set by his boss Hishammuddin Hussein and apologise for having called participants in last year’s Bersih rally beruk (monkeys).DAP’s Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo issued this challenge to Khairy at a press conference held at the Parliament lobby yesterday.“I think what Hishammuddin has done is perhaps the beginning of what should come from Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders: a series of apologies to the Malaysian public at large for issuance of statements that affected them,” Gobind said.“Now an elected representative...a person who is supposed to represent not only himself but all his constituents, in addition to being a deputy Youth chief of Umno and the son-in-law of the prime minister, I think he should take responsibility and own up and apologise. This is my challenge to him.”Gobind was referring to Khairy’s statement on Nov 7 last year during the Umno Youth annual general meeting, urging the authorities to come down hard on the Bersih mass rally for electoral reform that took place three days later.“They claim that electoral process is not clean. Then why contest in 2004 (general election)? They boycotted Batu Talam (by-election), but they contested (later) in Machap and Ijok (by-elections),” Khairy had said in his winding-up speech.“Don’t be like beruk (monkeys) on streets. If you want to fight, fight in the real ring like a man. At the general elections, we (Umno Youth) will fight and we will win!” Gobind said Khairy’s use of the term beruk was “unacceptable”.“You do not go around calling people names like that. His boss has taken the first step towards correcting the wrongs that Umno Youth has (done to) the people of Malaysia. I am challenging him to follow suit. Do the right thing and apologise to the people of Malaysia for saying that,” he said.As for Nik Aziz...Asked to comment on Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat’s use earlier this year of the term orang utan for Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders, Gobind said he was not aware of the incident.“If that statement was made against persons in Barisan Nasional, then perhaps an apology is proper,” said Gobind.Also at the press conference was his father Karpal Singh, the DAP parliamentarian for Bukit Gelugor.“I’m surprised that BN people have not asked for an apology. Maybe what the MB said is right,” he said.

New MPs take oath in Parliament (Malaysiakini)

Newly elected lawmakers took oath of office in parliament today after March 8 general elections which changed the political landscape.
The election saw unprecedented gains by a resurgent opposition, led by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, who formed an alliance to challenge Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's Barisan Nasional coalition.
Abdullah's coalition has ruled Malaysia for more than half a century since the former colony gained independence from Britain but its showing in March was the worst in Barisan Nasional's history.
The Pakatan Rakyat opposition alliance claimed more than a third of parliamentary seats and five states in the polls, putting Abdullah under heavy pressure with calls from within his party to quit.
Abdullah was the first one to be sworn in parliament, followed by his deputy Najib Razak and other cabinet ministers.
"I, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, being chosen as a member of parliament, vow to honestly fulfil my obligations with all my strength.
"I pledge my true loyalty to Malaysia and vow to preserve, protect and defend the constitution," Abdullah, who wore a black and gold traditional Malay outfit, said.
King Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin will officially open the first session of the 222-member Parliament on Tuesday.

Cheras Umno wants Zulhasnan out (Malaysiakini)

Umno Cheras division head Syed Ali Al Habshi has demanded the party’s Kuala Lumpur chief and Federal Territories Minister Zulhasnan Rafique to step down.Syed Ali said the division unanimously called on party president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to replace Zulhasnan with former Umno KL chief Tengku Adnan Mansor.The division wants this to be done as soon as possible, he added."Zulhasnan (left) must take responsibility over the heavy loss suffered by Umno and BN in KL and make way for Tengku Adnan to take over to consolidate the party once again," Syed Ali told reporters during the division’s extraordinary general assembly (EGM) today.In the March 8 polls, the opposition took 10 out of the 11 parliamentary seats in KL.A few weeks after that, Syed Ali said his division had submitted a resolution to Zulhasnan calling for the latter to assume responsibility over the setback and make way for the new leadership.Zulhasnan then countered this resolution by urging all Umno division chiefs in KL to ink their support for him."This is wrong. How can he force the division chiefs to do this. He must listen to the grassroots and the grassroots apparently want him to make way for a new leadership," said Syed Ali.Zulhasnan was also accused of being ‘afraid and insensitive’ for not sending a representative to attend the EGM."Is he afraid to hear the voices of the grassroots? As a leader of the party, you must listen to the grassroots and strive to fight for them," said Syed Ali.'Abolish quota system'Meanwhile, the division chief also called on the Umno president to abolish the quota system for top posts.He said the quota system has become the primary tool for the party leadership to maintain its hold on power despite not getting support from the grassroots."The leaders must be appointed by all party members and not division chiefs only. If one division has 280 members, all of them must be allowed to choose who they want as leaders," he stressed.His division’s demands, Syed Ali explained, were not prompted by other Umno leaders as alleged but were the wishes of the members.Other Umno veterans like Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his son Mukhriz have also called for the abolition of the quota system.In another development, Syed Ali also defended the controversial raising of the keris during the Umno annual general assembly by Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein.He said this was the "rightful tradition of Malay heritage.""I don’t think Hishammuddin should apologise for the incident. Why should we? It is our culture and we should have the right to practice our culture," he added.He said the keris incident should not be politicised as even the Sultans carry the keris during formal functions.On Friday, Hishammuddin apologised if the incident had affected non-Malays.

Khairy: There was no recount for Rembau (Malaysiakini)

Umno Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin has written to dispute Malaysiakini’s reports that there was a recount of votes on polling night of March 8 in the Rembau parliamentary constituency where he won by 5,726.The following is his letter in full:
Thank you for Malaysiakini’s continued interest in and coverage of my career.I wish to draw your attention to the fact that your reports asserting that I initially lost and that subsequently there was a re-count at the Rembau parliamentary constituency in the recent general election are a completely false and baseless. I never lost a “first count” and there never was a re-count. This fact was made clear by the Election Commission which was also reported in an article on March 13 of the The Star.Your most recent assertion that I initially lost and subsequently won in a re-count was contained in Syed Jaymal Zahiid’s article ‘Ku Li: Power transition unconstitutional’ which was published. It contains the following statement which was attributed to me:“They counted the postal votes first and not after the re-count. Even if the postal votes are not counted, I would have won by some 500 over votes,” he said.The article also contains the following passage:The Rembau March 8 results became controversial after the first count saw Khairy’s PKR opponent winning by some 800 majority votes. This result however turned after Khairy demanded a recount. Following this, he was declared a winner by a majority of 5,726 votes.For the record, I wish to state that the quote that was attributed to me is completely incorrect. I would not have even suggested that there was a re-count knowing fully well, as I do, that there was none. I append herewith a transcript of the interview in which I was alleged to have made the above statement which clearly shows that the quote attributed to me is false. I will also furnish you with a copy of the audio recording should you require one.I was present at the main counting centre on the night of March 8. At no point did I lose an initial count and, as such, at no time was there a need for a re-count. The total number of votes cast in favour of my opponent, Badrul Hisham Shaharin from Parti Keadilan Rakyat, did not at any time warrant a re-count as provided for under the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981. I was declared winner by 5,746 votes after the first and only count. In fact, I believe that Badrul was not even present at the main counting centre on March 8.Having regard to the facts and in the circumstances, I cannot avoid the conclusion that your assertion that I initially lost and that subsequently there was a re-count of the votes in the Rembau parliamentary constituency, made by your news portal on the very night of the election itself is irresponsible and mischievous.
Equally, I find it difficult to avoid concluding that the continued assertion in your reports of the March 11 and April 18, of there being a re-count and the fact that there was ample opportunity to verify the assertion. I also find it disturbing that you can attribute to me a statement which I never made, suggesting gross journalistic incompetence or mischief on your part.
Quite apart from undermining the legitimacy of my victory at the polls, your continued false assertion that I initially lost and that subsequently there was a re-count, and the innuendo attached to it, clearly undermines the integrity of the democratic election process that took place at the Rembau constituency.Having regard to the foregoing, it is fair, proper and in the public interest, particularly the interest of the voters in the Rembau parliamentary constituency, that Malaysiakini forthwith retracts its assertion and publishes a correction with an appropriate apology.Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar

Is Anwar bluffing? Part 2 (Malaysiakini)

In Part 1, we discussed the possibility and the mechanics by which Pakatan Rakyat could form the next government in the near future. In this section, we discuss whether Pakatan should form the next government so soon, assuming they can.The first argument in favour of Pakatan forming the next government as soon as possible is that they would be able to implement political reforms faster than what Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi can possibly do. So far, Abdullah has announced many measures including reforming the way the judiciary is appointed as well as giving the Anti-Corruption Act (ACA) more teeth. But we are still unsure as to whether he can implement these measures quickly. If Pakatan were to form the government in the near future, there is no doubt such reforms would be implemented sooner. For example, we have no doubts that a Pakatan administration will free the Hindraf 5 immediately. They will also quickly move to abolish the ISA, free up the media, reform the UUCA (Universities and University Colleges Act), move more quickly on the anti-corruption front, make the Election Commission independent, introduce local council elections and so on. They would be less inhibited compared to the Barisan Nasional in making all such reforms. The second argument in favour of Pakatan forming the next government sooner rather than later is that they can take advantage of the current disunity within the Barisan Nasional. The great uncertainty within the different BN component parties in regard to leadership issues – in Umno, MCA, MIC and Gerakan – is an opportunity for Pakatan to pick up disillusioned members of parliament from these various parties. The third argument is that there is no guarantee that BN will not resort to using unfair tactics to ensure that the next election works even more to its favour (if Pakatan waits that long). While elections have never been free and fair in the past, it could be worse the next time around, especially if BN thinks it’s going to lose. Notice that Abdullah has been conspicuously silent on reforming the Election Commission, a key institution to ensure the fairness of the electoral process. These are good reasons why Pakatan should move sooner rather than later. But short-term gain might come with the cost of long-term pain. Firstly, while Anwar has stated that he will not offer any monetary incentives for MPs to cross over, it’s inevitable that he will have to offer something. Why else would they cross over? Now, this can be in the form of additional cabinet positions. While this may not constitute ‘bribery’ to many, there are costs to such backroom deals.For example, if Anwar were to lure say the PBB to join Pakatan, he might have to make an amnesty deal promising not to probe or prosecute its leader, Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud, for alleged corruption. How does that jive with Anwar’s and Pakatan’s anti-corruption pledge? Secondly, Pakatan is still trying to come to terms with running five states. The many problems associated with the formation of the state governments in Perak and Selangor have been well documented. The Pakatan is also finding that its resources in terms of capable MPs and state assemblypersons are already being stretched to the limit. If Pakatan were to form the next government in the near future, the problems which we have seen at the state level will be greatly exacerbated at the federal level. Pakatan MPs, who are just beginning to get accustomed to their new roles, will suddenly have to adjust to being part of the government, especially those MPs who will become ministers and deputy ministers and perhaps parliamentary secretaries. It is not hard to imagine a less than fully-functional Pakatan cabinet if they form the government within the next six months. Better to wait for BN to implodeThirdly, and most importantly, Pakatan would be forming the government at a time of great economic uncertainty both locally and globally. Pakatan would come into office after promising to lower oil prices and probably promising a greater share of oil revenue to both Sabah and Sarawak. It is hard to see Pakatan being able to carry out both these promises and at the same time ensuring that the government budget does not sink into a deep deficit. As it is, rising oil prices are already putting a strain on government finances and rising commodity prices and shortages will continue to have a trickle-down effect on the economy. The US recession will also contribute to a global slowdown in economic growth. In light of these factors, a Pakatan government will most likely be blamed for not being able to manage these economic challenges. Part of this will be because of global conditions which are out of their control but part of this will also be because of pre-election promises and the learning process which a new government will inevitably have to go through. Instead of being in such a rush, why not wait it out for another year or so? The BN certainly does not look like it will be in a better position one year from now. In fact, all indications are that it will be in a worse shape. There is likely be be political fallout from the leadership tussles in Umno and perhaps MCA, MIC and Gerakan as well. Rising oil prices, a commodity shortage and a slowing economy will likely give the already embattled government even more headaches. Pakatan would be in a better position to take over power after a BN implosion. It would also be able to justify taking economic austerity measures, saying that it inherited a failed economy from BN.

ONG KIAN MING is a PhD candidate in political science at Duke University and OON YEOH is a writer and new media analyst. You can listen to both of them discuss this topic in their Realpolitik podcast.

Anwar playing a political game, says Najib (The Star)

KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's claim that Pakatan Rakyat can form the next government by Sept 16 is part of his political gamesmanship, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
"He can make all sorts of claims. He will make all sorts of claims. It is part of a political gamesmanship he is playing," the Deputy Prime Minister told reporters Thursday after visiting the 11th Defence Services Asia exhibition and conference here.
He was asked to respond on Anwar's claim on Wednesday, which was made during his two-day visit to Sabah.
Asked what measures Barisan Nasional is taking to avoid potential crossovers by Sabah and Sarawak MPs to the Opposition as claimed by Anwar, Najib said, "We don't expect that they will leave the ruling party."
He said hopefully, the MPs would remain loyal to Barisan because the ruling coalition has served the nation all this while.
"Barisan MPs won in the March general election under the Barisan ticket. They must be confident that the country's future is guaranteed under the ruling coalition."
Sabah and Sarawak hold 50 out of 140 parliamentary seats belonging to Barisan and the Opposition needs at least 30 MPs in order to form the government.
On Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim's proposal for Umno to set up a special commission to probe the reasons for the party's dismal performance in the elections, Najib dismissed it saying: "There's no need for such a commission."

I'll be PM in three years, says Anwar (Malaysiakini)

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim today confidently predicted he would be prime minister within three years, sketching out the first rough timetable for his dramatic political comeback.
"I don't think we have established a definite clear time-frame when I will take over (as prime minister) but it certainly wouldn't reach three years ... much earlier than that," the former deputy premier told AFP.
"(But) I am not in a rush," he added.
Anwar, heir-apparent to long-time former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad before being sacked and jailed a decade ago, has emerged as a serious threat to the ruling coalition after the opposition's strong showing in parliamentary polls.
He became free to run for office again last week, when a five-year ban stemming from his corruption conviction expired, and claims he has the support of enough defectors to topple the government.
The Barisan Nasional coalition has ruled Malaysia for more than half-a-century since the former colony gained independence from Britain but has been rocked by its unprecedented electoral setback in March.The Pakatan Rakyat opposition alliance claimed more than a third of parliamentary seats and five states in the polls, putting Mahathir's successor, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, under heavy pressure.Anwar, 60, pledged more effective governance and to wipe out corruption and promote racial equality, addressing some of the public's major concerns."Our reform programme will certainly be more secure. We will push for a market economy, judicial independence and equality for all Malaysians," he said.Ready to cross-overAnwar also repeated his claim that lawmakers from Sabah and Sarawak states had indicated interest in defecting from the ruling coalition to the opposition. He spoke to AFP at Kuala Lumpur airport on his way to Sabah."Lawmakers in the two states in Borneo island have approached me about switching sides, but so far none has declared their intentions publicly," he said.Analysts have backed Anwar's statement he has enough support to rule, saying turmoil in the ruling coalition could hasten an exodus of lawmakers and propel him to power.Prime Minister Abdullah is facing growing demands to quit, but has defiantly claimed a mandate to rule and refused to discuss a succession plan.Anwar had previously been expected to re-enter parliament quickly through a by-election in one of the seats held by his PKR party, but says he is in no hurry to act and will instead focus on building up the opposition.Some 20,000 supporters attended Anwar's rally last week. The opposition leader was released in 2004 after spending six years in jail.

Is Anwar bluffing? Part 1 (Malaysiakini)

Anwar Ibrahim has once again upped the political ante by saying that Pakatan Rakyat would be ready to form the next government by September 16 this year. We want to analyse this announcement by asking a series of questions. Firstly, could this be an audacious bluff? If it is a bluff, what purpose does it serve? If this is not a bluff, who are the likely crossover members of parliament (MPs)? If this is going to happen, what are the mechanics involved? Finally, will Barisan Nasional just sit back and allow this to happen? We cannot discount the fact that this could just be a strategic bluff on the part of Anwar. If he already has enough MPs in the bag, why does he not form the government now instead of waiting until later when circumstances might have changed?
One argument could be that it’s because he’s not yet in Parliament but more likely the reason is that it’s part of a grand strategy to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. We believe this is a remarkably astute political move by Anwar. What this does is increase the internal disunity within the BN parties as well as the disunity amongst the respective BN component parties. Leaders in the non-Malay BN parties not only have to consider which faction they might want to align themselves with within BN but also the possibility of aligning with Anwar and Pakatan. The constant monitoring of BN MPs by the administration might also anger some of the MPs enough that they would consider crossing over, even if they had not considered this possibility before. It can also be a means to motivate some to cross over for fear of being left behind. It is not hard to imagine Anwar approaching a party in Sarawak and saying that he already has 20 MPs in the bag from Sabah and that those in Sarawak will be left out if they do not cross over. He can then repeat that same line to political parties in Sabah. Like we said, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course, this bluff could potentially have one negative consequence for Anwar, which is that all this talk might prompt the BN to quickly pass an anti-hopping law of some kind. It’s possible that such a law could be passed in a similar fashion to the Election Acts which does not require a two-thirds majority. If the BN does call Anwar’s bluff in this manner, it might prompt Anwar to quickly move to replace the current government before such a law can be passed. Who are the potential crossover MPs?Now, who are the potential crossover MPs? Everything starts with Sabah and Sarawak which hold 55 of the 140 parliamentary seats belonging to the BN. Anwar cannot form a government – from the standpoint of public and political legitimacy – without getting at least a majority of BN MPs in these two states to cross over. That Anwar choose September 16 as a deadline of sorts is not by accident. It is a symbolic move which is aimed at convincing parties in both these states that they will be given more power and more respect under a Pakatan-led administration. But getting the Sabah and Sarawak MPs and parties to cross over is not as easy as it sounds. Anwar might be able to entice all the non-Umno parties in Sabah and the non-PBB parties in Sarawak which would yield 27 MPs and pick up another three MPs from in Peninsular Malaysia to make up the 30 that he needs. But these parties will not cross over to Pakatan if they cannot also form the state governments in both these states. Umno in Sabah currently holds 32 out of 60 state seats. PBB in Sarawak currently holds 35 out of 71 state seats. It is hard to imagine the other parties being able to form state governments without at least some crossovers from either Umno in Sabah or PBB in Sarawak – both of which are staunchly pro-BN. So, this will not be easy. The other question in regard to Sabah and Sarawak is what incentives Anwar can give to these parties in exchange for crossing over. Additional cabinet positions is an obvious answer. An additional boost in petroleum royalties, from the current 5% to 20% has been mentioned.
This would certainly seem attractive to both Sabah and Sarawak state governments since there is the perception that the federal government takes more from these states than it gives back. Still, it is not a given that these parties will crossover to Pakatan so easily. But let’s assume that Anwar manages to pull of this amazing coup, how will this transfer of power likely take place?One option is for Pakatan to call for a vote of no confidence in Parliament and get the 30 or so crossover MPs to vote for this motion which will lead to the collapse of the BN government. This is a highly risky move since it’s possible that some of these MPs might in the last minute renege on their promise to cross over.
He is more likely to ask these parties and politicians to make a public announcement that they are going to join Pakatan. This will also give them an opportunity to explain their move to their constituents. Lastly, how is BN likely to respond to a bloodless overthrow? We cannot discount the possibility that it might resort to taking drastic measures including declaring an emergency to prevent Pakatan from taking over. However, if Anwar can convince all the political parties and MPs in Sabah and Sarawak to cross over, the legislative support which Pakatan will then have might be enough to demoralise the BN enough to surrender power peacefully if not graciously. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, to his credit, has not shown the desire – or the stomach, some might say – to resort to heavy-handed measures to stay in power or to prevent the opposition from gaining power in the five states they currently control. If he knows that his days within Umno are numbered anyway, he might have less reason to stand in the way of a Pakatan takeover. The situation on the ground is extremely complex and fluid but one thing is certain. Anwar has the upper hand right now and he is making all the right strategic moves. The next question which we have, which will be answered in Part 2, is whether he should quickly form the next government, assuming that he has enough MPs who are willing to cross over. ONG KIAN MING is a PhD candidate in political science at Duke University and OON YEOH is a writer and new media analyst. You can listen to both of them discuss this topic in their Realpolitik podcast.

Anwar: Pakatan Rakyat can take over Fed Govt by Sept 16 (The Star)

KOTA KINABALU: The Pakatan Rakyat is in a position to form the Federal Government and it will be done no later then Malaysia Day on Sept 16, according to Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Reiterating that the three-party alliance had the numbers and was in no rush to replace Barisan Nasional, the former deputy prime minister said it would all be in the timing of the announcement.
“God willing we will be there. If not next month, the following month, if not June or July, on Merdeka (Aug 31) or Malaysia Day. I think we should not exceed beyond that,” he told reporters on arrival in Sabah on Wednesday.
As to when exactly the announcement will be made, Anwar said that discussions with the Pakatan parties were needed because Umno and Barisan were known to be rough on those intending to move.
“They are using threats and intimidation. I am for example being monitored more closely now,” said Anwar, adding that he would not be discussing with those Barisan MPs interested to move while he was in Sabah and Sarawak.
He said he had his way of discussing with Barisan MPs who had given their commitment to team up with Pakatan.
“My talks could be done in Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Hong Kong although it might sound like a joke,” added Anwar, who thanked the Barisan MPs for their commitment to crossover.
He said Pakatan was ready to take in political parties from Barisan if they subscribed to the opposition coalition's agenda for the country.
On Chief Minister Datuk Musa Aman’s claim that all state leaders were loyal to Barisan, Anwar said:
“ He (Musa) must know that he does not have all the members he claims to hold now. If he wants to know, I can meet him privately and tell him.”
He said Sabah and Sarawak MPs were keeping the Barisan afloat but was saddened that they were not given the due recognition with Umno dictating terms from Kuala Lumpur.
Anwar said that he was not making offers of anymonetary or personal positions for anyone crossing over as claimed by Barisan but was here to assure PKR’s commitment to Sabahans in addressing issues ranging from higher royalty to problems of illegal immigrants.

Lee quits Gerakan, rebuts criticisms (Malaysiakini)

Former Gerakan deputy secretary-general Lee Kah Choon has submitted a letter to withdraw his party membership and hopes that this will put an end to the controversy surrounding him.
In an one-page statement today, Lee reiterated that his objective is clear and consistent throughout his political career, which is to serve the people.
The former member of Parliament for Jelutong had resigned from all party posts after Gerakan’s annihilation in Penang at the hands of the opposition in the March 8 general election.
However, controversy arose when he accepted the director post in the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) and InvestPenang on Monday in an announcement made by the state Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.
Criticisms poured in from several quarters including Barisan Nasional chairperson Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who said Lee’s decision was "against the spirit of BN."
Former Gerakan president Dr Lim Keng Yaik also offered his "pity" because Lee will have to face distrust from the party and DAP.
Also, Gerakan Wanita head Tan Lian Hoe opined that he should resign and that the party would not break up if Lee's membership was withdrawn.
Yesterday evening, Gerakan acting president Dr Koh Tsu Koon issued a show-cause letter asking him to explain why no action should be taken against him for taking up the opposition job offer.
'My record speaks for itself'
In refusing to answer the letter, Lee explained that his decision to work for the Penang state government was motivated by the island’s interest which cannot be compromised by any political consideration.
"In the next quarter, the projected economic slowdown is going to affect out export oriented economic performance.
"I believe the focus on job creation and measures to ensure sustainable growth is more important than continuous politicking," he said.
"Since my decision is not acceptable to the Gerakan leadership, I believe it is best for me to retreat totally from party politics.
"This way, I hope we can put the matter to rest and move forward with some serious tasks at hand," he added.
He also rebutted criticisms from Koh who said the former only has experience as a lawyer and a parliamentary secretary with the Health Ministry - both unrelated to investment in the industrial sector.
"Criticism on my lack of experience is inaccurate and my professional and service record speaks for itself. If any, the criticism drives me to achieve more for Penang," he said.
"With the political ghost exorcised, I now look forward to work will all parties to ensure Penang leads again," he added.
Lee, 48, who joined Gerakan in 1987, defeated DAP’s Karpal Singh for the Jelutong parliamentary seat in 1999 and retained the seat in 2004.
In the March 8 polls, he was also speculated to succeed Koh as chief minister alongside party vice-president Dr Teng Hock Nan and Tanjung division chief Teng Chang Yeow.
However, he lost the Machang Bubok state seat to PKR’s Tan Hock Leong. Gerakan also lost Penang when DAP clinched 19 of the 40 state seats and became the earliest state known to have fallen into opposition hands.

MCA's Catch-22 political marriage (Part 1) (Malaysiakini)

A typical and rather unkind public reaction to the MCA leadership today is one of bewilderment upon reading statements on contentious issues like pig farming, hudud law, open tenders, and federal allocations to state governments under Pakatan Rakyat administration.The leaders including president Ong Ka Ting seem to be floating the theory that injecting a little more boldness and ‘oomph’ might strategically help the party to recover credibility and popularity following its severe losses in the March 8 general election. Instead, the electorate appears to be turned off.Property developer YS Lee said such statements ring hollow and reveal an unnatural inclination among lackeys who are playing to the gallery.“In good times, MCA might be seen as arrogant, self-reassuring and a strong supporter of the Umnoputra leadership even though the policies are bad, but not (these days).”Ong’s recent three-part interview with Malaysiakini reflected earnestness in projecting a “multi-racial” MCA and speaking out loud.He is keen to reassure his supporters and perhaps the Chinese community that the MCA is ready to change or has changed. Yet, many ask if the “voices” are genuine or mere tactics to win back trust and respect that the party so often took for granted before.Will Ong be able to pull off a feat that will show him in the portrait of a saviour rather than a leader trying desperately to conceal his party’s true nature - as a partner in a vicious marriage with Umno. Author RK Vasil in his article, ‘Communalism and the Political Process in West Malaysia’, succinctly wrote: “It started as an alliance of two communal organisations, the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) and the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), both distrustful of each other. The two [...] had nothing in common, except their upper-class leadership.” It was the unexpected success of the joint effort in contesting the Kuala Lumpur municipal elections in February 1952 that saw the foundation of the Alliance being laid. “The MCA, initially, because of its superior organisation and financial power at least secured an equal position with Umno in the Alliance. Also, as long as elections were held at the municipal level only, the MCA was able to assert equality with Umno,” Vasil wrote. “And beginning with this, the MCA got caught in a vicious circle; since the more it gave in to Umno, the more it lost support among the Chinese; and the smaller its base in the Chinese community, the less significant became its bargaining power with Umno in the Alliance.” His words of wisdom have lasted more than five decades, including this observation: “In future, whether it was to make demands on behalf of the Chinese community, it was to be told by the Umno leaders (in the Alliance) ‘ how can you demand all these for the Chinese when you can’t get their support? Deliver the Chinese votes (for the Alliance) and then make demands on their behalf’.” In fact, during the 1964 general election, Umno effectively used this argument to hold MCA demands in check. Strategy that backfiredIn the run-up to the March 8 elections, Umno did not check MCA demands. In fact, the Umno leadership was more than generous, showering financial allocations on Chinese schools.Like newly-weds, leaders of both parties hugged one another and showed affection, all for electioneering. The more disturbing aspects of the MCA-Umno political marriage revolve round the lack of sincerity, mutual respect, fairness and truthfulness, among others. Pacifying an agitated and frustrated collective body of central delegates at the 54th MCA annual assembly last year, Ong soothingly said: “Do not be frustrated as these (grievances voiced by central delegates) are multi-racial problems. It took 250 years for the Americans to reform and Malaysia is only 50 years old. “(Malaysian) Chinese going to the kampong feel safe; likewise, Malays visiting Chinese areas also feel safe. Chinese should not be made to feel like second-class citizens (by any quarter).”“Umno leaders’ controversial statements do not represent the (stand of the) prime minister (Abdullah Badawi) and his deputy (Najib Abdul Razak). Confrontational politics (from MCA with Umno) cannot be effective; closed-door negotiations are more effective.”Defeat comes in many guises. On March 8, the results showed that without Malay electoral support, MCA “mixed” seats fell like pins in a bowling alley.In a catch-22 scenario, it was an important feature of Umno’s strategy to keep MCA weak enough (in terms of popular Chinese support) so as to make it dependent on Umno, but at the same time popular enough for the party to deliver the Chinese vote (for Umno candidates), Vasil argued. In short, both Umno and MCA respectively fell short of their mutual political expectations, paving the way for their arch-rivals in PR to create an unexpected political landscape that is unrivalled in Malaysian history.

Hisham nafi keris punca kurang sokongan (Malaysiakini)

Ketua Pergerakan Pemuda Umno, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein menegaskan bahawa keris tidak mempunyai kaitan dengan sentimen perkauman.
'Perkara ini dibangkitkan hanya bertujuan menakut-nakutkan pihak tertentu tambahan kita berada dalam negara majmuk dan untuk mempengaruhi adalah perkara biasa,'' katanya kepada pemberita semalam.
Sehubungan itu, Utusan Online melaporkan, beliau menyangkal laporan Malaysiakini bahawa naib ketua pergerakan itu mengakui isu keris merupakan salah satu punca kemerosotan sokongan Barisan Nasional (BN) dalam pilihanraya umum lalu.
Tegasnya, berita-berita daripada lamanweb, blog atau khidmat pesanan ringkas (SMS) perlu diteliti terlebih dahulu kerana ia boleh menjejaskan perpaduan dan kredibiliti seseorang individu itu.
''Tak mungkin naib ketua saya boleh menyatakan sedemikian kerana dia sentiasa ada bersama-sama dengan saya," katanya selepas merasmikan Mesyuarat Agung PIBG Ke-39 dan Pengisytiharan 110 Tahun Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) Semenyih.
Khairy dilaporkan memberikan komen itu ketika ditemui pemberita di program retreat ahli-ahli parlimen BN di sebuah hotel di Kuala Lumpur semalam.
Bagaimanapun, Khairy dalam laporan itu menolak tanggapan bahawa isu keris menjadi punca utamanya.
Keris Panca Warisan
Sebelum ini, dua akhbar bawah Kumpulan NSTP, yang dikaitkan dengan Khairy, Berita Harian dan New Straits Times menyalahkan ketua Pemuda Umno Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein kerana menghunus keris 'Panca Warisan' selama tiga tahun berturut-turut mulai 2005.Isu keris menjadi polemik besar selepas Astro membuat siaran langsung perhimpunan agung Umno pada 2006 sewaktu 'Panca Warisan' diarak masuk ke dewan dan kemudiannya dihunus dan dikucup oleh Hishammuddin.khairy jamaluddin in umno meeting kissing the keris 040906Beliau menjulang keris bagi menunjukkan perjuangan Pemuda Umno mendaulatkan Agenda Melayu.Bagaimanapun, tindakan Hishammuddin itu dikritik hebat oleh parti-parti komponen dalam Barisan Nasional dan yang paling lantang - Pemuda MCA dan Pemuda Gerakan.Hishammuddin mempertahankan tindakannya itu dengan menyatakan menghunus keris bukan bererti seseorang itu mahu mengancam atau mahu menikam orang lain, ia hanya simbol semata-mata."Malah keris juga tidak boleh dikaitkan dengan satu-satu kaum sahaja," katanya dalam sidang media sempena perhimpunan agung Pemuda MCA pada Ogos 2006.Dalam perhimpunan agung Umno 2007, Hishammuddin sekali lagi menghunus, mengucup dan menjulang Keris Panca Warisan tanpa menghiraukan bantahan keras dan meluas bahawa ia merupakan simbol 'pergaduhan' yang boleh menimbulkan keresahan antara kaum.Malah, Khairy selaku naib ketua pergerakan itu mengisytiharkan selagi ada Pemuda Umno, Keris Panca Warisan akan terus dijulang selama-lamanya.Beliau juga mengingatkan bahawa sesiapa yang tidak berani menghunus dan menjulang Keris Panca Warisan adalah pengkhianat kepada Melayu dan Umno.

Penang Groups unhappy with new Pakatan Councillors (Malaysiakini)

The Penang Pakatan Rakyat government's populist agenda to appoint representatives from non-governmental organisation as councillors in local authorities seems to have backfired.The DAP-led government came under fire from a group of NGOs for not fulfilling its promise to appoint at least 10 municipal councillors from the civil society.By appointing only seven councillors from the NGOs, the group spokesperson BK Ong said the DAP-led government had squandered the public trust by making a blatant mistake."The state government promised 10 but only appointed seven and that too, not on merit."The NGO appointments were dominated by business groups which had caused imbalanced appointment," said Ong.He criticised the Pakatan Rakyat government of continuing the previous Barisan Nasional administration by giving councillor jobs to "boys" rather than giving the posts on merit.Ong blasted the state government for emulating a failed BN method which he claimed would subsequently produce weak councillors and give rise to longkang (drainage) assemblypersons and members of Parliament.Too many business peopleOn Wednesday, the Penang government appointed four councillors from the civil society groups in the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) and three in the Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP).The MPPP four are Women's Centre for Change (WCC) lawyer Lim Kah Cheng, Universiti Sains Malaysia professor Dr Francis Loh Kok Wah, Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce president Rizal Faris Mohideen Abdul Kader and Penang Chinese Chamber of Commerce representative Choong Khuat Seng.The three in MPSP are Chinese Chamber's Liu Ting Ling, Indian Chamber of Commerce's R Gunasegaran and Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers' Muhammad Ismail.MPPP has 22 appointed councillors while MPSP has 21.Of the 43 appointed councillors, DAP has 19, PKR 15 and PAS two.Ong lamented over the "over-representation" of businessmen could cause an unbalanced council and conflict of interests since members of chambers were often involved in applying for business operational licences and building permits."This could cause injustice to the laymen," said Ong, speaking on the behalf of the NGOs, including Save Ourselves, Bus Users Group, Malaysian Voters Union, Penang Watch, Mafrel, Suaram, Jim, United Hindu Religious Council, Tanjung Bungah Residential Association and Tanjung Workers Service Centre.In contrast, he said there was lack of representation, or none, from house buyers, residents associations, consumer groups, workers' union and petty traders."Even women were under-represented in appointments," said Ong, suggesting that the representation should have been as high as one per three ratio.Ong also blasted the state government's lack of transparency in the selection process, saying that it mirrored the previous BN government.DAP members left outHe said the state government should have adopted an open selection system such as open invitation, open criteria, open process and open list of candidates even when local government elections could not been held straight away.Ong's open criticism is the last that State Executive Councillor and Penang DAP chairperson Chow Kon Yeow, who is in charge of Local Government portfolio, would want as the state government was already under fire from DAP members on the appointment of councillors from NGOs and "strangers" under the party quota.Disgruntled DAP members have informed Malaysiakini that they had been against the appointment of NGO councillors from the beginning as many of them would not work in the interests of the Pakatan Rakyat state government.Several short messages service (SMS) were already sent out since Wednesday night criticising the state government leaders for overlooking loyal party workers for council appointments.Several assemblypersons have also been singled out by the powerful Makkal Sakti lobbyists in Penang for appointing their "cronies" as councillors at the expense of loyal party members, who had worked hard to secure the party's victory in the recent general election."Several of the appointed councillors from NGO were known BN supporters."Even the Indian councillors appointed under the DAP quota were strangers to DAP," said Makkal Sakti group spokesperson MN Anbalagan.Another Makkal Sakti supporter, R Kumaran, said he learnt that the decision to appoint NGO councillors was made without consulting the party state committee and general members."There is a saying that `loyalty pays.'"But it seems staunch Indian DAP grassroots leaders and members are irrelevant today," he said.

Anwar files RM10mil suit over sexual innuendo (Malaysiakini)

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has launched a RM10 million defamation suit against a deputy minister for allegedly insinuating the former as homosexual.Anwar filed the suit through his counsel Sankara Nair (photo) at the Kuala Lumpur High Court this afternoon and cited Deputy Education Minister Dr Wee Ka Siong as the defendant over the latter’s remark of which was made during the Machap by-election campaign in April last year.“The whole false notion of sodomy (against Anwar) has to be put to an end once and for all.”“Anybody who unfairly tries to hold or attempt to resurrect this vile and concocted falsity will have to face action in court,” the lawyer said when contacted later.The suit, filed three days after Anwar’s five-year ban from active politics expired, is seen as his effort and readiness to make a comeback to the forefront of the political scene without the alleged sodomy claim continuing to haunt him. Once heir apparent to ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar was sacked in 1998 and subsequently charged and convicted for sodomy and corruption in which he served a total of 15 years in jail for both offences. The sodomy conviction was quashed in 2004 upon appeal to the Federal Court and he was freed. By then, he had already completed his six-year jail sentence for corruption.Till today, Anwar has adamantly claimed that the charges were trumped up as part of a political conspiracy against him, an allegation which Mahathir had denied.Wee: Remark misconstrued The RM10 million suit was based on a Malaysiakini report on April 11 last year quoting Wee’s comment at a ceramah on the eve of the Machap by-election in Malacca.Wee (photo), the Ayer Hitam MP then and MCA Youth secretary-general, had labelled Anwar as someone who “can say one thing then and something else now. For him, front is okay, back is also okay”.He was reportedly to have made the remark while addressing several hundred supporters in a mixture of Mandarin and Hakka, a Chinese dialect.Wee had subsequently told reporters that he was misconstrued and that his remark did not carry the connotation as alleged by Anwar. According to Anwar’s statement of claim today, the suit was a result of Wee’s refusal to retract and apologise over the remark as asked to do so earlier through a letter of demand.The grounds cited by Anwar for his suit included that the remark, among others, that implied him as a homosexual, a pervert and of no moral, unfit to hold political office, dangerous to Malaysian society and engaged in activities which run contrary to Islam.Causing ‘distress, anxiety’ to AnwarThe ex-deputy premier considered the offending words to have disreputed him and cause “irreparable damage to (Anwar’s) character, credit and reputation, both nationally and internationally”.Anwar also claimed to have suffered “considerable distress, anxiety and embarrassment” due to the remark.The PKR leader is asking for RM10 million in compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages and an injunction to refrain Wee from making further similar remark.This is the third such suit filed by Anwar over statements made to allegedly implying his sexual orientations.In January 2006, he filed a RM100 million defamation suit against Mahathir for calling him a ‘sodomiser’ at a human rights conference in 2005. The suit however was quashed in July last year.Anwar has also filed a suit against Umno Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin in the run-up to the March 8 general election after Khairy was said to have given listeners at a ceramah the impression that Anwar was a homosexual.The RM100 million suit has yet to be heard

ACA reform - again a let-down from PM (Malaysiakini)

For too long, loud cries have reveberated throughout the country for reforms in the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA), particularly for it to be an independent body and not just an arm of the government.
When he became prime minister five years ago, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi vowed to stem the tide of corruption in the country. But it is now clear he has failed the nation and people on that score, the March 8 polls results being the most clear indicator.
Today, Abdullah was a let-down again. Questioned on the issue by the media after an early morning function in Kuala Lumpur, he remained non-committal on the agenda for change in the ACA as demanded by the people.
All he said was that he would decide on a proposal by the ACA for more independence. “I have received the proposal and I would decide on it as soon as possible,” the prime minister told a press conference after officiating the Barisan Nasional MPs retreat. The New Straits Times today reported that ACA director-general Ahmad Said Hamdan and his deputy Abu Kassim Mohamad had submitted the proposal to Abdullah two days ago.According to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz, the agency had proposed for ACA to operate in ways similar to the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The ICAC is one of the most esteemed anti-corruption watchdog in the region and is often touted by civil society groups and opposition parties as a suitable model for ACA, which currently reports to the Prime Minister’s Department. Overdue election pledgeIn a statement today, Gerakan acting president Dr Koh Tsu Koon welcomed ACA’s move to become more independent. “It will be a concerete mechanism in realising the objectives of the National Integrity Plan launched by the premier in 2004. It will also give greater confidence to the ordinary people when they want to report on corruption cases,” he said. Koh added that an independent ACA would “show the seriousness” of the Barisan Nasional government’s pledges in their 2004 and 2008 election statements. Koh said Gerakan had long lobbied for an independent ACA and would support all measures to combat corruption including strengthening the ACA as an independent body.

Param replies to Dr M’s letter (Sun, with permission)

THE letter of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (Speak up, April 8) and in particular the allegations he levelled at me should not go without a response.
The sworn testimony of Shafee Yahya (June 2000)
In the second trial of (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim, Mahathir was served with a subpoena by the defence. He applied and had the subpoena set aside on April 21, 2000. The trial continued until August 2000. (Former Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk) Shafee Yahya gave his testimony on June 12, 2000. Cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor did not cast any doubt on the truthfulness of Shafee’s testimony. Mahathir knew or ought to have known of that testimony. It was serious in nature. The proceedings were reported in the media the following day. Surely the Public Prosecutor, who was (now Tan Sri) Abdul Gani Patail, could have advised Mahathir to appear in court and refute the testimony under oath if Mahathir thought it was untrue.
Seeing the serious nature of the testimony against him, Mahathir could have volunteered to appear to clear his reputation but he never did. The irresistible inference is that he was afraid of giving sworn testimony in a court of law. There clearly is no justification for him to now complain that he “should at least be heard”. He had every opportunity.
It is learnt from media reports on Wednesday that investigations against Mahathir were carried out following Shafee’s sworn testimony and the papers submitted to the Attorney-General on Feb 15, 2000. This sounds incredible. Shafee’s testimony was recorded by the court only on June 12, 2000. What investigation papers were submitted to the AG in February 2000? In any event as Shafee’s was sworn testimony and in the public domain, was a sworn statement then taken from Mahathir, and if so can that be made public? The Inspector-General of Police is also reported to have said that the then AG, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, decided there was no case. Going by how that same AG in November 2000 cleared the then Chief Justice, Eusoff Chin, of any wrongdoing over the CJ’s holiday trip to New Zealand with (Datuk) V.K. Lingam, the integrity of some of Mohtar’s decisions during the Mahathir era will remain questionable. It is also learnt from Wednesday’s media reports that the ACA’s investigation of the EPU director-general took three years from 1998, was completed and submitted to the AG’s Chambers in 2001 and the file closed for “lack of evidence”. This is puzzling. The then EPU director-general was appointed to the high office of Bank Negara governor in September 1998 and served until April 2000. Does this mean that Malaysia had a governor of the central bank who had an investigation for corruption pending against him throughout his tenure? What happened to the policy Malaysians were always told of that those appointed to high office are always cleared by the Special Branch and other agencies before they are appointed?
There is something very unsettling about the statements of these three high officials of our enforcement agencies as reported in the media.
My ‘hatred’ of Mahathir
This is really amusing. Mahathir obviously ascribes to others his own motives and outlook. It is well known that since about 1985, because of my public criticism of attempts to tamper with fundamental rights in the country, he hashated me. I was told by some ministers of his remarks about me, sometimes even in cabinet meetings. His hatred spilled over into New York and Geneva. On Sept 29, 1999 at the podium of the UN General Assembly in New York, he attacked me personally and the UN for appointing me as a special rapporteur. In Geneva in April 2000 he directed the Malaysian mission there to block my reappointment as special rapporteur by the Commission on Human Rights. That failed. Malaysia appeared a laughing stalk before that commission session.
The UN immunity issue
His remarks that I made libellous statements about a fellow Malaysian and sought immunity as the statements had nothing to do with matters related to my UN work are just outrageous.
It is well documented now since the advisory opinion of the World Court in 1999 that the statements I made and quoted in the Commercial International Litigation journal were within the parameters of my UN mandate on the independence of judges and lawyers. It was a universal mandate from the UN Commission on Human Rights. The immunity from legal process sought was not personal to me but that of the UN. The UN sought the immunity under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations which Malaysia ratified without reservation. The reference to the World Court was made by a resolution of the UN Economic and Social Council. The opinion of the World Court was binding on Malaysia pursuant to the convention.
Four suits were filed against me in 1995 by corporations and two individuals claiming a total sum of RM280 million in damages for defamation. The two individuals are well known to Mahathir, hence his further anger when Malaysia lost in the World Court.
The statements I made about the state of the Malaysian judiciary after the infamous Ayer Molek case and reported in the journal in 1995 are justified in the light of recent developments and proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Lingam video clip. Lingam was one of the individuals who sued me. No court, however, found my statements libellous.
The fear over the want of independence, impartiality and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary during the Eusoff Chin era is best illustrated by developments in four other suits fi led by the same parties for defamation against a large Kuala Lumpur law firm and two of its partners. The suits were over remarks made by the two partners and published in the same article in the International Commercial Litigation. The total amount claimed was RM280 million. The defences of the law firm and partners were handled by professional indemnity insurers whose headquarters were in London. Realising that the defence was constantly losing on interlocutory proceedings in the suits, they no longer had any faith in obtaining justice before our courts. Rather than being saddled with a colossal award in the region of RM280 million after trial, they decided and agreed to settle the four suits for a total of RM17.7 million.
Having recorded the terms before the courts here and paid the agreed sum, the insurers filed proceedings in London before the High Court of England and Wales in 1999 against the publishers to recover the RM17.7 million or part thereof by way of indemnity and/or contribution. In their defence, the publishers pleaded, among others, “that the claimants’ insurers decided to capitulate and pay the original plaintiffs’ exorbitant sums by way of ostensible damages and costs only because they apprehended that the claimants would not have received a fair trial at the hands of Malaysia’s internationally discredited judiciary and legal system”.
By June 2000 Mahathir’s attention was drawn to the conduct of Eusoff Chin and his breach of the Judges’ Code of Ethics, justifying the setting up of a tribunal under article 125 of the Constitution.
He was shown those infamous New Zealand holiday photographs. Yet he refused to take any action, whereas in 1988 he went out of his way to fi nd fl imsy evidence to act against Tun Salleh Abas. His motives were highly questionable.
Set up Royal Commission
In the light of all that I have set out (and there are many other instances) there is justification for Mahathir to be investigated for abuse of power during his tenure as prime minister. As he himself has welcomed such an investigation, I urge the government to seriously consider and set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into not just abuse of power during his tenure as prime minister but also how he consolidated that power during his tenure.

A political mystery is finally solved (Star, With permission)

I WOULD like to thank Karpal Singh for solving a mystery which had bothered me over the last five years i.e. ever since I stepped down as Prime Minister.I had been used to the BN and even the Alliance Government before it, being criticised and attacked by DAP MPs even for imaginary misdeeds by them. However, after Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over, even the clear abuses of power and wrong actions by the Government were hardly commented upon by DAP stalwarts like Karpal and Lim Kit Siang.
I was puzzled. I could not believe the suggestion that there was a “pakat” (conspiracy) involving Abdullah and the DAP. But when Karpal advised me to retire with dignity and honour and refrain from criticising the present Prime Minister, I realised that the DAP actually supports Datuk Seri Abdullah and his continued stewardship of this country.But why does the DAP want Abdullah to continue being the PM? Being in the Opposition, the DAP must know that the Chinese community by and large disliked the Government headed by Datuk Seri Abdullah. They had openly spoken of their disenchantment and intention not to vote for Barisan Nasional in the 2008 elections.The mishandling of the Hindraf by Datuk Seri Abdullah had also alienated the Indians. Certainly, the other Opposition parties knew that Malays, including Umno members, were strongly critical of Datuk Seri Abdullah.Obviously, the DAP and other opposition parties stood to gain by the loss of faith in Datuk Seri Abdullah’s leadership by the erstwhile supporters of the BN.And sure enough, they voted massively against the BN in the March 8 General Election. Those who could not bring themselves to vote for the Opposition deliberately spoiled their votes. This explains the unprecedented 300,000 plus spoilt votes in this election.When Karpal urges me to refrain from criticising the present Prime Minister, it must be because he knew that this PM would continue to alienate BN supporters. At the next election, these people could be even more disgusted with the PM that they would actually cause the BN to lose even its majority in Parliament and would no longer form the Federal Government.In other words, the “Pakatan” (The English equivalent to “pakatan” is “conspirators”) would actually win by default and form the Federal Government.This explains why the DAP seems to be very friendly with Datuk Seri Abdullah and why Karpal wants me to stop criticising him. He and his colleagues are against any move to get Datuk Seri Abdullah to step down.Tunku did criticise me and did try to unseat me by supporting Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. Tun Hussein Onn was unhappy with me over my “Buy British Last” policy but was not well enough to go public, so to speak. So my outbursts are nothing unusual. One can almost say it is in accord with tradition.As to my phobia of lawyers, this idea had been promoted by Opposition lawyers for political reasons. Karpal seems to imply that I really wanted to hang the lawyers. As everyone knows, Shakespeare hanged all the lawyers during his time. Karpal can go on believing that I was not joking. That is his right. But my conscience is clear and a lot of lawyers seem to have a different mind from Karpal.So I would like to thank Karpal for helping to solve a political mystery that had bothered me over the last five years. However, as a citizen who loves this country, I will continue to speak up, more so because the Umno leaders and members fear criticising the leadership. They would be labelled saboteurs and would be punished.