Monday, 8 February 2016

Friday, 5 February 2016

Gathering Storm?

Gathering Storm?

Press Release | The Attorney General Must Reconsider MACC’s Investigation Papers on the Transfer of Funds into the Personal Bank Accounts of the Prime MinisterPDFPrintE-mail
Tuesday, 02 February 2016 09:57pm
ImageThe Malaysian Bar is gravely concerned over the Attorney General’s decision of 26 January 2016 on the three investigation papers submitted to him by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) concerning the transfer of USD681 million (“the purported donation”) and the transfer of funds from SRC International Sdn Bhd (“SRC”), both into the personal bank accounts of the Prime Minister.  The Attorney General has declared that he is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed by the Prime Minister, and instructed MACC to close the three investigation papers.

It was subsequently reported that MACC decided to refer the decision of the Attorney General to two of its statutory oversight panels: the Operations Review Panel and the Special Panel.[1]  Both these panels reviewed the decision, and on 28 January 2016 advised MACC to engage with the Attorney General regarding his decision.[2]   

The advice of MACC’s oversight panels is not surprising.  The decision of the Attorney General to exonerate the Prime Minister of any criminal offence appears to be unsustainable in law.  The decision seems premature, lacking in facts, bereft of particulars, and founded on questionable or inadequate reasons. 

In respect of the purported donation, it has been reported that MACC’s probe is ongoing.  The Attorney General has been asked by MACC to request documents and statements from individuals from several overseas financial institutions[3] under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002.[4]  This is necessary to ascertain the veracity of the evidence that MACC has already collated in Malaysia.  Without this elementary scrutiny of the obtained evidence, the investigation would be incomplete.

However, the Attorney General has refused to make the request, on the basis that he has discovered no criminal offence in relation to the purported donation.[5]  This explanation prompts many basic questions that persist and need to be answered, such as:  Who specifically made the donation of USD681 million to the Prime Minister between 22 March 2013 and 10 April 2013?  What was the purpose of this donation?  If the purpose has not been identified, is it proper to conclude that no criminal offence has been committed?

The Attorney General has also said that USD620 million of the purported donation was returned by the Prime Minister to the alleged donor in August 2013.  This disclosure, made more than six months after the revelation of the transfer of funds into the Prime Minister’s personal bank accounts, raises more troubling questions:  Was Bank Negara Malaysia and/or MACC notified of the repatriation of the USD620 million?  What happened to the balance of USD61 million that was not returned to the donor?  If the manner in which the USD61 million was utilised by the Prime Minister has not been ascertained, how would the presumption of corrupt practice in Section 50 of the MACC Act 2009 be rebutted? 

In relation to the transfer of funds from SRC, the Attorney General has omitted to specify the exact sum of money that was transferred into the Prime Minister’s personal bank accounts.  It was previously reported that RM42 million from SRC had been deposited into the Prime Minister’s personal bank accounts.[6]  It has now been reported that an additional RM27 million from SRC was deposited into the personal bank accounts of the Prime Minister on 8 July 2014.[7]  This would appear to bring the total deposit from SRC to RM69 million.  The Attorney General has regrettably not addressed this apparent and glaring discrepancy.

The Attorney General has also not disclosed who gave the approval for the transfer of monies into the Prime Minister’s personal bank accounts, the purpose of the transfer, and how the account numbers of the Prime Minister’s personal bank accounts were obtained.

The Attorney General has stated that there was no evidence that the Prime Minister had any knowledge, or had been informed, of the transfer of monies from SRC into his personal bank accounts.  However, an account holder is deemed to know, and cannot claim to be unaware, of transactions concerning his personal bank accounts.  Knowledge can be implied or inferred in certain circumstances.  In this regard, it has been reported that RM3.2 million was paid from one of these bank accounts to two credit card accounts.[8] 

The Attorney General further stated that the evidence shows that the Prime Minister believed that “all payments which were made by him were made from the donation received from the Saudi royal family which was earlier transferred to his personal accounts”.[9]  This finding appears implausible, as RM27 million from SRC was reportedly transferred into the Prime Minister’s personal bank accounts on 8 July 2014,[10] which was after the balance of USD620 million of the purported donation had been returned in August 2013. 

In the circumstances, the Attorney General’s decision that no criminal offences have been committed in respect of MACC’s investigation papers is hasty and difficult to justify.  Indeed, there have been reports that the Attorney General rejected MACC’s recommendations[11] in the investigation papers, that three charges pursuant to Section 403 of the Penal Code (dishonest misappropriation of property) be levelled against the Prime Minister.[12] 

Further, the Attorney General’s directive to MACC to close its investigation papers, particularly where the investigation is incomplete, is beyond the Attorney General’s authority.  It could be perceived as an act of interference in the investigation.  The Attorney General should render all assistance to MACC to facilitate ongoing investigations, or fresh investigations, as and when additional or new evidence is discovered. 

The Malaysian Bar also disagrees with statements, attributed to certain quarters, that the discretion of the Attorney General under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution to decline to exercise his prosecutorial powers is “absolute” and cannot be questioned in court.  The notion of absolute discretionary powers is contrary to the rule of law.  All legal powers — even a constitutional power — have legal limits.[13]  Thus, the modern and prevailing view is that the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute is open to challenge in a judicial review action, if the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion is tainted by bad faith, dishonesty or extraneous purposes.[14]  The Attorney General’s prosecutorial powers are therefore not unfettered. 

The Malaysian Bar therefore urges the Attorney General to reconsider his decision on the transfer of funds into the personal bank accounts of the Prime Minister, and to exercise the prosecutorial powers in Article 145(3) Federal Constitution appropriately.

Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar

2 February 2016


Former minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has filed for leave at the High Court to challenge the decision of the attorney-general (A-G) not to prosecute Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak over his RM2.6 billion donation and Finance Ministry-owned firm SRC International Sdn Bhd.

He is also seeking leave for a judicial review to challenge A-G Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali's decision in ordering the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close its investigations into both matters.

Zaid said he was arguing that the A-G's decision was unreasonable and constituted an improper exercise of discretion.

He also said Apandi had a constitutional duty to exercise the discretion conferred on him by the provisions of Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution with due consideration, reasonably in the public interest and with a sense of justice.

"I have been forced to initiate these proceedings as I am rightfully concerned about the dire consequences to the rule of law in this country if the decision of one man cannot be questioned regardless of the facts and the circumstances of the case.

"As far as I have been advised, there is nothing known in law as the concept of 'absolute discretion'.

"The notion of such unfettered discretion is in fact contrary to the rule of law, and it is for this reason I am compelled to act," Zaid said in a statement today that was posted on his blog.

The Malaysian Insider reported earlier today that a former Umno man would sue Apandi over his failure to prosecute Najib.

Zaid left Umno in 2008 and subsequently joined PKR but has since left the opposition party.

The former law minister said he was satisfied that there was strong evidence for Najib to be held liable for wrongdoing under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 and the Financial Services Act 2013, which might also extend to criminal breach of trust and other offences under the Penal Code.

If Zaid succeeds in getting leave at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, he will then ask the court for an order to set aside the A-G's decision to not prosecute Najib and his order for MACC to close the files on their investigations.

He will also be seeking a court order to compel the A-G to use his discretion under Article 145(3) to properly consider instituting criminal proceedings against the prime minister.

Zaid also wanted a court declaration that the A-G's decision asking MACC to close its investigations was ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Constitution.

Last Tuesday, Apandi announced that MACC, after six months of investigations, did not have sufficient evidence for him to frame charges against the prime minister and ordered the investigation papers closed.

The three papers are one on the RM2.6 billion donation and two on SRC International, which had taken a RM4 billion loan from the Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP).

Apandi has shrugged off the MACC move to refer its investigation papers to its oversight panel for a review of his decision.

The panel has told MACC to engage the A-G on his findings.

Apandi said any challenge to his decision would go against his powers as A-G stipulated in the Federal Constitution.

But others, including former A-G Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, had said that these powers do not include directing an investigating agency to stop its probes. – February 2, 2016.

Wednesday, 3 February 2016

Mukhriz resigns today and Kedah gets a new MB tomorrow

Mukriz today announced his resignation from the post of MB of Kedah. He did so with all guns blazing:


I think we have yet to see the real Mukhriz who I am sure would rebound from this small setback, he has a family pedigree to carry you know. I do hope that he did not become quiet like TS Muhyiddin after he lost his DPM post.

Anyway:





read also:

Kesan Pecah-Belah Kepada Politik Kedah


Saturday, 30 January 2016

Jom cari dan baca buku Dr. M. Bakri Musa

'Malaysian leaders have been intentionally entrapping the minds of Malays as a means to retain their power and positions'

'This ability to look beyond race would help draw the Malays out of their shells'
Dr. M. Bakri Musa



Read more about the book here:

Friday, 29 January 2016

Now pay attention


Please read:

Biar orang yang bijaksana berbicara

Biar orang yg bijaksana berbicara:


YAYASAN 1Malaysia (Y1M) supports wholeheartedly the decision of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to refer the attorney-general's directive to close three investigative files involving Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak to its Operational Evaluation Panel (PPO). It is within the PPO's ambit of authority to evaluate the AG's decision.

There are at least seven reasons why the PPO should undertake this task.

ONE, there are contradictory views on the authenticity of the donation allegedly made by the late Saudi ruler, King Abdullah, to Najib in March-April 2013. According to the BBC, an unnamed Saudi source has confirmed the deposition of US$681 million from the Saudi monarch into Najib's personal account.

A report in the Wall Street Journal however has cast doubts on the claim. It says that "A Saudi government official while declining to comment specifically on the prosecutor's statement said that the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no information about such a gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented". The truth about the donation should be established once and for all.

TWO, if it is true, as suggested by the BBC story that the donation was to help Najib and the Barisan Nasional to win the 13th General Election in May 2013, it raises a serious ethical question.

How can the leader of a foreign nation – which incidentally does not hold elections – seek to determine the outcome of an election in our country through the use of money?

Wouldn't that be a violation of election rules? Would that be a corrupt act implicating both the giver and the recipient?

How would we have reacted if it was known that the president of Indonesia or the prime minister of Singapore had through secret donations, attempted to determine election results in Malaysia?

THREE, if a small portion – US$61 million – of the donation was used for various purposes, who were the beneficiaries? Presumably, the BN election machinery was one of them.

Was there a proper accounting of electoral expenditure, as required by electoral law? Since it is the prime minister of a nation that claims to practise accountability that was the recipient of the donation, shouldn't there be a proper explanation of how the money was spent?

FOUR, since the AG claims that US$620 million was returned to the sender in August 2013, one wonders why when it became public knowledge that there was a huge sum of money in the prime minister's personal bank account in July 2015, there was no attempt by Najib or anyone around him to inform the people that most of the money had been returned to the sender? It would have been in Najib's interest to do so which is why his silence for the last six months is puzzling.

FIVE, if it is true that US$620 million was returned to the Saudi monarch in August 2013, was Bank Negara aware of it? When such a huge sum of money exits our banking system, wouldn't it have alerted our central bank? What was Bank Negara's response?

SIX, there is also the allegation that the money that was purportedly returned was actually kept frozen in a Singapore bank account. Was it unfrozen and sent back to the Saudi ruler? What is the role of the Singapore authorities in all this?

SEVEN, the AG in his statement failed to address yet another similar issue. It is alleged that the money that actually flowed into Najib's account was through an anonymous British Virgin Islands company and a Swiss private bank owned by an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. Is this true? The people have a right to know.

It is because the questions which trouble Malaysians about the money in the prime minister's bank account are so fundamental that an evaluation by the PPO of the attorney-general's decision is so important. If these questions are answered in an honest and truthful manner, public trust in the prime minister and the government would be restored to a considerable extent.

Honest answers would also convince Malaysians and the world that the Najib government is sincere about upholding integrity. We have seen how in the Berlin based Corruption Perception Index (CPI) for 2015 announced on Jan 27, 2016, Malaysia's ranking has dropped from 50 to 54 out of 168 countries. Controversies related to the prime minister have been cited as among the reasons.

This is why it is in the interest of all Malaysians to support a thorough evaluation of the AG's decision. It is wrong to argue that his decision is beyond scrutiny. In a democracy that values good governance, the decisions and actions of an officer of the state entrusted with the protection of the rule of law and the preservation of justice should never be shielded from evaluation and appraisal by the citizenry.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar
Chairman
Board of Trustees
Yayasan 1Malaysia


Read in full here.

and another one from TMI:


BY GURDIAL SINGH NIJAR

The controversy continues unabated. It is about the attorney-general’s directive to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close investigations into the 1Malaysia Devleopment Berhad (1MDB) affair.

Perhaps adding fuel to the fire is the rather abrupt “retirement” of former attorney-general Tan Sri Gani Patail on health grounds while these investigations were initially proceeding (he has since gone on to work for a law firm); and his replacement with the present A-G.

The latest volley in the barrage of citizens’ demand for reasons and accountability for the decision was carried in the Sun by Yayasan 1Malaysia Chairman Dr Chandra Muzaffar, “7 reasons to evaluate AG’s decision” on January 29, 2016.

‘That is why it is in the interest of all Malaysians to support a thorough evaluation of the AG’s decision. It is wrong to argue that his decision is beyond scrutiny.”

That is the question – is his decision beyond scrutiny?

The simple answer is no. The power given to him by the Federal Constitution to institute any proceedings for an offence is “exercisable at his discretion”. This power is not absolute.


As long ago as 1979, the then chief justice, Sultan Azlan Shah declared in a landmark case that it is wrong to speak of absolute discretion. This is what he said in his usual pithy style:

“Unfettered discretion is a contradiction in terms. Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship. In particular, it is a stringent requirement that a discretion should be exercised for a proper purpose, and that it should not be exercised unreasonably.

“In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene.”


His Lordship was speaking of the discretion exercised by a land office.

Is it any different with the discretion exercised by the high constitutional office of an A-G?

Well it could be said there is a greater need for this to apply to the A-G’s exercise of discretion. Because outside of his constitutionally prescribed duties, the AG is the guardian of the public interest, a right conferred on him under the common law, which is made applicable by Article 160 of the constitution.

Indeed then Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim countenanced a remedy against the decision of an A-G not to prosecute – although he said “but not in the courts”.

The Privy Council, the then highest court for Malaysia, alluded to the many factors which a prosecuting authority may properly take into account in exercising its discretion whether to charge a person at all.

It remarked that this “should not be dictated by some irrelevant consideration”.

To summarise: the A-G’s discretion not to prosecute (or any other power that he is entitled to exercise) is not without limits. It cannot be exercised for an improper purpose and unreasonably; or on the basis of an irrelevant or wrong consideration.

If it is so exercised then it could be subject to challenge through the courts.

In fairness to the A-G, he has invited anyone unhappy with his decision to have the limits of his powers determined by the Federal Court.

For this to be properly determined the A-G should give his reasons. Only then can the court properly evaluate the legal propriety of his decision.


In a landmark English case routinely cited in our courts, the House of Lords said that the minister may have good reasons for refusing an investigation.

In this present case, the A-G directed that investigations be stopped although the MACC had asked him to initiate the process for witnesses to be examined.

There was then a duty to give the reasons for the court’s examination. Else it could be assumed there were no good reasons.

Indeed in another English case it was pointed out that if all prima facie reasons point towards one course of action and the minister takes another without giving a reason, the court may infer he has no good reason for the decision and is using his discretion for an improper purpose.

Admittedly these cases involve the exercise of power by a minister in the exercise of administrative functions – as distinct from constitutional powers.

But surely it cannot be denied that public confidence in a prosecutor’s work is the cornerstone of a proper, efficient and fair administration of the justice system. so these decisions should apply with equal – if not more – force to the A-G’s powers.

Finally, let’s take a page from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which the government is eager to sign and ratify.

It requires each party to adopt or maintain “measures to promote transparency in the behaviour of public officials in the exercise of public functions”.

Although this provision relates only to international trade and investment matters, should not this be extended to matters over which there seems to be so much disquiet, if not outrage, among the citizenry. – January 29, 2016.

Thursday, 28 January 2016

This thinghy that just refuses to go away

Breaking news from Reuters:



excerpts from Reuters:

"A source at the MACC told Reuters that, when it handed its findings to the attorney-general last month, the agency had recommended that Najib be charged with criminal misappropriation. The source did not specify the grounds or the legal basis for the MACC's recommendation.

"It's a pretty straightforward case. We had made recommendations for charges to be filed that the attorney-general has instead chosen to reject," said the source, who declined to be identified or to elaborate on the MACC's findings.

The attorney-general's office declined to comment. Najib's office said it had no immediate comment.

The MACC said it would not comment on whether it made any recommendation to charge the prime minister.

In a statement on Wednesday, the agency said it would seek a review of the attorney general's decision to close the investigations, but declined to make any further public comment on his findings
"

Read full news here and here. I think the AG Apandi Ali will have to deal with the fireworks for some time to come. Good Luck to you Tan Sri sir.

Meanwhile, a former AG Tan Sri Abu Talib also chipped in:


excerpts from TMI:

Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali has no authority to order the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to close investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation in the prime minister's bank accounts, says a former A-G.

Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman also said that Apandi had not helped MACC to obtain documents and statements from abroad as part of its probe, under the mutual legal assistance (MLA) initiative.

"Under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution, the A-G has power only to institute, conduct and discontinue any (criminal) proceedings, but has no authority to order any investigation agency to close its investigation papers."

"This is a case of public importance that has attracted worldwide attention, the A-G must help the MACC to collect evidence as the source of the fund is outside Malaysia,"

Read the news in full here.

And this are many questions from Dr. Dzul of PAN, questions the ordinary people would like to ask but too nice to ask:

AG has made it worse for Najib

by Dzulkefly Ahmad

So the Attorney-General thinks he has finally buried the controversy over the RM2.6 billion donation given to Prime Minister Najib Razak. On the contrary, he has immortalised the acrimony till Doomsday.

It is now impossible for the PM to regain the trust he has lost. Indeed, it is likely that he’ll even lose whatever trust he has left, if there’s any by now.

The announcements Apandi Ali made at Tuesday’s press conference have left the nation gasping in disbelief. The latest revelation of an admission by an unnamed Saudi source that his country indeed donated the RM2.6 billion to Najib is nothing short of bewildering. The late King Abdullah must have turned in his grave.

The rakyat must find it atrocious to hear that the money was to be used in efforts to counter the potential of Muslim Brotherhood influence in Malaysia and to help the PM win the 2013 polls.

So we are to believe that the nation is under the hegemonic influence not only of the United States, Europe and China, but also of a nation advocating a brand of Islam called Wahhabism, which is quite at variance with the brand of Islam championed by the Malaysian government, Jakim and other agencies in the country. What a mind-blowing thought!

For the rakyat to buy into all the ‘fairy tales’, let the AG and the government disclose everything that needs to be disclosed. Perchance, the issue can then be laid to rest.

The AG must disclose the findings of the investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation as well as of the probe into the Finance Ministry-owned SRC International.

To recap, the Saudi donation was transferred in 2013, whereas the RM42 million from SRC International was channelled into Najib’s accounts in late 2014 and early 2015. Note the time gap between the transactions.

Although SRC International’s RM42 million was transferred into Najib’s personal bank accounts, the AG said that the PM had no knowledge of it and that he was not informed that the sum originated from the former 1MDB subsidiary.

The bone of contention now becomes: who in SRC authorised the transfer? Did SRC have details of Najib’s personal accounts? Who provided those details to the company? The rakyat could very well say it must be Najib or his wife. It is only logical. Do you ever share your personal account with anyone else, except perhaps your wife? How could he be conveniently oblivious and yet grinning? Isn’t all this a blatant lie, to put appropriately?

How could the rakyat reconcile with the fact that the same benefactor who donated money to Najib just before the 2013 general election decided to donate to him again a year later, this time through his SRC account? Was it because Najib was generous enough to return RM2.03 billion from the first donation?

Have we indeed been told everything? Will anyone have to concoct anything else after this? The question that begs an immediate answer would be: if it was so clear and simple, why didn’t Najib tell us all this before? Did he premeditate this decision to agonise the entire nation?

Yes, he has turned to be the greatest destroyer of our nation’s integrity. Why has it taken so long to have this story disclosed and is he sure that there isn’t anything else left to be told or to be thought of later?

Please, Mr AG, don’t hide behind “confidentiality” any more if you want your verdict of “no criminal wrongdoing” to be truly understood.

Just because Najib has returned RM2.03 billion to the Saudi donor, you can’t expect the rakyat to accept that the case is closed.

Why did Bank Negara have to slap AmBank Islamic with a hefty fine of RM53.7 million? You haven’t told us anything about this.

Does it have anything to do with Najib’s personal accounts and is it related to all these donations and benevolent transfers?

Finally, what were the many recommendations made by MACC after it completed its investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation and related probe into SRC International?

The fact that MACC is now seeking a review of the AG’s decision speaks volumes of the resentment felt by its officials.

Should they possess the power to prosecute, we could guess the verdict they would have handed down.

Both the MACC and the Bank Negara, as well as the entire rakyat, want the issue to be put to rest forever, so that we all can move on to rebuild this beleaguered and very embattled nation.

But this “straightforward case”, as alleged by the AG, has been ironically immortalised till kingdom come.


Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad is Strategic Director for Parti Amanah Negara.

and I think maybe all is not lost:

'SPRM boleh cabar Apandi di mahkamah'

excerpts:

"Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) boleh mencabar keputusan Peguam Negara (AG), Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, jika didasarkan kepada satu keputusan mahkamah tahun lalu, kata Penyelaras perundangan Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), Michelle Yesudas.

Menurut Yesudas, keputusan mahkamah tahun lalu itu, mempertikaikan bagaimana mutlaknya kuasa AG.

Dalam satu kes baru-baru ini, katanya, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Vazeer Alam memutuskan bahawa keputusan AG boleh dicabar jika ia berdasarkan kepada satu pertimbangan yang tidak relevan, menyalahi undang-undang, atau jika berlaku salah guna kuasa.

Yesudas memetik keputusan Hakim Vazeer di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur itu, ketika menolak permohonan bekas Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail untuk membatalkan saman terhadapnya oleh bekas Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersial, Datuk Ramli Yusuff dan peguamnya Rosli Dahlan."

Read more here.

Well like I said, this thinghy just refuses to go away.

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

AG Shocker (Continued)

Susulan dari AG Shocker semalam.

Lawyer Ambiga's reaction:



TS Rafidah pun tak berapa happy dengan keputusan AG:



Then dapat berita dari BBC:


Saudi gift to Malaysia PM Najib Razak 'for election campaign'


I was a bit disappointed with the report though as the BBC only said they obtained the information from a 'Saudi Source' this meant that the source cannot be verified and is  just 'khabar angin' or unsubstantiated rumors. More so when the source was quoted to say 'the donation was made amid concern in Riyadh about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood'. Muslim Brotherhood? Those brothers have never had any real presence in Malaysia lah kawan. I think our Special Branch would have rounded these people up as soon as they landed in the KLIA airport anyway. Tak payah bagi derma pun.

Some of the Pronajib bloggers did went to town with the BBC story, but I am sure they'll recover from their festivivities soon.

Ok now read this:


The headline is a bit off because in it Dow Jones Business News reported:

'A Saudi government official, while declining to comment specifically on the prosecutor's statement, said the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no information about such a gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented. Representatives of the royal family couldn't be reached for comment. Critics of the Malaysian prime minister said it was implausible the money had come as a personal donation.'

Note that the Dow Jones Business News used the word Saudi Government Official instead of the BBC's "Saudi Source". Now it goes on to say that the Saudi Government had NO information of such gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented. Never been done lah maknanya tu.

Anyway I did ask yesterday when SPRM and Dr Mahathir will respond....be enlightened friends:



Tuesday, 26 January 2016

AG Shocker?

AG's clearance of Najib on RM2.6b shocks Azmin

A shocker?










....well not really a shocker....actually Dr Mahathir had predicted it to happen in early January, and he was sadly right:


My friend @ckliio9 gave his observation on twitter and he is correct in that AG should give more explanation to his decision:


....without proper explanation quoting why the various penal codes cannot be applied to the SPRM investigation...the AG decision will not put to rest the issue as it will be used as cannon fodder by the Pakatan and Pas people to whack BN in PRU14. 

Remember BN lost the popular votes in PRU13 and today BN have lost more votes in PRU14. How many votes need to be lost before BN realised the tsunami coming their way in PRU14 is lots bigger than the tsunami in PRU13?

Monday, 25 January 2016

The answer to blatant racism in our school system is a 'Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua' system, not sweeping under the carpet

The incident at SJKC Pai Chee Mersing had elicited different reactions from different parties:

Lets hear from Professor Ridhuan Tee first:

Sekolah mana lebih rasis?
INSIDEN seorang guru Melayu, yang bertugas di sebuah SJKC di Mersing, yang ‘diserang’ oleh bapa murid ultra kiasu patut membuka mata semua. Walaupun insiden ini dikatakan bukan isu perkauman, sorotan ceritanya tidak menampakkan sedemikian. Kasihan guru Melayu tersebut. Bayangkan jika guru Cina diperlakukan sedemikian di sekolah kebangsaan.

Bila kena pada kita, cepat-cepat kata itu bukan isu perkauman, minta disenyapkan. Namun, bila kena pada mereka, kata kita rasis belaka, diulang-ulang sentiasa dalam akhbar mereka. Seolah-olah kitalah paling rasis.  

Apakah ia tidak rasis, apabila guru besar ultra kiasu tersebut meminta guru berkenaan meletakkan jawatan dan meminta Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah supaya memindahkan guru berbangsa Melayu daripada berada di sana. Alasannya, guru Melayu tidak layak mengajar di sekolah Cina. Tidak kompeten, malas dan tidak memberi kerjasama.

Saya tidak menuduh semua SJKC sebegitu, tetapi bagi sesiapa yang mengkaji dan mengikut perkembangan SJKC, persepsi sebegini memang suatu yang lumrah dalam kalangan mereka yang ultra kiasu.

Saya amat mengharapkan Kementerian Pendidikan (KPM) supaya bertegas. Jangan berpolitik lagi kerana undi. Pertama, keadaan ini akan meracuni pemikiran murid menjadi rasis. Guru Melayu yang ditindas sepatutnya dikekalkan, bukan ditukar.

Kedua, kembalikan semula sekolah bantuan modal seperti dahulu. Setakat ini, kerajaan memberi layanan yang sama kepada semua sekolah walaupun tidak mendaulatkan agenda kebangsaan. Nasib Sekolah Agama Rakyat pula tidak menentu.  

Ketiga, pengecualian GST terhadap empat buah Sekolah Persendirian Cina baru-baru ini, hendaklah difikirkan semula. Percayalah. Berilah sebanyak mana pun kemudahan, undi mereka tetap kepada ultra kiasu. Jangan haraplah mereka akan mengundi BN.

Keempat, kerajaan tidak boleh lagi tunduk kepada tekanan parti politik dan NGO ultra kiasu. Sepatutnya, ultra kiasu yang tunduk kepada syarat kerajaan. Misalnya, guru bukan Cina yang mengajar di SJKC mesti boleh berbahasa Cina dan mendapat kredit dalam mata pelajaran tersebut di peringkat SPM.

Mata pelajaran Sejarah yang pada awal arahan kementerian diajar dalam bahasa Melayu, akhirnya terpaksa tunduk diajar dalam bahasa ibunda. Itu pun mereka tidak puas hati. Mereka telah hantar memorandum supaya kerajaan mengubah silibus Sejarah tersebut, kerana terlalu bersifat ‘kemelayuan’ apabila menceritakan tentang sejarah kemerdekaan. Hampir 100 ‘kesalahan’ dikenal pasti. Mereka juga mahukan pemimpin mereka turut diiktiraf sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan. Siapakah yang paling ramai terkorban menentang British? Apakah komunis itu pejuang kemerdekaan?

Kelima, dalam memperkasakan agenda negara, pendidikan adalah asas. Kerajaan mesti bertegas, seperti yang pernah dilakukan oleh Kerajaan Thailand dan Indonesia demi pembangunan negara bangsa. Hanya ada sekolah satu sistem.

SJKC yang dibina dan dibantu oleh kerajaan sepenuhnya hendaklah ditukar statusnya menjadi Sekolah Wawasan. Benar, buat masa ini Sekolah Wawasan yang menempatkan semua sekolah di bawah satu bumbung, tidak mendapat sambutan ultra kiasu. Atas alasan, jika banyak bercampur dengan Melayu, maka hilanglah penguasaan bahasa Cina mereka.

Keenam, pembinaan sekolah vernakular yang sentiasa bertambah dari setahun ke setahun perlu difikirkan semula. SJKC yang muridnya kurang dari 100 hendaklah ditutup.

Ketujuh, kelas peralihan yang wujud sehingga ke hari ini hendaklah dihapuskan. Mereka yang gagal BM hendaklah dihantar ke kem pemulihan bahasa selama dua tahun. DBP boleh diamanahkan tugas tersebut.

Kelapan, sijil UEC tidak boleh diiktiraf selagi kurikulumnya tidak mematuhi kehendak KPM.  

Kesembilan, jangan biarkan Pakatan Harapan menang dalam PRU yang akan datang kerana lubuk ultra kiasu adalah di sana. Jika mereka menang, semua yang dibincangkan di atas akan terkubur.  

Kesepuluh, siasatan juga hendaklah dibuat di SJKC yang lain. Tempatkan lebih ramai guru-guru Melayu di sana, supaya anak-anak mereka dapat dibimbing?

Kesebelas, jika sekolah kebangsaan boleh menerima guru besar (pengetua) bukan Melayu, kenapa SJKC tidak boleh menerima guru besar Melayu? Sekolah mana lebih rasis?

Akhirnya, sedarkan rakan sebangsaku, bahawa kerajaan (orang Melayu) sudah terlalu banyak bertoleransi kepada sekolah vernakular yang tidak pernah ada dalam dunia ini kecuali Malaysia. Masih tidak cukupkah lagi? Belajarlah bersyukur.

* Prof Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Felo Utama, INSPIRE dan pensyarah PPI, UniSZA

The DAP together with the rest of the Chinese Educationists and Vernacular Newspapers, as usual think that the SJKC Pai Chee incident is just an isolated case:


Jangan kritik sekolah aliran Cina kerana insiden terpencil

...knowing full well that incidents such as these could have the potential to blow this country apart. 

I think the only way to stop racism in our schools is to have a Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua system not the cacamerba system that we have now, where anything goes. 

We need this Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua system now...lets join the rest of the world in having a One School For All System where our kids and teachers study and teach together. The longer the powers that be delay this system the worse will the racism be and watch my words it will overflow from the schools to everyday life.

Note: Sekolah vernakular tidak ada peruntukan didalam Pelembagaan Malaysia.