Tuesday, 28 February 2017

If you are sick who do you see? a doctor lah

So you think you know all the answers eh?

If there's something strange in your neighborhood
Who you gonna call? (ghostbusters)
If there's something weird
And it don't look good
Who you gonna call? (ghostbusters)

I ain't afraid of no ghost
I ain't afraid of no ghost

If you're seeing things running through your head
Who you gonna call? (ghostbusters)
An invisible man
Sleeping in your bed
Who you gonna call? (ghostbusters)

I ain't afraid of no ghost
I ain't afraid of no ghost

Lyric source here

If you are sick
who do you see
(a doctor)

if an airplane needs to be flown
who do you call
(a pilot)

if you seek a Attorney General 
who do you find
(a lawyer or judge)

So who do you call if you need a New Auditor General?

Monday, 20 February 2017

Sejauh mana anda memahami Hudud (re RUU35) ?

Hope my readers will give this a good read on the RUU355, it will be worth your while:

Satu forum yang telah dianjurkan oleh Angkatan Amanah Merdeka Malaysia (AAMM) bertajuk 'Sejauh Mana Anda Memahami Hudud' di Dewan Rumah Kelab Persatuan Alumni Universiti Malaya (PAUM) pada Ahad 12 Februari 2017 dimana forum tersebut telah menyaksikan beberapa hujahan yang menyokong dan juga menentang RUU355.

Antara panel forum tersebut adalah; Mufti Perlis Dr Mohd Asri Zainual Abidin, Pensyarah Undang-undang Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) Profesor Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi dan juga Pensyarah Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) Profesor Dr Ahmad Fauzi Abd Hamid.

Presiden PAS Abdul Hadi Awang sebelum ini telah membentangkan Rang Undang-Undang (RUU) Persendirian Pindaan Kuasa Dewan Rakyat bertujuan meminda Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang Kuasa Jenayah) 1965.

PERLIS Mufti Datuk Dr Asri Zainul Abidin spoke bluntly at a recent forum on religion.

“Gossiping is a big sin in Islam but are there (syariah) laws against gossiping? Do you see the religious authorities sending officers out to haul up those who gossip?’’

He points out that while some things are haram (forbidden) and sinful in Islam, that does not mean that Allah demands for all of these to be punished in a court of law.

In the case of adultery, for example, he says, if there are only three witnesses of good character present and not four as required by the religion, the adulterer would have to be let off.

“Not all sins have to hauled up to court. The religion doesn’t ask us to go and check up on people, from room to room or car to car, asking for their surat nikah (marriage licence) to find out if they are married or not.’’

Citing another example, he says, a powerful and rich person who commits a crime might be able to afford a good lawyer who cleverly argues the case and gets it thrown out of court.

“But that doesn’t mean that because they got away with it in a court of law, they will get away with it in the Court of the Hereafter. God knows everything.

“Muslims believe we will be tried for all our sins. Drinking alcohol, adultery, stealing are all sins. When we die, we will have to face God and answer for whatever we did. There is no escape.’’

Dr Asri was speaking at the “How Much Do you Know About Hudud” forum organised by Angkatan Merdeka Malaysia.

Touching on PAS president Datuk Seri Dr Hadi Awang’s motion before Parliament for the amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction ) Act 355 (popularly referred to as RUU355), Dr Asri said there are concerns it is all part of a political game.

Dr Asri stresses that while the Quran and Sunnah (tradition of the Holy Prophet) are divine, the interpretations are not.

He points out that while hudud (Islamic Penal Code) is mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah, it is not spelt out in great detail with regards to the context and conditions.

So it was left to scholars to deliberate on these.

“Scholars do not always agree so they have different interpretations of things. So which interpretation should you favour? These are not divine.’’

On RUU355, Dr Asri says, the politicians supporting it keep saying it is not the hudud.

“If it is not hudud, then surely we Muslims are allowed to criticise and give our views. So why is it that whoever criticises RUU355 is labelled as going against Islam? How is it that if you oppose the amendments you are said to oppose Allah’s Laws?

“And what are Allah’s Laws? Does it mean that if you increase the penalty for an offence from RM5,000 to RM100,000 that it now becomes Allah’s Law?’’

Dr Asri says even within the country, there are differences from state to state in the way Islamic matters, including polygamy, is dealt with, “so we must be very careful about calling something ‘Allah’s Law’.’’

For him, discussion and debate are essential when looking into the dimension of punishment, because it is not only about implementation but also the conditions, the context, and suitability.

He points out that in the Quran, there is a verse, Surah Al Anfal, which talks about the spoils of war and how they should be distributed, with fighters entitled to their share of them too. But he points out that this is not implemented today, because even though it is in the Quran, the wars of today are different from those in the early days; and soldiers now are paid salaries and allowances.

“Defending the country is jihad (a noble struggle) but we don’t hear any political party in the country asking for a spoils of war law to be implemented because the context in today’s world is different.’’

In a jibe at PAS, he says, “tens of years ago’’ they used to label other Muslims who were not with them as “infidels’’, they described the Federal Constitution as a “Jahiliyah” Constitution (Constitution of Ignorance) and warned Muslims against wishing non-Muslims during their religious festivals because for them that was tantamount to leaving the Muslim faith.

But, he says, PAS has backpedalled now on what it said previously and today it says it upholds the Federal Constitution.

“Allah’s Law should never be politicised. It is difficult when political parties come in and play a role in what they deem is Islamic law.

“When religion is politicised, the discussion is no longer fresh and not the sort that can stimulate rational thinking and a healthy discourse.’’

Dr Asri questions: Why do Muslims have a mentality that says, in order to be Islamic the hand of someone who steals has to be amputated?

This kind of mentality is wrong, he says, adding that these kinds of Muslims understand Islam in a closed-off, secluded and non-holistic manner.

“It is like the IS (Islamic State) mentality, where they think of only punishing and not about developing the place.’’

For him, it is wrong to give the world the impression that justice in a Muslim country is served “when we cut off the hands of those who steal, whip those who commit adultery and punish those who drink alcohol’’ and that “this is what showcases the beauty of Islam’’.

Dr Asri says Islam is all about better welfare for the people, spiritual development, strengthening family bonds, and ensuring peace and harmony in society.

And he points out that the Government has already taken action to do a number of these, such as building schools and universities and giving people an education, which is something sought by the religion.

He says there are many things which could have been brought before Parliament, such as how to inculcate the beauty and mercy of Islam into education and the economy.

“But in tens of years in parliament, they (PAS) never even brought these up and focused instead on labelling other Muslims infidels, and having two imams during prayers (because they refused to be led in prayers by an Umno imam).”

He points out that Muslim countries with renowned scholars such as Egypt, Kuwait and Qatar have never discussed implementing hudud, and countries like Pakistan, Sudan and Nigeria that tried to implement it have stopped, because in today’s world, people and conditions are different.

He also says that in Islam there should never be double standards in implementing a law.

“I fear that a person who steals a car will get his hand amputated but a nobleman who steals millions will not get his hand amputated.’’

He questions what such a thing would do to the fabric of society and the image of Islam.

Dr Asri says if a Muslim faces amputation for a theft and non-Muslims do not, that would not help create harmony and peace within society because there are two sets of laws for the same crime.

He fears if such laws are enacted and implemented in an unjust manner, it will cause Muslims to leave the faith.

“Muslims don’t need this right now.

“There are many other issues that we should be looking into, such as the issue of good governance, the environment and corruption. We should also be looking at issues that help women, such as expediting divorce cases, because there are a number of cases where women in the midst of getting a divorce are left hanging for years without their cases being resolved. I think all these matters should be sorted out first otherwise people will feel that Islam is unjust to women.

“For me, if the amendments to RUU355 are not going to result in good, let us postpone them and focus on our priorities.’’

Read in full from TheStar here.

IT has been quite a busy week for those interested in the issue of amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, commonly referred to as RUU355.

The week started with a “How Much Do you Know About Hudud” forum last Sunday with eminent speakers and people from both sides of the divide giving their views. On Thursday, retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof gave his views in a lecture at the Law faculty in Universiti Malaya (UM). And yesterday, those in support of and those against RUU355 held their separate rallies on the issue.

At his talk at UM, Mohamad Ariff said he has no doubts the amendments to RUU355 that PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang put before Parliament in November are constitutional – but he has reservations about them because he fears abuse.

“Yes, they can do it constitutionally. But should it be done the way it is being done? No! I believe the upper limits are simply too high,’’ he says.

Hadi is proposing the fine for syariah offences be hiked up to a maximum of RM100,000 from the current RM5,000; the jail sentence be increased to 30 years from the present three years; and the number of strokes in whipping be allowed to go up to 100 instead of the current six.

For Mohamad Ariff, the current limits are already very high. He says, for instance, religious authorities are able to fine someone teaching religion without certification RM5,000 in some states and RM3,000 in others, which is already very high.

“What else do you want? Imprisonment for 15 years? What do you require a jail sentence of 30 years for? Or whipping? You don’t whip someone for teaching without a tauliah (accreditation)!’’

“If you don’t approach this in the right way, it can lead to all kinds of abuses.’’

Mohamad Ariff cited the case of an MP (Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad) who went to a surau to deliver a talk about the plight of people suffering in Gaza at the invitation of the surau: the religious authorities in the state went after him and (the Klang Lower Syariah Court) fined him RM2,900 for “teaching without accreditation’’.

“He was there to give a talk by invitation! And now this poor MP is going to lose his Parliament seat. This is a lesson to highlight this entire problem. You can create offences in the Syariah Court and increase upper limits but if you don’t approach it properly and you don’t have the right people to apply it, it can lead to all kinds of abuses.’’

(Under Article 48 of the Federal Constitution, an elected representative will lose his seat if he is convicted of an offence and fined RM2,000 or more, or receives a jail sentence of a year or more).

Mohamad Ariff also pointed out that when the maximum fine is low like at present and capped at RM5,000, the discrepancies for the offences are not so great from state to state.

“But if you have a RM100,000 limit, you can imagine what can happen!”

For him, it is just not logical to argue that there is a need to increase the upper limits by such a huge quantum solely on grounds that the Syariah Courts have been neglected all this while and need to be upgraded to the level of the Civil Courts.

He points out that the Civil Courts have to deal with the Penal Code and all kinds of offences, while the Syariah Courts have only limited jurisdiction.

And he says that the Federal Constitution makes it clear that the Syariah Court cannot encroach into areas covered by civil law and the Penal Code.

He believes the framers of the Federal Constitution would be simply “aghast” at what is happening with regards to syariah law and the direction the country is taking.

So, he says, civil society and “politicians of saner minds” should really ask for the justifications for the amendments to RUU355 and ask why the fines and punishments have to be so high?

“Don’t simply vote in favour of it just because it is constitutional.

“I have a feeling they (those pushing for the amendments) can’t justify it.’’

Mohamed Ariff notes that there is already some overlapping of criminal offences in the Penal Code with syariah law, for example laws regarding sodomy.

When there is such an overlap, he says, the offence under syariah law is probably invalid because the offence should be tried under the Penal Code.

“We have all the expertise, all the prosecutors necessary, the judges and everything else that can do justice. Can you trust the same to be done in the Syariah Courts?’’

He praises the Syariah Court for being good in dealing with family law.

He says it can improve its efficiency in dispensing justice in the areas of marriage, family and the inheritance laws of Muslims, “which are the staple of syariah personal laws of Malaysia, rather than being too preoccupied with imposing the harshest punishments for syariah criminal offences’’.

At the forum earlier in the week discussing “How Much Do you Know About Hudud’’, constitutional law expert Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi said, according to the law, Syariah Courts have powers over offences that are against the “precepts” of Islam but “sadly’’ the Federal Constitution doesn’t define what these precepts of Islam are.

“So many states are abusing their power by treating anything they like or don’t like as a precept of Islam.

“If you question a fatwa (religious edict), no matter how respectfully, that is a criminal offence. If you give a discourse on Islam without a tauliah (credentials) that is against the precepts of Islam.

“I don’t know which Islam we are talking about. It is not the Islam I was born into and not the Islam I practise. This is an attempt by some to arrogate a monopoly of power to themselves.’’

He says some of the religious laws the states are passing are being done very unthinkingly, citing as an example the law that stipulates that speakers need credentials from that state to be able to speak on religion.

“So if a lecturer gives a talk to a class on Islamic law, I am not sure if it is legal any more because they would need to be bertauliah (accredited by the state).’’

He says the tauliah law states that people can only discuss religion with their family at home.

“So if I am in a car with my family on the way to Kota Baru, I cannot talk about religion because that is not my house. Or if I am at home and someone by chance visits me, then I cannot talk because it is not just my family any more.

“This kind of law is unthinking and needs to be reviewed. It makes us look like fools! I don’t know how the law even got through!’’

Dr Shad says that syariah law is not a blank cheque for states to do whatever they want with in regards to religion, stressing that the power of states to punish Islamic crimes is subject to Federal control and must be conferred on the states by Federal law.

Which means that despite the Kelantan State Assembly passing the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment (1993) and the amended Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code II (2015), the state cannot carry out punishments such as stoning, crucifixion, execution, or amputation because these are outside its jurisdiction.

For him, the Syariah Courts are supposed to punish offences that are relatively minor in nature such as khalwat (close proximity), drinking alcohol, abuse of halal signs; also, syariah offences must not be matters already in the Federal list.

“But unfortunately, most states are trespassing on the Federal Constitution by punishing crimes like homosexuality, incest, participating in lotteries, betting, and gaming which come under Federal law.’’

Dr Shad points out that some civil judges do not seem to know the Federal Constitution and they abdicate their responsibility to interpret and enforce the law whenever there is even “a smallest whiff of Islam”, even though it is clearly stated that when it is a matter concerning a Muslim and a non-Muslim, it has to go before a Civil Court because a non-Muslim is not eligible to go to the Syariah Court.

“Barring a few honourable exceptions, our courts get cold feet whenever there is an issue of Islamic law. They bend over backwards to expand the horizon of the power of the syariah parties.’’

Dr Shad believes that Hadi’s private member Bill is “clearly a clever attempt to revive the Kelantan Criminal Code II which has been lying dormant because of constitutional hurdles’’.

Saying that the punishment must be proportionate to the offences committed, he points out the penalties in Hadi’s motion calling for 100 lashes, 30 years jail, and a maximum RM100,000 fine are for some crimes that are victimless.

“If someone drinks, if someone doesn’t say his prayer, or doesn’t fast, there is no real harm to national security and public order.

“Some of the punishments in the Penal Code are lesser (for more serious crimes). But for not saying your prayers you can get 30 lashes!’’

He says experts in Islam will tell you that there is a difference between sin and crimes, and that not every sin needs to be criminalised – “This law (RUU355) tends to do that (criminalise every sin).’’

He says as this is a matter of national importance, it would be quite in line for the Malay Rulers as the heads of religion in their states to discuss the law and give direction.

Saying that he is all for genuine dialogue, Dr Shad notes that while the Quran is divine, the interpretations are human.

“As a student of law I have to say there is no word that is not capable of multiple interpretations. Those of us who are Muslims have a duty to paint our religion in the best possible light. So if there is an interpretation that is available that is kinder, gentler and more merciful, what’s the harm in trying to promote it?’’

(Dr Shad writes the fortnightly Reflections On The Law column in The Star.)

Read in full from TheStar here.

Saturday, 18 February 2017

Tak logik lah kalau semua salah Uncle Kit kan?

Artikel ini diambil sepenuhnya dari blog saudara Shahbudin.com:

Semua isu-isu yang timbul sejak Dato' Seri Najib menjadi Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Kewangan tidak melibatkan Lim Kit Siang. 

Apakah isu-isu tersebut? 

1. Lim Kit Siang tidak mencadang atau menyokong pengenalan GST yang membebankan rakyat jelata.

2. Lim Kit Siang tidak mencadang atau menyokong keputusan menghapuskan subsidi sehingga naik harga barang dan toll.

3. Lim Kit Siang tidak mencadang atau menyokong kenaikan harga minyak petrol dan diesel.

4. Lim Kit Siang tidak pernah bersetuju untuk menggunakan wang KWAP untuk melabur dalam perniagaan atau perusahaan yang tidak menguntungkan.

5. Lim Kit Siang tidak pernah dirundingi untuk menukar surat hak-milik tanah peneroka Felda yang sangat bernilai dan tidak turun harganya dengan sijil saham yang tidak menentu harganya dan kini harga sahamnya merudum turun kerana dilanda kerugian.

6. Lim Kit Siang tidak pernah menjadi perajurit dalam angkatan tentera dan tidak tahu menahu mengenai Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera; beliau tidak terlibat dalam keputusan menggunakan wang tabung LTAT untuk membiayai projek yang tidak menguntungkan. 

7. Lim Kit Siang tidak pernah pinjam duit Mara untuk berniaga atau sebagai biasiswa waktu beliau belajar; beliau juga tidak pernah merestui penyelewengan yang kini dikatakan berlaku dalam MARA.

8. Lim Kit Siang belum memeluk ugama Islam dan beliau tidak pun tahu mengenai salahguna wang Lembaga Urusan dan Tabung Haji untuk pelaburan yang merugikan. 

9. Lim Kit Siang, kerana belum memeluk ugama Islam, tidak pernah membayar zakat itulah sebabnya dia tidak tahu bahawa pejabat ugama mengadakan lawatan ke Paris sebagai salah satu acara dalam 'Kursus Pernikahan'.

10. Lim Kit Siang bukan seorang Melayu/Bumiputera dan dia tidak merasa penderitaan, dan bukan sebab kepada penderitaan, maka biasiswa anak-anak Melayu dikurangkan jumlahnya oleh kerajaan. 

11. Bukan Lim Kit Siang yang menamatkan khidmat Peguam Negara.

12. Bukan Lim Kit Siang yang menukar pegawai MACC kerana menyelidiki kes yang melibatkannya.

13. Bukan Lim Kit Siang yang mencadangkan dikenakan label OSA atas semua hasil penyelidikan atas sebarang salahlaku dalam apa jua syarikat, badan dan agensi kerajaan.

14. Bukan Lim Kit Siang yang menghalang Bank Negara Malaysia dari mengambil tindakan atas penyelewengan dalam institusi kewangan  dalam dan luar negara.

15. Bukan Lim Kit Siang yang mencadang untuk membeli kapal selam Scorpine; dan bukan dia yang suruh Sirul dan rakannya untuk membunuh Altantuya.

16. Bukan Lim Kit Siang yang suruh SPRM untuk menyelidik dan tangkap perasuah-perasuah kecil supaya perasuah yang lebih hebat kelihatan tidak rasuah.

17. Bukan Lim Kit Siang yang mengarah media perdana supaya setiap hari mengutuk Tun Dr. Mahathir walaupun beliaulah yang telah mengharumkan negara Malaysia di zaman pemerintahannya selama 22 tahun menjadi Perdana Menteri.

18. Lim Kit Siang tidak pernah terbabit dalam sebarang skandal seks.

19. Lim Kit Siang tidak pernah terlibat dalam sebarang skandal kewangan. 

20. Lim Kit Siang tidak menjadi pengeluar filem lucah di Hollywood dengan memakan belanja wang yang disalurkan dari syarikat milik negara.

21. Lim Kit Siang tidak pernah melabur wang negara yang dicurinya di Singapura, Hongkong, New Zealand, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Amerika Syarikat dan namanya tidak pernah disebut sebagai penjenayah dalam mana jua mahkamah didunia. 

22. Lim Kit Siang tidak pernah merancang untuk membawa 1.5 juta rakyat dari Bangladesh sehingga rakyat Bangladesh melebihi jumlah rakyat keturunan India yang ada dalam negara sekarang ini.

23. Lim Kit Siang juga bukan perancang untuk membenarkan ratusan ribu Cina dari negara Komunis China untuk membeli harta milik tetap (freehold) dan tinggal di negara ini.

24. Lim Kit Siang juga tidak boleh disalahkan jika harta-harta yang sangat bernilai seperti Lapangan Terbang Sungai Besi dijual kepada syarikat dari negara Komunis China.

25. Lim Kit Siang tidak boleh disalahkan jika kos pembangunan satu-satu projek, seperti keretapi di Pantai Timur dinaikkan harganya sehingga Negara terhutang sejumlah yang sukar untuk dibayar dari hasil projek berkenaan.

26. Lim Kit Siang menyokong RUKUNEGARA dan tidak pernah menentangnya.

27. Lim Kit Siang menyokong dan tidak pernah menentang PERLEMBAGAAN. Justeru itu, Lim Kit Siang turut mendaulatkan RAJA-RAJA MELAYU, Lim Kit Siang menyokong BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN. Lim Kit Siang menyokong ISLAM MENJADI UGAMA PERSEKUTUAN. Lim Kit Siang menyokong HAK ISTIMEWA ORANG-ORANG MELAYU DAN BUMIPUTERA, walaupun Lim Kit Siang tidak menegur apabila Hak Istimewa ini tidak dinikmati secara keseluruhan bangsa Melayu/Bumiputera.

28. Lim Kit Siang menyokong serampang dua mata DASAR EKONOMI BARU iaitu untuk MEMBASMI KEMISKINAN dan MENYUSUN SEMULA MASYARAKAT, tetapi Lim Kit Siang menegur apabila terlalu ramai orang Melayu dan kaum-kaum lain yang masih ramai kekal miskin dan Lim Kit Siang juga menegur apabila peroses menyusun semula masyarakat tidak mencapai matlamat kerana cara pelaksanaannya. 

29. Lim Kit Siang tidak bertanggungjawab, malah tidak tahu menahu mengenai penubuhan 1MDB; tidak pernah menjadi penasihat atau ahli lembaga pengarah, pegawai atau pekerjaa di 1MDB. 

Oleh itu, patutkah Datuk Zaid Ibrahim untuk takut berkawan dengan DAP dan berjuang menentang rasuah dan ketidakadilan bersama mereka? 

Alangkah baiknya jika ramai pemimpin Melayu seperti LIM KIT SIANG.

Salahkah Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad untuk bergabung tenaga dengan Lim Kit Siang, dan mereka yang sejenis sikap dengannya,  untuk sama-sama menentang penyelewengan, rasuah dan pengkhianatan kepada negara?

Salahkah Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad untuk membetulkan kesilapannya kerana telah salah menanam budi dan memilih pengganti2nya yang beliau tidak sangka menjadikan negara dipandang hina seperti sekarang dan rakyat jelata menderita kerana beban hutang negara yang bertimbun dan tidak mungkin selesai dibayar oleh anak, cucu dan cicit kita semua.  

(Artikel diatas adalah sebahagian tulisan terbaru Tan Sri Sanusi Junid yang dipetik daripada blognya, sanusijunid.blogspot.com - SH 18/02/2017)

Yup, tak logik lah kalau semua salah Lim Kit Siang kan, kan, kan?

Monday, 6 February 2017

Berjaga-jaga ungkit perkara lama

From Sinar Harian: Berjaga-jaga ungkit perkara lama


KEBELAKANGAN ini beberapa saluran propaganda arus perdana telah membangkitkan semula peristiwa yang berlaku masa lampau.

Dua daripadanya adalah skandal Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF) dan pembabitan Bank Negara dalam perniagaan tukaran mata wang.

Dalam kes BMF, saya adalah antara wartawan terawal membuat berita yang kemudiannya didapati tidak benar. Apabila berita skandal itu mula dilaporkan oleh agensi berita antarabangsa dan media serantau, saya bertanya seorang pegawai kanan Bank Bumiputra mengenainya.

Bank Bumiputra adalah induk kepada BMF yang berupa sebuah syarikat pinjaman yang beribu pejabat di Hong Kong.  

Pegawai itu menafikan berita yang BMF mengalami masalah kewangan akibat hutang lapuk. Saya menyiarkan berita itu dalam akhbar saya, Business Times.

Laporan saya itu ternyata songsang dan krisis MBF akhirnya meledak menyebabkan kerugian besar kepada Bank Bumiputra.

Pokok pangkal skandal itu bermula sekitar tahun 1979-80 ketika mana Perdana Menteri ialah Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn dan Menteri Kewangan, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

Sebelum dilantik Menteri Kewangan pada tahun 1976, Tengku Razaleigh adalah Pengerusi Bank Bumiputra.

Beliau juga pernah menjadi Pengerusi Perbadanan Nasional (Pernas), Petronas dan Kumpulan Fleet yang memiliki New Straits Times Press Berhad.

Skandal itu bermula apabila BMF memberikan pinjaman besar dan mudah kepada seorang jurutera Singapura bernama George Tan.

Dengan pinjaman BMF itulah Tan membeli pencakar langit Gammon House dan harta-harta lain di Hong Kong. Dalam sekelip mata Tan menjadi wunderkinder atau budak ajaib dunia korporat Hong Kong. Waktu itu Hong Kong masih tanah jajahan Inggeris.

Siasatan yang dilakukan di Malaysia, Hong Kong dan United Kingdom akhirnya menyebabkan tiga rang pegawai kanan Bank Bumiputra dan BMF dipenjarakan di England dan Hong Kong. Salah seorang daripadanya adalah pegawai yang memberitahu saya bahawa BMF tidak menghadapi sebarang masalah.

Mereka yang didapati bersalah dan dipenjarakan adalah pengerusi Bank Bumiputra, Lorraine Esmi Osman; Pengarah Urusan Hashim Shamsuddin dan Ketua Pegawai Ekonomi, Dr  Rais Saniman. Lorraine meninggal tahun 2011.

Apabila Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad menjadi Perdana Menteri, sebuah jawatankuasa penyiasat yang dianggotai oleh Ketua Juruaudit Negara, Tan Sri Ahmad Nordin, juruaudit bebas Ramli Ibrahim dan peguam Chooi Man Sou telah ditubuhkan. Antara fakta yang muncul ialah lembaga pengarah Bank Bumiputra enggan memberi kerjasama.

Berikutan meledaknya skandal itu, Tengku Razaleigh ditukarkan dari Kementerian Kewangan ke Kementerian Perdagangan dan Perindustrian. Ahli perniagaan dan bekas majistret Tun Daim Zainuddin dilantik menggantikan beliau.

Kes kedua ialah kerugian perniagaan tukaran asing Bank Negara pada tahun 1990-an yang berjumlah AS$12 bilion atau kira-kira RM30 bilion pada kadar tukaran waktu itu.

Tujuan tersirat operasi itu adalah mempertahankan nilai ringgit dan, kalau nasib baik, buat keuntungan luar biasa tetapi ia berakhir dengan kerugian. Gabenor Bank Negara waktu itu, Allahyarham Tan Sri Jaffar Hussein, mengambil tanggungjawab dan meletakkan jawatan.

Pegawai yang bertanggungjawab terus dalam operasi tersebut, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yackop, diarahkan berhenti.

Ironinya orang yang digunakan untuk mengungkit peristiwa tersebut iaitu Datuk Abdul Murad Khalid adalah penolong gabenor yang bertanggungjawab ke atas peraturan perbankan dan kawal selia ketika krisis itu meletus.

Apatah lagi Abdul Murad sendiri kemudiannya disiasat dan dituduh di mahkamah kerana gagal mengisytiharkan aset berjumlah hampir RM24 juta. Soalnya bagaimanakah seorang pegawai Bank Negara yang baru berusia dalam lingkungan 50 tahun boleh mengumpul harta sebanyak  itu? Beliau didapati bersalah dan didenda RM500,000.

Isu-isu ini diungkit oleh saluran propaganda yang tidak pun tahu keadaan sebenar atau yang berasa generasi muda boleh dibohongi kerana mereka tidak tahu apa-apa dan generasi lama sudah lupa.

Seperkara lagi, wujud perbezaan besar di antara kerugian perniagaan tukaran mata wang Bank Negara dengan skandal BMF tahun 1980-an dan 1MDB sekarang.

Dalam kes perniagaan tukaran mata wang Bank Negara, tujuannya baik iaitu mempertahankan nilai ringgit dan tidak ada duit haram yang masuk ke dalam akaun peribadi sesiapa.

Tetapi skandal 1MDB ada persamaan dengan BMF kerana ia membabitkan orang tengah - George Tan dalam kes BMF dan Jho Low dalam kes 1MDB. Dalam kedua-dua kes, banyak duit yang mengalir keluar dan tidak mengalir masuk semula. Unsur-unsur jenayah dan penipuan amat jelas. 


..and the latest news in The Edge:

Saturday, 4 February 2017

Memori 28 tahun...

All alone in the moonlight
I can dream of the old days
life was beautiful then
I remember the time I knew what happiness was...

Sesungguhnya jodoh dan mati itu ALLAH SWT yang  tentukan. 

Thank you for being a great Mama to our son Arif and thank you for those memories when we were together in happier times.

Semuga dipermudahkan dan diberkati Allah perjalanan hidup kita semua seterusnya.

Johor Bahru
4 Februari 2017