Tuesday, 29 May 2012

PRU13, just vote wisely, vote Barisan Nasional for National stability

Much has been predicted about the timing of the coming PRU13, so far none has been accurate. Dr. Mahathir is again giving advise to PM Najib who is the only person alive that knows when the Malaysian elections will be called. 

As PM it is a tough job made more difficult if the timing is all wrong like what ex-PM Abdullah Badawi found out in March 2008. That time Abdullah lost the BN 2/3rd majority and with it his Prime Minister post, even though BN was only short of 8 seats from attaining the magical 2/3rd majority. A precedent of sort has been established with Abdullah's exit, so PM Najib will be extra careful on his timing, he has about a year left before the next GE must be called and I believe he will want to make sure that he will better Abdullah's "achievement" in 2008. If he can't get back the 2/3rd majority in Parliament, at least he must recapture Selangor and Kedah. UMNO is an unforgiving party as far as its President/PM performance in the polls is concerned.

While PM Najib is biding his time, I will tell you why you should not vote for the Pakatan of the DAP, PKR and PAS, no I don't hate them, hate clouds your thinking, no its not about PAS losing its direction, its not about PKR single mindedness to put Anwar Ibrahim as the next Prime Minister (God Forbid) when clearly this man is morally unfit to become a leader of the top 20 trading nation in the world, its not even about the hypocrisy of Lim Kit Siang or his son's Guan Eng draconian and racist personality or even about the token Sikh in the DAP, Karpal Singh saying that Malaysia's PM should be Guan Eng or I suppose for that matter anybody not Malay. 

It is this:

1. The DAP, PKR and PAS could not even agree on a single candidate for "PM in waiting" since 2008. If they get to Putrajaya there will be utter chaos with each of them fighting for the PM post, who will run this blessed country of ours while they bicker to the death? Who will want to invest in this top trading nation?

2.  The DAP, PKR and PAS could still not form a shadow cabinet since 2008 which will tell us Malaysians whether their Buku Jingga some say jingle book is serious policy or just hot steam  which quickly evaporates in thin air as soon as the results of the GE13 is known. All they say is give us a chance, BN had theirs. Well they were given chances to rule Selangor, Perak, Kedah, Penang and Kelantan and by all accounts nothing in the way of progressive change had happened. None of the States have a unified policy everybody go their own way. Pakatan spells disaster.

If that does not convince you then I would  like to share with you Tuan Syed's description of the Pakatan leaders and members, source here:

"As for the opposition here are some facts. Their leaders and supporters are :

convicted criminals, ex jailbirds who were jailed for torturing women, ex ISA detainees, homosexuals, gay activists, racial chauvinists, religious freaks, social misfits, UMNO rejects, people who had multiple marriage break ups, people who had affairs with multiple partners (read Stop The Lies in my Blog Roll), people who have been caught on camera (video as well as digital cameras) in very compromising situations (lelaki Melayu dua, wanita China satu), religious hypocrites who beat up their wives (ada Police Report) and bankrupts. And now, as the stomach churns, they themselves have denounced some of their lying cheerleaders as 'liars' - after he started writing against their leader. There are names for each of these categories (I think you can fill in the blanks yourselves). That is the Opposition. 

And they say they are not corrupt. Pi dah mabuk. I agree with Helen Ang that they are more corrupt. We have already seen what they are doing in Selangor. Just wait and see. They will hang themselves. "

So Malaysians Vote BN, its the only  trusted choice we have until we have a viable Opposition Coalition who can be trusted to lead this multi-racial and multi-religious nation to greater heights.

A Vote for Barisan Nasional is a Vote for National Stability

Sunday, 27 May 2012

If you write or post in the internet please do it responsibly & keep your account safe

If you are twitting or writing a blog or using one of the social media accounts please be aware that what you write can easily be traced back to your account, you can even get into trouble if:

Read more from The  Star here:

Cyber bullies and stalkers often get away because of lack of evidence

PETALING JAYA: “It wasn't me.” That's the most common response from people when a hate or threatening message is traced to theirFacebook or Twitter or any other Internet account.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission says it is almost legally impossible to take action if all that a person has to do is to deny any responsibility.

“Think of the victims. People who have been slandered or whose lives have been threatened,” commission chairman Datuk Mohamed Sharil Mohamed Tarmizi said, adding that many a time cyber bullies and stalkers who often use “the cloak of anonymity” have got away because of lack of evidence.

“As more of the young are connected online, who is going to watch over these kids when there are real people who want to harm them?” he said in an interview on the amendment to the Evidence Act passed by the Dewan Rakyat last month.

Answering critics who said the amendment was unfair in pushing the burden of proof to the accused, he said that owners of Internet accounts where hate messages had originated could easily rebut charges against them if they were innocent.

“For example, if you can produce witnesses to say that you were nowhere near your computer or any other communicating device at the time the message was sent out, you can get off,” Sharil said.

He added: “It is not easy nailing offenders to the charge. Sometimes you can find evidence and sometimes you can't.

“At least now (with the amendment), a flat denial (from the accused) cannot work anymore.”

The amendment to Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act includes the following stipulations:

> If your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the author, you are deemed to have published the content.

> If a posting comes from your Internet or phone account, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved.

> If you have the control or custody of any computer which published any material, you are presumed to be the publisher unless proven otherwise.

Asked if the amendment infringed on Internet users' personal liberties, Sharil said the authorities would still have to carry out rigorous and thorough investigations before charging anyone.

“Then there is the trial processs to go through,” he added.

He admitted that the conviction rate of suspected cyber offenders was very low.

From 2009 to 2011, 625 cases of people making obscene or offensive comments via the Internet or phone were investigated.

Only 16 were brought to court and just three were convicted.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said it was difficult to prosecute offenders before the amendment to the Act.

“It was especially difficult to prosecute offenders because the servers were located overseas.

“Everything was in a mess,” he said, and denied that the amendment was to curb dissent.

“The Government does not want to stifle anyone. But we don't want people to slander or threaten others,” Nazri added.

So friends if you write in the internet, write responsibly and twit or retwit (RT) with care. Please take care of your internet accounts like you would do your bank account number.

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Loyarburokker kena KO?

Senior Lawyer Roger Tan's post on Sunday, read here seemed to annoy quite a few lawyers and well eight of them decided to write a response under the name Loyarburokker. A layman like me can only describe the rebuttal if you can call it that, as a long goobledegook which is eeirily like a typical Pakatan politician response, read  here. The Loyarburokker response was described by the learned Roger Tan as fallacious(tending to deceive or mislead) and mendacious(false or untrue) and you can read his full reply here from The Star:

Roger Tan replies to Loyarburok

I knew this was coming because as I said, it would be painful for some lawyers to read what I wrote in Unswayed by fear or favour' last Sunday in The Sunday Star. I am indeed not wrong with my prognostication.

However, I am surprised that it was even necessary for the eight Loyarburoks to come together to give a 2,700-word response to something they felt were just mere fallacies being spun by me.

In a tweet sent out early Tuesday morning, one of the eight, K. Shanmuga tweeted that their joint statement, Bar's resolution proper',The Star, May 23, 2012, was issued because my aforesaid article had got all of them so annoyed.

Hence, because I emphatise with them, I would oblige them in the best tradition of the Bar with a short reply which should suffice.

Firstly, my concern on the independence of the 80 monitors from the Bar is not totally unfounded. Out of the 80 monitors, I personally know at least one of them whom I follow on the Twitter. On April 28, the day Bersih 3.0 assembly was held, this monitor, albeit not based in Kuala Lumpur, had tweeted, inter alia, the following whilst undertaking monitoring duties:

> Heading to @bersihxxx at Dataran xxx #Bersih. This is it, we love this nation. God save #Malaysia! We want clean & fair elections!

> Bye-bye BN! RT @xxx: Water cannons and tear gas fired. Bye bye BN.

> Don't associate with them. Agent provocateur RT @xxx: #Bersih #Malaysia Unruly mob attacks police patrol car http://....

It follows that the political and social beliefs as well as the prejudices of these monitors are material to ascertain if the integrity and independence of their final report could be described as incontrovertible. Unfortunately, we were not provided with the names of these 80 monitors.

A fortiori, my political affiliation is not relevant compared to the monitors' simply because I did not volunteer to assume such a heavy responsibility of an independent monitor during the assembly.

Further, my MCA membership, albeit dormant, is public knowledge and I have written several articles in that capacity anyway. Neither have I made any attempt to hide it. The fact remains that at least I do not pursue any political agenda under the guise of any organisation, be it political or non-governmental.

Of the many articles I have written, the majority of them are critical of government policies and supportive of the Bar; the last being my support for the continuing professional development proposed by the Bar Council. (See Lawyers must constantly improve skills', March 9, 2012 inThe Star.)

The eight are probably oblivious, either deliberately or otherwise, of this fact but hopefully not because they felt that was the natural thing I should do. In fact, I am in the least bothered by their insinuation that the stand I took in my aforesaid article was because of my MCA membership. As the saying goes, truth fears no trial and it is their assertion which is nothing but a fallacy.

Secondly, I am not just obsessed, but very obsessed with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. As a lawyer, I should be very concerned if this political leader who aspires to be the future prime minister of our great nation has no regard whatsoever for the rule of law and the due process of law.

The eight Loyarburoks are clearly very economical with their criticisms of the breach of the barrier which triggered the response from the police. They even argued that there was no compelling evidence on who had removed the barriers. In this respect, I know I am getting old but let me assure them that my eyesight is still good enough to watch the many videos posted on the You Tube which showed otherwise.

Apropos, I am impressed that my eight learned friends were discerning enough to decipher the hidden meaning of my argument that if the Bar Council could rely on their conclusions based only on reports, so could I.

Thirdly and finally, it is not fair to portray that I condone police brutality. I have emphasised in my article as well as during the EGM that there is no excuse if the police had responded disproportionately to the act of breaching the barricade. I made it clear in the EGM that I would support the resolutions against police brutality if the Bar would inveigh in similar language the acts of violence committed by those protesters who had behaved like rioters and anarchists during the assembly.

What I was also interested to find out before forming my judgment is what actually had caused some policemen and protesters to react in the way they did, taking into account various rumours surrounding it. The monitors' report had, in fact, mentioned that protesters had thrown bottles at passing patrol cars as well as taunted policemen with derogatory shouts of anjing' and anjing kurap'. When I raised this at the EGM, the Chairman, Lim Chee Wee did not think these acts were serious enough to warrant condemnation from the Bar prompting me to ask if it was all right from now on for the citizens to call policemen with such derogatory terms.

It is not true that no amendment was proposed to Resolution (12) as regards the conduct of the protesters. I specifically proposed that this should be placed in the same Resolution (1) with regard to police brutality but with respect, the Chairman disagreed with me.

In fact, I would also like an investigation to be done first whether various steps allegedly taken by the police in dispersing crowd are in accordance with standard policing methods. In America, for example, the police there have even used Taser stun gun against contumacious protesters.

All in all, the resolution was initiated by the Bar Council and I obviously had hoped that the Council would have been more circumspect in their approach because the entire Bar looks to them for their guidance on various matters. One would expect that even though the Council had decided at the eleventh hour to amend to include a resolution on the conduct of the protesters, the Council should have reasonably foreseen that merely expressing concern over such violent acts by rioters would be repugnant to many law-abiding citizens in this country.

All in all, the thrust of my aforesaid article is that the Bar must not only be independent and apolitical but seen to be independent and apolitical. In fact, there was clearly no necessity for the eight lawyers to get so annoyed. They should take my criticisms constructively. After all, I was merely stating, whether rightly or wrongly, why I could not vote in favour of the motion. My criticisms were made not to divide but to strengthen the Bar out of my love for the Bar.

As their arguments against me are, in my humble view, both fallacious and mendacious, I shall treat the matter closed and venture no further to respond again.

I have only one question...how come its the eight lawyerburoks who come  in defence of the Bar Council one sided Resolution condemning the Polis in Bersih3? Shouldn't the Bar President reply? He is known to be generous with his opinions to the press isn't he, and now is not the best time to do a silence is golden routine, the Bar is being accused of not being independent and in fact taking sides by many Malaysians you know Mr President. Let us have your reply can or not, Mr President.

Sunday, 20 May 2012

To whom it may concern; Please bring back Independence and Integrity to the BC

"It follows that as much as we do not like the judiciary to be perceived as pro-government, others also would not like it if the Bar is perceived as pro-opposition. As former Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian said: "The two essentials of the rule of the law are the independence of the Bar and the independence of the judiciary."

"Woe betide the day if an individual or a body of persons is capable of controlling and influencing the head of the judiciary or the head of the Bar!"
Senior Lawyer Roger Tan

Related to the very, very partisan Resolution by the Bar Council condemning Polis Brutality which to my mind gave a new meaning to "justice is blind" when the same resolutions condemning the Polis did not condemn Bersih rioters running amok in the streets of Kuala Lumpur overturning Polis car and bikes and beating up Polis officers  and even a journalist who tried to stop the brutal beating of a Polis officer, I believe this is a mighty fine piece of writing  by Senior Lawyer Mr. Roger Tan who attended the EGM but was one of the 16 lawyers who did not support the NOT independent resolutions tabled by the Bar Council:

Unswayed by fear or favour

The Sunday Star
by Roger Tan

As much as we do not like the judiciary to be perceived as pro-government, we also do not want the Bar to be perceived as pro-opposition.

ON May 11, the Malaysian Bar passed a motion containing 12 resolutions related to the April 28 Bersih 3.0 public assembly by an overwhelming majority. The decision of the House with 939 votes in favour and 16 against is to be respected. The argument that it is not representative of the 14,000-member Bar has no basis whatsoever as Section 66 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 (LPA) is clear, that is, a motion is carried if a majority votes in favour of it.

With that above overriding principle in mind, let me, however, put on record the reasons, whether rightly or wrongly, why I could not support the motion.

First and foremost, it must be acknowledged that Resolution (12) was amended to include, inter alia, that (1) the Bar is concerned by and does not countenance any acts of violence in a public rally and that such action by participants is not an appropriate response to the police; and (2) the Bar is equally concerned by reports that certain persons had crossed through the police barriers to Dataran Merdeka.

But this is a complete opposite of the language used to condemn police brutality and the manner in which the assembly was handled by the police on that day. I felt that merely expressing concern against the other law breakers is not strong enough. The Bar, in my view, must be seen in the forefront in upholding the rule of law regardless of whether they were police or protesters who had broken the law. If the Bar wanted to inveigh and condemn police brutality, the Bar must also do likewise against actions of those protesters who had behaved more like rioters and anarchists in assaulting policemen and jumping on and damaging police vehicles.

Secondly, I did not want the Bar to prejudge the issues. The way Resolution (1) was worded, it appears that the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police. On the other hand, Resolution (12) was worded very carefully to state that the breach of police barriers was based on reports.

As lawyers, we are trained that even if we have witnessed someone shoot another person, it does not mean the former is automatically guilty of murder. There could be other extenuating factors that require further investigation.

It is true that a report had been compiled by 80 monitors from the Bar. However, the final report was only e-mailed to the members the night before and this gives rise to that allegation that it has been tailor-made to support the motion. The identities of the 80 monitors were also not stated. I, for one, would certainly like to know their political inclinations and read, for example, their postings and views expressed on the social media on Bersih to satisfy myself that they were independent-minded in their conclusions, uninfluenced by whatever political or social beliefs they may have.

This is imperative because we have been asked to make a conclusion based on our monitors report. If so, it is axiomatic that we can be accused of being both a prosecutor and a judge at the same time simply because three of our members were allegedly assaulted by police.

If we have advised others not to react in anger, we too must be seen to be refraining from it as we are supposed to uphold the cause of justice without regard to our own interests or that of our members, uninfluenced by fear or favour. It is for this main reason that I would prefer to await the findings of an independent body such as Suhakam before we come to a judgment on this issue. Like many others, I would certainly like to know why some policemen and protesters had reacted in the way they did after a full independent investigation. Monitoring is not an investigation, but an observation.

I remember four years ago the Bar Council actually postponed the Bars extraordinary general meeting fixed on Oct 6, 2007, to discuss the infamous V.K. Lingam video clip because we wanted the Royal Commission of Inquiry to complete its task first. We did this notwithstanding that the whole world knew that it was Datuk V.K. Lingam in the video clip albeit the latter said it looked like him and sounded like him but it was not him. Hence, a precedent is there.

Thirdly, I had also proposed in the meeting that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim should also apologise because it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier. To me, removing the barrier was the trigger point. Of course, there is no excuse if the police had responded disproportionately to the act of infracting the court order not to enter Dataran Merdeka. However, it is common sense that in any quarrel, whoever first raises his hand against the other is often the most blameworthy. In this case, if the barrier had not been removed, we could have witnessed the largest peaceful public assembly in the history of our nation, and both political divides can claim equal credit for it.

I know what is written above can be painful for some members of the Bar to read. But it is certainly not an attempt to divide the Bar, but to strengthen it. Neither did anyone expect the motion to be defeated because it was proposed by the Bar Council; otherwise the entire Bar Council would have to resign if the motion had not been carried. As the 12 resolutions were packaged into a motion, members were also not able to vote on each resolution individually.

As a former Council member, I am more than concerned if the Bar is not seen to be bi-partisan in upholding the rule of law. It is sad if the public is led to think that the Bar is fine with those who break the laws that they think are unjust. To my mind, with an established parliamentary democracy, whoever tries without full justification to emulate Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi in times and situations different from theirs can best be likened to be practising politics of demagoguery.

Now that Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has spoken, I would agree with him that the Bar has to eliminate the perception that it is monopolised by the opposition. This perception that the Bar is against the government has been there for quite some time. I remember in the Walk for Justice on Sept 26, 2007, some members had expressed concern that politicians who were not lawyers had been allowed to take part too. Similarly, I threatened to boycott the Dinner for Justice held on April 17, 2008, to honour the six judges implicated in the 1988 judicial crisis because the organisers had initially wanted only Pakatan leaders (to the specific exclusion of leaders of the Barisan Nasional component parties) to be invited to the event.

This was unacceptable to me because the event was jointly organised by the Bar and the Bar must be seen to be apolitical. That is why we even have a Malay keris on the Bar's logo, apparently drawn by a MARA law student in a logo drawing competition held in the early 1980s, and we have no problem with it.

In fact, the reaction to establish a law academy is not new. In November 1991, the then President of the Muslim Lawyers Association, Zaid Ibrahim, had wanted the Bar Council to dissolve itself or its members quit en masse if it could not accept and respect Tun Hamid Omar as the Lord President. Zaid added that the government should seriously consider establishing an alternative Malaysian Law Academy that could work with the judiciary if the Bar was not able to end its feud with Tun Hamid.

It is hoped that in their moments of anger, both leaders of the Bar and government will be guided by the wise words of former prime minister Tun Hussein Onn who described the role of the Bar as follows: "It is the duty of the legal profession to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour. To effectively discharge this role, the profession must remain independent and be seen to be so. The Bar has a duty to speak up on matters of public interest affecting citizens rights and comment on proposed legislation affecting such rights. In doing so, the Bar must be constructive and must conduct itself with decorum. The government must appreciate the role of the Bar and be respectful of its comments - even when it differs with the professions views."

It follows that as much as we do not like the judiciary to be perceived as pro-government, others also would not like it if the Bar is perceived as pro-opposition. As former LordPresident Tun Mohamed Suffian said: "The two essentials of the rule of the law are the independence of the Bar and the independence of the judiciary."

Woe betide the day if an individual or a body of persons is capable of controlling and influencing the head of the judiciary or the head of the Bar!

On a positive note, I am confident that the current President of the Bar, Lim Chee Wee, both a close friend and a former colleague, will be mindful of this and take kindly to my above observations made out of my love for the Bar. 

The article written by Mr. Tan can be read here and here.

I hope the Bar Council office bearers come to their senses soon as their politically motivated actions will only lead to another reaction which they will have no control  as the Gomen is mooting the idea of a Law Academy along the lines of the one introduced by the PAP Singapore Gomen. 

As a Client and I have gone thru' many legal cases for my company with many good Lawyer friends, I think if those in the Bar Council wants to play politics and take sides then the Bar is NOT the platform to fight your political battles, the Bar must remain apolitical and independent, I as a Client want my lawyers to be independent and apolitical for god-sake, I cannot have lawyers having their advise clouded by politics!

Anyway its not too late to save the Bar Council and bring back its Independence and Integrity all they need is to do a spring cleaning to bersih/clean the partisan politically inclined individuals in the Bar Council in the next Bar Elections.

Saturday, 19 May 2012

Lynas Gebeng: Minister and AELB please stop the merry go round

Lynas Gebeng: The Buck stops at AELB, action please!
I don't like this report, the merry go round between the Minister concerned and the AELB has got to stop, it is eating away investor confidence, somebody must make a stand and that will be AELB which must issue the TOL license ASAP, so that the Lynas Gebeng Plant can start operations and scientific measurements are taken and transformed into data that can be examined and the right conclusion be taken:

Ongkili wants AELB’s answers on Lynas by this month
By Shannon Teoh
May 18, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 18 — Datuk Seri Maximus Ongkili has ordered the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) to respond over issues raised by residents appealing against the nuclear regulator’s decision to award Lynas Corp a licence for its controversial rare earths plant.

The science, technology and innovation minister wrote to the legal representatives of the three residents who filed the appeal under the AELB Act in February saying “there are several issues raised by the appellants that require comments from the board.”

“The board has been ordered to comment and respond on these issues by May 31,” he wrote in the letter dated May 15.

Ongkili added that the residents will be informed of his decision after all information has been weighed up and repeated the AELB’s statement earlier this week that the issuance of a temporary operating license (TOL) for the RM2.5 billion project is suspended until the appeal is disposed of.

The AELB said yesterday it must wait for the science minister to decide on the appeal but not a parliamentary review of Lynas Corp’s controversial rare earths plant before issuing a licence to the Australian miner whose plant has raised fears of radiation pollution.

Director general Raja Datuk Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan told reporters the parliamentary select committee (PSC), which will end its tenure on July 18, will only “study safety, health and environmental issues” and “the process and implementation of licensing procedures.”

“The PSC is studying whether the current laws and standards are appropriate but it will not look into the issuing of the licence (to Lynas). The ‘stay of execution’ is only until the ministerial appeal is completed,” he said.

An aide to Ongkili also told The Malaysian Insider the minister will decide on the April 17 appeal hearing “soon” but is currently preoccupied with ministerial programmes in Sabah and the local Kaamatan harvest festival until May 21.

The committee on Lynas was approved in Dewan Rakyat in March amid opposition furore over the alleged lack of terms of reference and suspicion that the nine-man panel will be used to “whitewash” the issue.

Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers also questioned the point of the select committee given that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had already said the government will not be bound by the panel’s findings.

But Raja Aziz pointed out that the AELB would still have to approve the issuing of the licence if Ongkili dismisses the residents’ appeal “so it will have to brought to the board to see whether it wants to wait for the PSC or not.”

Lynas had said last week it was on track to start up its rare earth plant in Malaysia next month after Datuk Seri Khaled Nordin, chairman of the PSC on the refinery that has raised fears of radiation pollution, called it “the safest rare earths plant in the world.”

It also said in April delays in obtaining the licence for its facility, which was initially approved in January, may have “very serious consequences” for RM80 billion worth of rare earth orders as it is “sold out for the next 10 years.”

The Sydney-based firm said last year the first phase of its plant, which was initially slated to fire up last September, will produce rare earth worth RM8 billion annually.

Prices for rare earths, highly sought-after for high-technology products such as smartphones, wind turbines and bombs, have since dipped slightly as the market reacted to record highs resulting from export quotas imposed since 2009 by China, which controls 97 per cent of production.

The AELB had said in January it would approve a TOL, which allows Lynas to operate for an initial period of two years, subject to added conditions including identifying a suitable long-term waste disposal site.

This was despite Lynas insisting it can reprocess its residue, which it says has only very low levels of radiation, into safe commercial products.

Lynas has said the plant would be ready to fire up operations within three weeks of receiving the go-ahead.

Read more in TMI here.

The Lynas Gebeng plant is safe, it is vouched by eminent scientists and scientific institutions all it needs is tight supervision by the AELB and third party monitors who will ensure all the required safety procedures are followed. 

The Gomen's dithering and passing the buck attitude on Lynas Gebeng is getting rather ridiculous, jobs are at stake here, foreign investors are looking at us with zoomed telescope, Malaysia's future as an investor's haven is on the line and other competing countries are laughing their heads off with the Gomen flip flopping just because it has been politicised by the Opposition parties.

This is a video by people who are finding the Lynas Gebeng issue blown up to farcical and comical proportions by the Pakatan and their associates:

Sad that the Gomen of the day played along with the Pakatan Jokers. 
Siapa akan rugi akhirnya?

Thursday, 17 May 2012

Tunku Aziz found out a bit late that he is oil and DAP is water

Oil and Water do not mix no matter how hard one tries, so Tunku Aziz a towering symbol of integrity made the inevitable exit from a Chinese Chauvinist party that he should never have joined in the first place. Tunku had been used as a trophy to hide the racist and the hypocrites in the DAP. Ok lah there are some Indian trophies in DAP too, like the Malays in the DAP good for photo shoots but woe betide anybody who criticise the leadership, ye shalt be treated like a outcast. 

Only difference is Tunku has outlived his usefulness in the DAP when they failed to get Malay support even after Tunku joined the party. I do not think it is really about differing opinions on Bersih or what have you. Otherwise Dr. Boo in Johor or Teng in Selangor would have been given the indecent treatment by Guan Eng long time ago.

The DAP Secretary General whom Tunku Aziz described as Biadap has no further use of Tunku Aziz when the the two Malay idiots namely Aspan and Ariff joined the DAP as poison pen writers. Power has intoxicated Guan Eng who got to become Chief Minister on the strength of his blood ties with DAP supremo his daddy Lim Kit Siang, too bad for DAP that they have decided to choose an ex convict to become their leader and this is what happens if a convict becomes a Government Leader, he does not tolerate dissent nor criticism. Convicts are just not suitable for high office, they will turn into tyrants and dictators.

Here is the report from the Star based on an interview with Tunku Aziz which reveals a lot about the DAP and its leaders especially its demagogue Guan Eng:

Tunku Aziz relieved to be free from ‘tyranny of demagogue’

KUALA LUMPUR: A day after he resigned from the DAP, Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim said he trusted party adviser Lim Kit Siang but not his son, secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, whom he described as a “different kettle of fish”.

“A deep sense of relief of being freed from the tyranny of a demagogue,” were among the kinder words that the 78-year-old ex-Bank Negara adviser, who had for many decades been at the forefront of promoting integrity and ethics, had to say of his former party boss.

In an exclusive interview with The Star, Tunku Aziz said Guan Eng did not even “have the decency” to reply to an e-mail he had written over a rebuke the Penang Chief Minister had issued over his comments on Bersih.

“I had offered to resign from the (party) CEC (central executive committee) and after an appropriate and dignified time, also resign from the party if that was the solution needed to bring back harmony into the party.
Tunku Aziz: ‘I am not against the party. I am just against the attitude taken by the party secretary-general.’

“But there was no reply. Guan Eng did not write back to me. He did not have the decency to do so. But Kit Siang came to see me twice at my home and hoped that it would not come to that.

“Kit Siang and I are old friends. I trust him but his son is a different kettle of fish,” said Tunku Aziz.

He also revealed that he had also informed the party leadership that he was willing to be hauled up for disciplinary action for what he had said about Bersih 3.0.

“He should have gone ahead and done it but he did nothing. That is the duty of the leader but he did nothing.”

On Bersih, Tunku Aziz pointed out that he objected to the march because he knew it would end the way it did but stressed that he is a staunch supporter of the movement and its call for free and fair elections.

This was why, he said, he objected to the public rebuke against him by Guan Eng after he had made his statement.

“I am not against the party. I am just against the attitude taken by the party secretary-general, particularly when he falsely accused me of going against the party decision to support Bersih. I have always stood for free and fair elections.”

Tunku Aziz said the rebuke gave the impression that what he had said was against the party as well as Bersih and this was why he decided to “withdraw from the party”.

The former Transparency International head for Malaysia also said that a phone call from Guan Eng on Sunday offering a new post sped up his decision to quit.

“I do not know if it was an act of compassion or the need to compensate me for the loss of the senator's post. He offered me a senior fellowship in the Penang Institute dangling travel as an attraction.

“Then yesterday, Zairil Khir Johari (Guan Eng's political secretary) called and repeated the offer and stated there was a stipend of RM50,000 to go with it.

“I regard the offer as totally insulting. It came from someone who had no sense of respect. Did he think I was that sort of a person?” said Tunku Aziz, adding that he considered the move as an attempt to bribe him.

“This man has no sense of decency. As a senior person, I think it is biadap (uncouth). This was what really made me decide to announce my resignation. I will not work with this man.”


The above was said by the former Vice-Chairman of the DAP not some BN lackey OK, so you DAP lackeys don't accuse me of fitnah.

There has never been transparency nor freedom of speech in the DAP since Lim Kit Siang held power in the late 1960s . I only have one Question for the good Tunku Aziz, what were you thinking when you decided to join the DAP? 

note: demagogue - a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

Monday, 7 May 2012

Parents should never be allowed to bring children to street rallies it could turn ugly

Updated 8 May 2012:

A comment which I think should be shared on the main post:

Anak Jati Perak has left a new comment on your post:

I strongly believe that children should NEVER be put into harm's way and can never understand why parents bring along their little ones to the BERSIH rally. In fact, I joined a few parents in not participating at the BERSIH 2.0 last year when we saw a number of participants with children near Kota Raya. How can we call ourselves parents when we expose our children to all negativities related to rallies, especially so when it is politically motivated. How naive can we be to think that BERSIH 3.0 is just going to be a walk in the park. Have we not learn anything from BERSIH 2.0? With that in mind, my friends and I decided to stay away from BERSIH 3.0, not because we do not believe in clean and fair elections but the negative impact far outweighs the positive of such rallies. To the BERSIH 3.0 organisers, please take issues to a round-table discussion. Press and press on further until all issues are ironed out and resolved. Do not take to the streets anymore. Remember that the end does not justify the means, you reap what you sow.

Original post:

So much has been written about Bersih3.0 that I don't think it is necessary to highlight the negatives, the damage has been done with the images of Polis car overturned and Polis officers being assaulted by a bersih mob gone wild uncontrolled by the Bersih3 organisers who insisted on the rally at Dataran Merdeka even though the Gomen had offered more safer venues around Kuala Lumpur. 

Bersih 3 has been infiltrated by bad political elements bent on making it as uncomfortable for the Gomen as possible in the run up to the General Election to be called sooner than later. They succeeded beyond their wildest dream in driving the Bersih crowd into a frenzy of violence against the Polis when they deliberately broke the Polis  barrier at Dataran Merdeka which prompted the Polis to fire tear gas and water cannons to control the unruly crowd.

My hope is that the Polis will in future  be tougher with rally organisers who refused to heed their instruction not to rally at a place that has been declared off-limits, they should not even be allowed to gather at any place with the intention to walk the streets to the point where the rally is not allowed. 

The Bersih3 organisers has proven absolutely that they could not control their crowd and they should be held accountable for the 28th April 2012 mob violence, they cannot be allowed to be let go just like that, it will be seen as a weakness on the part of the Polis and the Gomen and they will make any excuse to organise another Bersih rally even though we all know now that if anything needs to be cleaned it is the Bersih organisers and the bad political elements that has infiltrated its rank itself.

Talking about street political rallies, no body who participate in such rallies should expect it to be like a street festival, a walk in the park, you are all exposed to dangers to elements that are beyond your control, the 28th april 2012 mob violence is a case in point. I am particularly concerned about parents who bring their under age children to rallies, I think those parents needs to be picked up by the polis and be counselled by the Polis that taking children to rallies amounts to exposing their children to danger, injuries and god forbid death! If they are stubborn and repeat the same thing next time then these parents should know that they will face the consequences, the full force of the law.

Excerpt from the Peaceful Assembly Act:

Photos copied from Helen Ang's blog
Photo from my blog
Parents whatever believes or cause you like that you think deserve a participation in a rally, please by all means do so, but please do not take your children too, they would not know what the hell is going on and  please remember the fear and pain that your children could be exposed too.

Source here
Its so unfair for children to be exposed to such dangers as above.

Saturday, 5 May 2012

NST apologised to Xenophone, Xenophone who?

Well Xenophone is the Aussie senator invited by his good friend the unelected PKR Ketua Umum Anwar Ibrahim to visit Malaysia when Bersih unleashed their demons, the rioters on the streets of Kuala Lumpur just about a week ago.

Anyway to cut a crap story short, the NST had to apologise to Xenophone for a booboo they wrote based on some report about him, read here. Good luck to the NSTlah, I think they will still get sued, he is after all Anwar's friend what and Anwar is known to sue just about everybody he knows well except for the Dato' Trios who came up with the infamous sex video with a prostitute.

Well I don't know much about Xenophon but perhaps this article will help you and me get to know him better:

Read in full here
The Aussie article is an eye opener, is this guy Xenophone for real?

Read also sifu Rocky's Bru article on Xenophone here.

Friday, 4 May 2012

Kembalikan Malaysia yang Aman Damai kepada Kami

updated in Chittagong on 7 May 2012;

Senarai Kedua Wanted Bersih 3.0 - 42 Orang Lagi

Perhatian wahai kawan kawan yang cintakan keamanan di Malaysia bumi bertuah ini, sebarkan untuk tolong menangkap mereka yang disyaki merusuh untuk disoal siasat PDRM:

Bersih 3.0: Polis Buru 49 Orang Lagi
Published by AIDC on May 3, 2012

mynewshub – Polis hari ini mengeluarkan gambar senarai 49 yang dikehendaki ekoran penglibatan mereka dalam perhimpunan BERSIH 3.0 pada Sabtu lalu.

Ketua Polis Kuala Lumpur Datuk Mohmad Salleh berkata, kenyataan mereka diperlukan untuk membantu siasatan dalam perbagai kesalahan bawah Kanun Keseksaan.

Dalam sidang akhbar di Kuala Lumpur hari ini, Mohmad berkata, kesemua 49 nama itu diminta menyerahkan diri di balai polis berdekatan secepat mungkin.

Katanya, polis menerima 258 laporan berkaitan perhimpunan itu daripada pelbagai pihak.

Hubungi Pegawai Siasatan Jenayah D7A Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur, ASP Azmi Aziz di talian 019-2602344 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            019-2602344      end_of_the_skype_highlighting dan 019-3872344 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            019-3872344      end_of_the_skype_highlighting atau email azmiazizi@rmp.gov.my

Source of pics here and here

Would You Give Him a Scholarship Using Taxpayers Money?

PDRM must use the iron glove, the velvet glove have no effect on people who clearly intend to riot and cause mayhem on our streets. 

Ambiga and the whole Bersih leadership should also be hauled up for causing the riots in the streets of Kuala Lumpur when they refused to have their Bersih rally at safe locations offered by the Government.

And this Bersih woman need our sympathies, she was taken to the cleaners by a foreign photographer who happened to be a Muslim who married a Malaysian wife and speaks Bahasa Malaysia:

"Saya orang Islam, saya duduk di sini, isteri saya juga orang Malaysia, kamu jangan biadap!"