Thursday, 30 April 2015

1MDB....Apabila Perkasa pun sudah berbunyi

Apabila Perkasa pun sudah berbunyi:

“The 1MDB issue, according to many reports and statements, can be classified as a big CBT case that may involve many parties,”
Perkasa’s monitoring and integrity bureau secretary, Muhammad Azrul Akmal Sharudin

I believe that the people in 1MDB better start talking, as the elephant in the room has got much, much bigger already, lets give the people involved with 1MDB a help, disregard for awhile whatever TunM said about the 1MDB  perhaps answer these Questions asked by Mr. P Gunasegaram:

excerpts from the above:

Now let’s look at its business. Property development at two prime sites acquired cheaply from the government – the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) and Bandar Malaysia. And Energy; buying over established Malaysian power companies, Tanjong Energy, Genting Sanyen and Jimah Energy. And, that’s it.
Next a quick look at its financials from its annual reports: assets of some RM51 billion, liabilities of RM48 billion, borrowings of RM42 billion (RM46 billion if we include some forms of payables which look like debt) as at March 31, 2014. If not for revaluation of properties – acquired cheaply from the government – by some RM4 billion over the years, it would not have made profits at all.
Onwards to Jho Low, the whizz-kid (who may no longer be much of a kid any more) billionaire who has so much influence over 1MDB decisions, according to e-mail revelations by Sarawak Report which have not been denied by 1MDB yet and whose companies reportedly received at least US$1 billion from 1MDB.
The other development from Sarawak Report is that some US$1.1 billion in 1MDB’s funds from Cayman Islands, said to be kept in Singapore, may not be there because the records for those are said to be falsified.
That should be enough background. On to what 1MDB should be disclosing
1. Explain why there was a need to borrow RM42 billion at least when the energy assets only cost some RM13 billion and TRX and Bandar Malaysia are merely in the development stage.
2. Reveal exactly where and at what rates of return are the rest of the money of RM29 billion at least being kept, including the Singapore/Cayman funds. Tell us what is the amount recoverable from this and how you propose to recover them. Also explain why 1MDB was scrambling for cash to repay a loan of RM2 billion recently to local banks. Tell us too what was tycoon T Ananda Krishnan’s role in all of these.
3. Explain why such high fees of several hundred million US dollars was paid to Goldman Sachs for bonds floated and what was the nature of their role in such deals. While normal rates for arranging such financing is closer to 1 percent, why the need to pay 10 percent for these?
4. Explain how keeping RM29 billion in deposits and for-sale assets overseas is strategic and helps in bringing foreign direct investments or FDI into Malaysia.
5. Was there hanky panky in the fundraising process whereby bonds were mispriced, allowing those who got the bonds to cash out in the secondary market to gain billions of ringgit? Was this the reason why the debts were ramped up repeatedly? If not explain why the bonds were mispriced and who were the beneficiaries, in other words who got first bite at the bonds.
6. With RM42 billion of borrowings and an average interest rate of 6 percent, annual interest payments before repayments amounts to over RM2.5 billion. Considering that 1MDB has been making cash losses since inception, explain how 1MDB proposes to obtain the interest payments and repayments in future especially since energy assets are now worth below cost.
7. Explain the business model for 1MDB. How does it propose to get decent returns when its cost of borrowing may be 6 percent or higher, especially for huge borrowings of at least RM42 billion and as high as RM46 billion.
8. Explain how the property developments are “strategic” and why we need foreign partners to develop these when Malaysia has considerable expertise in property development. What about causing a glut of office space in Kuala Lumpur and squeezing out private developers? Explain how that is strategic.
9. Explain to us what is the oversight of the board and senior management over all these issues, especially in the light of Sarawak Report disclosures – which have not been firmly denied – that outside parties played crucial roles in decision-making.
10. Tell what exactly was Jho Low’s (right) role in 1MDB, when it started, how big was it and at whose behest did he have such a powerful pull over decisions made at 1MDB.
Read in full here

I hope the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will answer, because if he does not, BN and UMNO will need more than a wing and a prayer to ensure this would not happen:

Tuesday, 28 April 2015

PKR Selangor Exco YB Elizaberth Wong is wrong?

'Your PKR Exco is making misleading statements Azmin, so how?'

From the Malay Mail: 

Elizabeth Wong is wrong ― Concerned Lawyers for Justice

APRIL 26 ― Concerned Lawyers for Justice (CLJ) refers to the Malay Mail Online news report of 21 April 2015 titled “Churches may operate in commercial areas without permits, Selangor exco says”.
CLJ notes that the news report quotes Elizabeth Wong, a Selangor executive councillor and co-chair of the Selangor state committee on non-Islamic affairs (HESI) stating that the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MBPJ) has been allowing churches to operate without permits since 2008 (the starting point presumably being when the Pakatan Rakyat state government came to power in Selangor) and that all such churches have since then only needed to notify HESI, supposedly in accordance with Article 11 of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing freedom of worship. The same news report quotes her as contradicting an earlier stand taken by MBPJ public relations officer Zainun Zakaria that churches operating at commercial premises need to obtain a permit before they can do so according to law.
CLJ condemns the statement of Elizabeth Wong in this regard as it misleads the public, particularly in relation to the contents of Article 11 of our Constitution. CLJ would like to remind Elizabeth Wong that as an elected officer of the state, she is duty bound to uphold the rule of law, in particular the Federal Constitution and must not misrepresent the same. Even a cursory glance of Article 11 would reveal that freedom of worship and the right of religious organisations to own and manage any place of worship is not absolute but must be done in line with the law. Article 11(3)(c) in particular states that every religious group has the right to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
CLJ would also like to bring to the attention of Elizabeth Wong the applicable law in this regard, namely Subsection 70(12) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 which reads as follows:-
“Any person who uses any building or part of a building for a purpose other than which it was originally constructed for without the prior written permission from the local authority shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand ringgit and shall also be liable to a further fine not exceeding five hundred ringgit for every day during which the offence is continued after a notice to cease using for other purpose has been served on such person.”
It is thus manifestly clear that
it is illegal and an offence for any person,
including a religious organisation, 
to convert any residential or commercial property for any other use, 
including for any place of worship, 
without first obtaining prior written permission from the relevant local authority. 
It is also not within the competence nor jurisdiction of Elizabeth Wong nor HESI to ignore or waive a requirement that is clearly provided for in validly passed and enacted Federal legislation which clearly comes within the ambit envisaged by Article 11(3) of the Constitution.
Therefore, CLJ views with disquiet the supposed practice of the Selangor local authorities and HESI in not requiring written permission in respect of the operation of churches since 2008 and urges the relevant authorities to investigate this matter. 
As for Elizabeth Wong, CLJ calls upon her to retract her statement immediately and enforce the law as it stands on religious organisations and management of places of worship. CLJ is of the considered opinion that the practice of HESI and the Selangor state government since 2008 pertaining to the operation of churches is untenable, and must be halted immediately to ensure due respect is accorded the rule of law.
Read more here.

Saturday, 25 April 2015

Bicara Negarawan, Kuala Lumpur, 25 April 2015

Bicara Negarawan Kuala Lumpur 25 April 2015:

TunM you are not alone......

'Hotels, restaurants must display service charge notices or face fines' - Very Good!

After the introduction of the GST on 1st April 2015, I have always felt that extra charges, such as Service Charges not mandated by Law should not be part of the bill that we the customers are being charged for.

Finally something is moving which gives customers a choice to pay or not to pay service charges:

Restaurants and hotels with service charges that fail to display notices informing customers of their fees could face a fine of up to RM100,000 starting next Friday, The Star reported today.

The notices must be visible to potential customers and contain the words “all prices or charges are subject to __% service charge” in capital letters, with the height of the lettering at least 5cm.

“The notice must be in Bahasa Malaysia followed by a translation of the expression in any other language,” Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry secretary-general Datuk Seri Alias Ahmad was quoted as saying in the report.

Alias reportedly said the order, gazetted on Thursday, was in accordance with Section 10 of the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act.

“The order comes into operation on May 1, 2015.

“Any business owner who does not comply with this order is committing an offence and can be fined up to RM100,000,” he was quoted as saying in the report.

On Wednesday, Putrajaya announced that businesses such as hotels and restaurants can continue to collect service charge from consumers, ending confusion as to whether the fee was still allowed after the implementation of goods and services tax (GST).

Alias had said the decision had to be made because many of the workers are still earning salary as low as RM350.

Meanwhile, The Star said the ministry, under Ops Catut, would now shift its focus on GST-related offences in rural areas.

“After over 20 days since GST has been implemented, we have conducted 152,129 checks under Ops Catut and opened 30 cases,” Alias was quoted as saying.

“From now on, we will be shifting our focus to small businesses in rural areas such as small towns, villages and Felda settlements.

“We have received many complaints that our ministry is not doing enough checks but the fact is, we have conducted over 150,000 so far.

“We will also be conducting checks on manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors."

He said the ministry would set up mobile complaints centres in vans stationed near supermarkets and hawker bazaars.

“Customers can lodge complaints at these mobile centres and the officers can even launch investigations immediately,” he was quoted as saying. – April 25, 2015

Read more: here

Mind you I am a good tipper, and I do give good tips if the service is good.

Friday, 24 April 2015

Taman Medan - If Local Authority had done their job sooner, there won't be so much angst

The only way to solve the Taman Medan issue and others like it in the future...... is not by going after the demonstrators  or to disparage them and their religion, such actions will only make the situation more worse than it actually is. (future? yes..if you think that this kind of problem will go away if you whack the daylights out of the demonstrators then you are severely mistaken)

First we need to find out why the people protest, and contrary to what many says Malaysia is still a very tolerant and peaceful nation. Just because 50 of 30 Million Malaysians( 0.00016%) protest, that can't make 30 million people intolerant can it?

No need to go berserk like the English newspapers here, here, here. These people they just want to sell their newspapers. I don't read many of the rubbish their 'journalists' whipped up.

I like and in fact agree to what Ibrahim Ali has to say about it:


Datuk Ibrahim Ali mempersoalkan tindakan penduduk Taman Medan, Petaling Jaya yang mendesak salib diturunkan dan bukannya membantah gereja yang dilaporkan beroperasi tanpa permit sejak Ogos lalu.
Presiden Perkasa itu berkata, tiada masalah bagi penganut Kristian untuk mempamerkan salib kerana ia tidak bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang memberi kebebasan beragama.
“Bagi Perkasa, saya tiada masalah. Kalau isu semata-mata kerana salib, saya tak setuju. Kalau orang faham saya, saya bukan macam yang orang tuduh.
“Dalam konteks salib, tiada undang-undang mengatakan salib tidak boleh diletakkan di batang pokok kelapa atau di kedai.
“Penduduk protes salib. Oleh kerana itu, saya tak setuju dengan penduduk ini. Kalau mereka protes premis tak ada permit, itu boleh,” katanya kepada The Malaysian Insider.
Ibrahim berkata, dalam kes bantahan salib di kawasan majoriti Melayu-Islam itu, pihak yang terbabit iaitu 
Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ), 
penduduk setempat yang perlu dipersalahkan.
Katanya, sekiranya pihak gereja dan MBPJ mengambil langkah awal, insiden bantahan penduduk berkenaan dapat dielakkan.
“Pertama, pihak gereja guna rumah kedai untuk rumah ibadat, kedua MBPJ tidak ambil tindakan, ketiga baru kita salahkan mereka yang membantah kerana satu dan dua.
“Jika tiada tindakan pertama dan kedua, maka tiada ketiga. Jika gereja tidak dibuat di rumah kedai atau MBPJ ambil tindakan, tak timbul masalah ini.
“Gereja dan MBPJ terlebih dahulu perlu pelihara sensitiviti agama dan kaum. Kita kena salahkan mereka (MBPJ). Mereka dah tahu tak ada lesen. Kalau tak ada lesen melanggar peraturan, mengapa diam, tak ambil tindakan sebelum ini?” katanya.
Beliau berkata ekoran tiada tindakan awal daripada MBPJ, pihak gereja membuat keputusan untuk meletakkan salib.
Katanya, penduduk Taman Medan seharusnya melakukan bantahan ketika gereja itu mula dibuka, bukannya ketika salib dinaikkan di kawasan itu.
“Maka bila sebelum ini tiada tindakan, mereka naikkan salib. Bila gereja dah berjalan, mereka letak salib, baru orang Islam pergi bertindak, pun tak betul juga.
“Bertindak dari awallah. Dah tahu itu gereja mengapa tak bantah? Mengapa baru bantah bila letak salib? Adakah kerana gereja boleh, yang tak bolehnya salib, begitu?
“Kalau isu wujud gereja tanpa lesen, itu salah. Letak salib itu kebebasan beragama, kebebasan yang dijamin dalam Perlembagaan,” katanya.
Read in full here.

Anyway the issue is now blown up...I hope reasonable neutral Malaysians Leaders would come out and say something to calm things down, no , no, not the investigate the demonstrators for sedition or make fun of their religion...something more calming lah and more neutral.

I offer no unsolicited solution for the Taman Medan problem but Next time I hope the Local Authorithies would enforce the Law quickly. If the Church is illegal, take action immediately like what the Local authorithies did here

Had this been done the people in Taman Medan would not have demonstrated or protested  the way they did.

Monday, 20 April 2015

Do not over think, it would only makes things worse than it actually is

Is this a beginning of something that might change the Malaysian political landscape?

Or is it just business as usual for our DPM?

I do not want to over think, over thinking can make something worst than it actually is.

Saturday, 18 April 2015

For Malaysians who were born in 1940's, 50's, 60's ...a dedication

Sharing from  wassap chat group:

Dedicated To All those Born in 1940's, 50's, 60's.

Without any maids, our mothers cooked, cleaned and took care of the whole family. They still had time to chat with neighbors.

Everyone had candy floss, fizzy drinks and shaved ice with syrups. Diabetes were rare and panadol cured all illness.

We rode adult's bicycle to school, the richer ones had their own mini-bikes. Ironically, we all had problems with our brakes, and after running into the bushes a few times, we learned how to solve the problem.

Prefects were a fearful lot ...more fearful than the teachers. Detention class was like going to prison for a day. We had "public canning" in schools.

NO ONE ever won the big prices on "Tikam". It was a scam but it did not stop us coming back for more.

Motorbikes were rode without helmets. It was rare to ride a private taxi. Taking a bus was luxury - we either cycled or walked everywhere.

We drank water from the tap and NOT from bottles.

We spend hours in fields under the sun, playing football or flying kites, without worrying about UV ray. It did not affect us.

We roamed free catching spiders and did not worry of Aedes mosquitoes. We kept our spiders in match boxes and ready for a fight anytime.

With mere 5 pebbles, girls played endless games and with a tennis ball, boys ran like crazy for hours.

When it rained, we swam the drains & canals to catch "ikan keli", none of us were dissolved in rain.

We shared one bottle of soft drink with friends, NO ONE actually worried about catching anything.

We ate salty, sweet & oily foods, bread had real butter and sometimes condense milk. We enjoyed very sweet coffee, tea, and "ice kacang" but we were not obese because....... WE WERE OUT PLAYING ALL THE TIME!!

We left home in the morning and played all day till hunger drove us back home. When needed, our parents knew how to find us. NO ONE actually watched over us and WE ALWAYS WERE SAFE.

WE DID NOT HAVE HANDPHONES BUGGING US. We rode bikes or walked over to a friend's house and just yelled for them!

We did not have Playstations, X-boxes, Nintendo's, multiple channels on cable TV, DVD movies, no surround sound, no phones, no personal computers, no Internet. WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them! Our TV was black and white.

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and we still continued the stunts.

We did not have birthdays parties till we were 21, that is when we started to take noticed of girls.

We have not heard of the word "Bumiputra". We only knew our friends by names. Their parents were Pak Cik and Mak Cik or Uncle and Aunty.

In badminton, we did not change the shuttle as long as it was in flight. Regardless of how many feathers were left in the shuttle, our game continued... but still Wong Peng Soon and Punch Gunalan made us proud in Badminton.

Match-boxes were always "chilly" or "king kong" own a box of matches from a hotel was something great.

Regardless of whether we could afford one, we always knew Maths tuition was $10.00 a month.
All parties were held in the Town hall.

We felt please to see a policeman and we were always edger to tell police everything we saw.

Morris Minor and Volkswagen beetle were on our roads...driven alongside Kingswood, Vauxhall, Opel and Chyrsler. Executives of companies drove Peugeot 504. Japanese cars were considered "inferior". There were no traffic lights only roundabouts.

The whole kampung came together during kenduris and all took turns to "kacau dodol". Chinese, Indians and Malays were all part of kenduris and all of us spoke Malay.

Our favourite local performer was Rose Chan and the Beatles were the most popular band. John Wayne's westerns on Sunday Cheap Matinees were 25 cent per show.

Malay weddings had joget sessions in the night, it was the only time to ask the Malay lady for a dance.

Ketupat were NEVER plastic wrapped.

Football was played barefooted in torn-filled "padangs", rain or shine... but still Santokh Singh, Soh Chin Ann and Mokhtar Dahari made us proud, we actually beat South Korea in football.

JPJ testers instill fear and were highly respected...

Susu lembu was delivered to our house by our big, friendly and strong "Bayi" on his bicycle. All "jagas" were "Bayi" and no place got robbed.

"Laksa" and "Putu Mayam" man came peddling. "Kacang Puteh" man walked balancing on his head top, 6 compartments of different type of murukus.

We played "gasing", made our own kites & had kite fighting with glass glued threads and made wooden guns & used seeds from plants for bullets.

Kang Kong was free…easily harvested by riverside. "Kembong" was 30 cents a "kati" and nobody wanted "ikan pari".

When the Circus came to town, everybody went to see it. It was the best LIVE show we ever saw.

Usually we did not have to BUY fruits; they were self planted or given by neighbours or friends.

The idea of parents bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. Our parents actually sided with the law ! 

Nobody knew about child psychology!

Yet this generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 40 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned ......HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
And YOU are one of them!


You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kid before things took a turn in the 80s.

And while you are at it, share it with your kids so they will know how.

Friday, 17 April 2015

"Unless it can generate cash flow, it won't be sustainable" - Wahid Omar on 1MDB

"Unless it can generate cash flow, it will not be sustainable,"
Minister Wahid Omar on 1MDB

"Tabik Wahid Omar"


PM defends 1MDB, says assets more than liabilities

Double Hmm.....

1MDB not bankrupt, says Malaysia PM Najib

Triple Hmm..........

Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar admitted that the Ministry of Finance's strategic investment fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) is a burden, given its failure to generate cash flow against its huge debts.

The minister in the prime minister's department said that 1MDB had taken loans from banks and the capital market to purchase assets, but failed to raise cash flow, causing it to be unsustainable.

"All this while, they have expanded by taking loans from banks and the capital market. They purchased assets, including IPPs, causing their debt to rise to RM42 billion as of March 2014.

"So you can imagine the quantum; it is very high and tough," he said at a forum in Petaling Jaya last night.

1MDB's total debts have been reported as RM42 billion.

Responding to questions posed by the audience, Wahid said that as long as the assets were not able to generate cash flow, 1MDB will fail to be sustainable.

"Unless it can generate cash flow, it will not be sustainable," he said.

Read more here.

, an open admission by a Minister that something is rotten in 1MDB?

I would say the top management of 1MDB are a bunch of highly overly paid bahaluls.

Heads must Roll...start from the top.

Tabik to Minister Wahid Omar.

Read this too:

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

Please be informed that 1MDB is never about race.

I think it is  foolish of Jho Low to allege that he is being attacked for the 1MDB issue because he is Chinese, from the very beginning race was never an issue , the issue is 'where did all the money go were not explained clearly and decisively'

Read here:

Umno spin masters behind 1MDB attacks, says Jho Low 

Even UMNO members are pissed with Jho Low:

....and the the DAP as usual joined in too:

meanwhile the PM is going round looking for support from UMNO, so far he has had pledges of support from many Umno people..ya the usual Pemuda, Puteri, Wanita etc.etc. but some in Umno are strangely silent, but anyway:

And in the mean time Tun M is getting a lot of support too, 

I think these support is more ikhlas from the heart not from the pocket, what do you think?

....and perhaps Jho Low should come back to Malaysia and tell us what he knows?

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

Negara kita akan lebih aman bila wujud POTA 2015

It was a historic day yesterday as the  Prevention of Terrorism Bill (POTA) 2015 was passed without amendment at the Dewan Rakyat at about 2.25am after a debate of more than 12 hours:

Dewan Rakyat passes POTA without amendment

This is what Lawyer Faidhur Abdul Rahman Hadi commented in the Malay Mail online:

Enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 a welcome move

APRIL 8 — I read with satisfaction news articles both online and offline reporting the passage in Parliament of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 (now the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 or Pota). Now all that remains is for Pota to receive Royal Assent before a date is appointed for its coming into operation. The sooner that happens, the better for the sake of our national security.
Last year I had written about the general need for preventive laws to contain a number of ills that permeate our society. These include disrespect for the Federal Constitution and our social contract, the rampant recurrence of crime, the prevalence of racism in our national discourse, elements of subversion of the democratic process and of course not forgetting the increasingly real threat of terrorism.
Apart from the need to retain the Sedition Act 1948 against such threats confronting our nation, I had also argued for a return of the repealed Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) with protective mechanisms to safeguard individual liberty as introduced in the Prevention of Crime (Amendment) Act 2014 (Let’s bring back the ISA, too, The Malaysian Insider, 23 September 2014).
I am pleased that this suggestion has been, short of re-enacting the ISA, taken up by the relevant authorities. The mechanics of Pota do indeed seem to be derived from that of the existing amended Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
Examples include the vesting of the power to issue detention orders into a Board as opposed to a Minister, and the allowance for representation before the Board and review before the High Court.  This is a welcome step in defence of the liberty of persons detained pursuant to Pota and other preventive detention laws and is an adequate enough safeguard against any arbitrary arrest and detention.
The inclusion of a provision against detention on the grounds of political belief and activity fortifies this safeguard. It is also noteworthy that the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 is also to be amended again to streamline the mechanism therein to be in tandem with Pota.
If anything, the only weakness of Pota is the scope. In contrast to the ISA, which covered not only terrorism but other subversion activities detrimental to internal security, Pota would seem to be limited only to terrorist offences. 
Nonetheless, the introduction of some form of preventive detention law such as Pota is without doubt absolutely necessary as for a surety, demonstrated inescapably by our experience living in a post-ISA world, we cannot survive without preventive laws. Such laws are crucial for the maintenance of general public peace and security and are in force within nearly all legal jurisdictions of the world. 
The existence of the Patriot Act in the United States of America and the Prevention of Terrorism Act within the United Kingdom, both nations which pride themselves as liberal democracies, are but a few cases in point. Singapore’s wise decision to retain the ISA despite being urged to follow Malaysia’s 2012 move in repealing the same is now vindicated.
The rise of the Islamic State and the emergence within our community of those with militant tendencies is testament to this. As Bilveer Singh notes in his article, New law gives Malaysia teeth in fight against terror (Malay Mail Online, 7 April 2015), without preventive detention laws, troublemakers will gain confidence to threaten national security, and the authorities would be constrained to act upon offences when and after they have been committed, which would lead to massive loss of lives and property which, one might add, would be inevitable given the non-preventive nature of other existing laws against terrorism.
Against this backdrop, what was said recently by the President of the Malaysian Bar, Steven Thiru, in his Press Release of 5 April 2015 titled “Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 Violates Malaysia’s Domestic and International Commitments, is an Affront to the Rule of Law and is Abhorrent to Natural Justice” while predictable, must be condemned and rejected by all right thinking members, not just of the Malaysian Bar, but of society in general.
Farcical in content and based on misguided ideological notions of individual liberty as always, the making of the press release by the President of the Bar comes as no surprise given that the Bar Council has time and again made no secret of its desire to see that all preventive laws, including the Sedition Act 1948, which happens to be the last bastion of defence of our Federal Constitution, be abolished, and the said statement is further evidence that the council will not and never end their endeavour in this regard and will tirelessly work towards achievement of this goal.
But were the authorities to accede to this, and were we, the Malaysian public, to let them, then surely the price, which would be high and the consequences, which would be grave, is sure to be felt by the entire citizenry, regardless of alignment with the government of the day or the opposition, or whether they are members of the Malaysian Bar or otherwise.
It is axiomatic that we all want and desire peace and security, and this is one of the most fundamental of human rights to be upheld if only to ensure a vibrant and robust economy necessary for us to continue to enjoy high living standards, and thus preventive detention must be tolerated as a necessity to ensure our nation remains stable and the general situation is conducive towards the achievement of this outcome.
Without such laws, society would undoubtedly descend into constant chaos and anarchy. It is unsurprising therefore that the Bar Council having taken persistent stands against preventive laws, is in consequence thereof increasingly being perceived as anarchist.
It cannot be overstated that all who are concerned with the direction of the Malaysian Bar, most importantly lawyers, have a stake in procuring and requiring the immediate cession, by whatever means, of the Bar Council all and sundry activities in furtherance of the seemingly never ending crusade against preventive laws they have appointed themselves to undertake, ostensibly in the name of justice without fear or favour.
The actions of the Bar in this regard have always generated much outrage and public opprobrium given their sheer audacity and monumentally high level of recklessness attached to them, but it is heartening to note that critically, increasing numbers of frustrated members of the Malaysian Bar including myself not only disagree with but openly defy the position of the Bar Council not only on preventive laws, but many other matters and such a trend is expected to continue to grow in the future.
Once again, credit which is due must be given to the powers that be in the introduction, or rather reintroduction, of a tough but necessary preventive law against the commission of terrorist acts.  For the defence of our Federal Constitution and shared values, security, and even liberty, I am of the opinion, and undoubtedly my colleagues in CLJ agree with me, that it is vital that support be shown to such measures undertaken by the government and everyone of all walks of life continue to stand in vehement opposition towards the Bar Council and its supporters with regard to their position on preventive laws.
The message must ring loud and clear that we Malaysians want continued peace and prosperity and we will not allow this to be threatened by misguided ideological notions on liberty.
Read More here.

A condensed understanding of POTA via wassap by my good friend:


Kesalahan dibwh POTA

1. Akta pencegahan keganasan ialah 1 akta pencegahan jenayah berkaitan dgn aktvt keganasan militant .

2. Militant ditafsirkan sbg ,

1.1 pertubuhan atau kumpulan yg menjalankan aktvt ala ketenteraan yg tdk menggunakan protokol millitary ,sebaliknya beroperasi tanpa mematuhi undg undg dn secara am bersifat agresif .

1.2 pertubuhan millitant kebiasaannya dikuasai oleh golongan.,


3.pada masa kini , 80 % pertubuhan militant berfungsi sbg ,

1.tentera upahan
2.pejuang kebebasan
3.terlibat dgn aktvt jenayah keganasan yg melampau spt mengebom dll
4.perang saraf pelbagai cara
5.pencetus kekecauan dgn serangan berbahaya

4.80 % militant ini pada masakini adalah tajaan operatif sulit kuasa besar yg menggunakan militant keagamaan sbg senjata utk mencetuskan sesuatu huru hara yg bertujuan menjatuhkan sesebuah kerajaan utk menguasai negara itu melalui kerajaan boneka ciptaan mereka.

3. antara kesalahan dibwh akta pota ialah ,

1.menyokong aktvt militant dgn apa cara sekalipun samaada secara fizikal ataupun non fizikal ,

2.menyertai atau terlibat dgn apa jua aktvt berkaitan militant dgn apa jua cara termasuk membuat promosi berkaitan militant ataupun mengeluarkan ayat ayat perkataan yg menjurus kpd sokongan kpd militant dn sbgnya.

3.terlibat dgn apa cara sekalipun aktvt latihan fizikal ataupun non fizikal dll.

4. kes kes cth kesalahan dibwh POTA

1.akan atau telah menyertai atau libatkan diri dgn ISIS dgn cara sdg atau telah atau akan mengaturkan perjalanan ke zon perang

2.akan atau sdg atau telah membuat promosi atau iklan berkaitan seruan jihad diluar negara yg berkaitan dgn pertubuhan militant yg disahkan sbg pengganas ataupun pertubuhan tentera upahan yg bertopengkan keagamaan.

3.menggunakan logo atau simbol pertubuhan militant yg disahkan keraguan ketulenannya sbg sebuah pertubuhan kebebasan spt plo.

5.rakyat malaysia harus berhati hati dlm membuat sesuatu sokongan kpd mana mana pertubuhan keganasan agar tdk terperangkap dn terlibat dgn keaalahan jenayah dibwh POTA.


Friday, 3 April 2015

The Beast

I have always had a fascination with the US Presidential Limousine aka 'The Beast', jom join me tengok:

I wonder how the US President would feel when he retires and leaves the White House and gets driven in a normal limousine...hmmm.

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

A Layman's Guide to what the IGP do, the Attorney General do and the Courts do

'The IGP decides on who the police want to investigate for sedition, the Attorney-General’s Chamber decides on whether to press charges while the court will decide on whether the accused is guilty or 

'The crux of the matter is not the freedom of the press. TMI, which has a long track record of cheating and lying is no paragon of press freedom'
Helen Ang

Good question Marina, and it deserved a good response: 

This is Helen Ang's response to her (reproduced with permission from Helen lah of course):

81. Helen Ang  |  April 1, 2015 at 2:49 pm
‘Why does IGP get to decide what’s seditious? Marina Mahathir asks after TMI 5 arrests’ – an article in The Malay Mail yesterday.
The news portal quoted Marina as saying, “Very sad day for media freedom, as limited as we already had. How come IGP gets to decide who is seditious and who is not?”
Well, if not the Inspector-General of Police, then who? After all, it is Khalid Abu Bakar who represents the power of the authorities as the country’s top law enforcement officer.
So yeah – to answer Marina’s question – indeed he gets to decide on THE INVESTIGATION of “who is seditious and who is not”. Being the PM’s consultant in NUCC, Marina ought really be more knowledgeable about these things.
Yup, the IGP decides on who the police want to investigate for sedition, the Attorney-General’s Chamber decides on whether to press charges while the court will decide on whether the accused is guilty or not.
And no, the arrest of Ho Kay Tat, Jahabar Sadiq and Gang is not a “[v]ery sad day for media freedom” as claimed by Marina. Not at all.
It is a day most welcomed as the agenda-driven TMI has been terrorizing Malaysians through their patently false reports, concocted from thin air, and their character assassination of innocent victims.
When contacted yesterday, Marina told The Malay Mail, “If the report is inaccurate, then there should be official statement on it. TMI would lose some credibility”.
The truth of the matter is, TMI simply refuses to correct their maliciously faked copy, even when the request comes from the Prime Minister’s Office itself.
Below are the PMO tweets on 25 March 2015 complaining about TMI’s deliberate misrepresentation of a part of the PM’s speech. TMI put words in Najib Razak’s mouth that he never uttered.
PMO statement:
“We wld like 2 clarify an inaccurate story by The Msian Insider today. PM @NajibRazak did not say Sedition Act is needed 2 curb terrorism.”
“In his speech, PM @NajibRazak said: ‘We also prioritise racial & religious harmony, that is why we need to strengthen the Sedition Act’.”
“Despite our request to correct the story, The Malaysian Insider has yet to do so.”
If the PM himself is unable to obtain redress/correction from TMI for its deliberate misquote, then how would the rest of us mere mortals fare when we are bullied and smeared by the TMI lying and spinning machine?
It was widely reported that TMI had committed “suatu provokasi fitnah yang sangat jahat sekali ke atas institusi Kesultanan Melayu”.
According to a report in the Malaysia Aktif portal, the Council of Rulers expressed their “kemurkaan yang amat sangat”. See ‘Tindakan Tegas perlu dikenakan terhadap Portal Malaysia Insider’ article on 26 March 2015.
Malaysia Aktif reported that the Council had taken to task TMI for “mencemar ketinggian darjat dan martabat ke Bawah Duli-duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan dan Raja-raja Melayu”.
“Majlis Raja-raja Melayu menafikan sekeras-kerasnya artikel berkenaan dan tidak pernah membincangkan mengenai pindaan Perlembagaan berkenaan pelaksanaan hudud sebagaimana yang ditulis.”
The Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal proceeded to lodge a police report on March 26 saying that the TMI report is false.
Isma in its March 31 article pointed out that despite all the brouhaha, TMI still yet chose to display the false and malicious story in its website for a week. – “Sehingga berita ini ditulis TMI terus mengekalkan laporan mengaitkan Majlis Raja-Raja dengan hudud dalam ruangan ‘MOST READ THIS WEEK’.”
The Malay Mail story further quoted Marina as saying that the “heavy-handedness makes people sympathise with TMI, especially since it’s the latest in a long line of arrests”.
It also said that Marina believes, “If you arrest people for voluntarily coming forward to aid in investigations, what incentive is there ever to help the police?”
Those who sympathise would sympathise regardless. Even after TMI‘s credibility has been torn to shreds, it makes no difference simply because some Malaysians are so partial and partisan due to the ABU-ABU-ABU politics that they’ve lost their moral compass.
Marina’s statement on “what incentive is there ever to help the police?” is certainly typical of her ‘Liberal Doses’ persona.
She is now going on a Twitter overdrive tweeting her support for press freedom vis-à-vis TMI.
The crux of the matter is not the freedom of the press. TMI, which has a long track record of cheating and lying is no paragon of press freedom.
In fact, TMI‘s abuse of the media went so far as to include the publication of a doctored photo that cast the PAS president in a bad light. A banner carried during a recent ‘Free Anwar’ demo was Photoshopped to say “Undur Hadi” when the actual wording had referred to somebody else.
And Marina seems to harbour double standards. Freedom of the press was not on her mind when she was so very quick to sue Isma for linking her – in her capacity as a director in Sisters in Islam – to the Comango faith freedom initiative.
In fact, Marina also threatened to sue any website or blog that reproduced the Isma flyer which had her name on it.
The issue with TMI is misrepresentation and defamation. Its editors were hauled up to be investigated on the charge of publishing seditious material that has the tendency “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection” against the Rulers.
Pakatan media have been spinning as if there was only a careless and forgivable mistake contained in the TMI article. This is so sneaky.
The entire TMI article is a complete fabrication. Our nine Sultans, Raja and Yamtuan Besar have rebutted the article as false.
Hence Marina’s Bangsar Malaysia posturing against the IGP does her no credit.
It’s Marina-0, IGP-1, I’m afraid.
Thanks Helen Ang for that,

Yup we are all very annoyed and tired with the shallow defense of the usual liberals who thinks that TMI can say whatever it wants in the name of press freedom, we all know that's all bull shit, ask the French and American lah.