From Malaysiakini.com
Hsu Dar Ren
When a patient is told that he has a malignant disease, typically there would be one of these three types of responses.
The first group will just take it in their stride after the initial shock. They will then become proactive in learning about the disease, following the doctor’s prescription for treatment, changing his lifestyle and diet, and start to fight back. Often this type of patients do very well, and many of them, if the initial stage is not too advanced, overcome the malignancy and become a healthy person again. Because of the positive lifestyle change, he may even live longer and healthier than otherwise.
The second type will go into a denial syndrome- bad things only happen to other people, bad things don’t happen to good people like them. Some begin to believe that this cannot be true and they go into a self denial state, believing that the diagnosis is wrong and nothing bad is going to happen to them. Continue Reading »
From Malaysiakini
I was arrested on Friday, July 13 at approximately 4.30pm in the carpark basement (B3) of Phileo Damansara I by four to five policemen.
While originally being taken in for questioning, the police arrested me when I conveyed to them my lawyer’s advice that I should not accompany the police to their office unaccompanied by legal counsel.
From Malaysiakini
Yong Kai Ping and Andrew Ong
PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has called on the public to step up pressure on the Election Commission (EC) to reform itself.
In reference to several recent announcements by the EC, Anwar said the commission had thus far only shown knee-jerk responses after a series of electoral fraud exposés.
“For the first time, EC is enduring so much pressure that it has to respond,” said Anwar at an electoral reform rally organised by pressure group Bersih at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. Continue Reading »
From Malaysiakini
By Dzulkifli Ahmad
It doesn’t need a political pundit to tell the nation that the New Economic Policy (NEP) is the legitimating ideology for Umno’s hegemony and legitimacy – and that the party now has trouble weaning beneficiaries off it.
Paramount to Umno’s consideration is the issue of 30 percent ownership of the corporate equity, as opposed to the twin-prong objectives of eradicating poverty and eliminating identification of race with economic activities.
It is the 30 percent rule for bumiputera participation that has ended in the ‘affirmative action’ being perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a ‘zero-sum’ policy that is working at the expense of other races.
Although the NEP is premised on the projection of growth, the redistribution should not affect ownership held by different ethnic groups. But the reality does not reflect this.
Umno’s persistence of maintaining its own under-achievement, hovering at 18.9 percent corporate equity of the Malay-bumiputera – despite others claiming to the contrary – is mind-boggling and naturally smacks of their ‘sinister’ motive. The measurement, to make it worse, is shrouded in mystery, ending in endless dispute between advocates and critics.
The primary reason why the ‘redistribution strategy’ has failed is due to chronic inefficiencies, leakages, and unbridled crony capitalism and nepotism. Many bumiputera contractors are alleged to be mere rent-seekers (read cronies), spinning the contract out to non-bumiputeras in the infamous practice of the Ali-Baba partnership.
Time and again, the less eligible have been given huge privatisation contracts or concessions. Millions of ringgit have been wasted and billions more spent in bailing them out when they failed.
In a recent Debat Perdana programme, in which I took part, fellow-panelists Mukhriz Mahathir of Umno Youth and Muar parliamentarian Razali Ibrahim admitted as much.
So Umno has in fact bungled the opportunity to achieve the objective of 30 percent corporate equity.
Worst income disparity
The rent-seeking activities of a few politically well-connected Umnoputras have denied the rights of a bigger pool of genuinely deserving Malay entrepreneurs and corporate outfits, which have to compete in a tilted playing-field within the Malay community.
This is immensely regrettable and has become the greatest stumbling block in achieving the various targets of the NEP. The infamous case of AP kingpins stands as clear testimony to such subversion of an otherwise commendable ‘redistributive programme’. Reports of differential treatment based on political affiliation have been widely reported, as I exemplified during the debate.
It is common knowledge that bumiputera contractors have been given special preference (60 percent of the contracts) under the multi-billion ringgit Ninth Malaysia Plan. Some mega-projects have already been rolled out through direct negotiation, again sidelining the need for an open-tender system.
However, no such ‘affirmative policy’ is recommended in the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in south Johor. Advisory council member Musa Hitam has, in fact, insisted on exemption from the ‘affirmative policy’ that favours bumiputeras in the hope of attracting foreign investors to the region. This has seen mixed response and anxiety in the Malay constituency.
Going by the UN Human Development Report of 2004 and after 37 years of NEP, Malaysia has become the worst country in income disparity between the rich and poor in Southeast Asia. The report shows that the richest 10 percent in Malaysia control 38.4 percent of economic income, against the poorest 10 percent controlling only 1.7 percent. The Malay suffers the greatest intra-ethnic income disparity.
Quite frankly, an approach in interventionist policy that doesn’t cut across the racial divide and is not premised on genuine need is fundamentally flawed.
Giving handouts and continuing rent-seeking activities to non-deserving entities, be they bumiputera or non-bumiputera cronies, and adding cost without increasing productivity in economic activities, can only spell doom for the nation’s future in the face of global competition.
Continuing the affirmative action for the ‘super rich Umnoputeras’ will eat badly into our national resources and produce deleterious knock-on effects on our nation’s integrity and competitiveness. Surely this cannot and must not be assumed forever.
The already capable Malays, after five decades of independence, must no longer be beholden to an ‘affirmative mindset’ that entraps them into an unrelenting ’crutch mentality’ and which prevents them from be truly competent, competitive and enterprising.
We must not repeat our mistakes. Otherwise, it will be ‘the Great March Backward’ for the nation.
DR DZULKIFLI AHMAD is director, PAS Research Centre.
From Malaysiakini
By Kim Quek
An unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian national Altantuya in Day 10 (June 29).
When the family lawyer (Karpal Singh) of the murdered victim attempted to ask the deceased’s cousin a question regarding “a government official” photographed together with the deceased, prosecutor and defence lawyers sprang to their feet in unison to thwart the question.
This resulted in a shouting match, with Karpal Singh on one side, confronted by the combined forces of prosecutor and defence lawyers on the other.
On an earlier day (Day 7, June 26), a similar division of forces in the court occurred when a Mongolian witness told the court that the immigration entry computer records of the deceased and her two Mongolian companions (including the witness) had been mysteriously erased.
While Karpal Singh asked the court to take proper note of this highly irregular event, both prosecutor and defence lawyers objected to this evidence as irrelevant, and insisted that it be expunged.
Now, isn’t that a strange phenomenon? A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice for the deceased victim’s family against the murderers, so how come the prosecutor is now ganging up time and again with defence lawyers to oppose the victim’s family lawyer? Is this a case of prosecutor vs defence or a case of (prosecutor + defence) vs victim’s family?
Obviously, prosecutor and defence seem to have plenty of common interests which contradict those of the victim’s family.
What is that common interest?
The answer may lie in the identity of that “government official” that appeared in the photograph with Altantuya that both prosecutor and defence tried so hard not to allow its exposure.
On Day 10, Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg (photo) testified that after Altantuya returned from France, Altantuya went to Hong Kong to meet the witness, and showed the latter a photograph that shows Altantuya, her alleged lover Abdul Razak Baginda (the third accused) and “a government official” taking meal together.
Answering Karpal Singh later, after the shouting match in the court had subsided, she said this “government official” was Najib Razak. She could distinctly remember this name because it bears similarity to her cousin’s alleged lover’s name, and she even asked Altantuya whether they were brothers.
Burmaa further added that the photo had also been shown to Altantuya’s father.
Now, the revelation of Najib Razak in the photo would not have caused such a sensation if not for the Deputy Prime Minister’s oft repeated denial of any knowledge of Altantuya, including a public denial during the recent Ijok by-election, when even the name of Allah was invoked.
What does DPM Najib has to say now that his denial is directly contradicted by witness Burmaa?
His press secretary Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad issued a brief statement on June 30 saying that the DPM declined to comment for two reasons.
One, any comment from Najib might be subjudice, since the case is on-going. Two, Najib had already repeatedly denied acquaintance with the girl in the past, “as such, the issue over the picture does not arise”.
What subjudice?
Subjudice to the case? That sounds ridiculous. How would a simple statement like “I have never had my photo taken with Altantuya” be subjudice? In fact, being the No 2 leader in the government, Najib is absolutely duty bound to the nation to say outright whether he was ever photographed with Altantuya, in view of the serious implication of Burmaa’s allegation.
The issue over the picture does not arise? Equally ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is true.
Precisely because of Najib’s past denials, it is all the more imperative that Najib must stand up now to clarify to the nation.
There is only one explanation for Najib’s past denials and his present silence – guilty conscience.
If Najib’s conduct with respect to the case has been above board, there is no reason whatsoever for him to deny acquaintance with a good friend’s (Razak Baginda) friend (Altantuya).
Similarly, if the allegation of the picture is false, it is inconceivable and totally incomprehensible and irresponsible that Najib should have chosen not to refute Burmaa’s allegation.
In fact, Najib was so worried about the publicity of the picture that his secretary called editors of the local press, and requested them not to blow up the issue. This has resulted in this explosive story staying clear of the headlines on the next day (June 30), and the name of “Najib Razak” not being identified as the DPM in Malay and English papers. (In one Chinese paper – Guang Ming – this Najib story hit the headline in the front page in the evening edition, but disappeared completely from it in the day edition next morning, June 30).
And of course, Anwar Ibrahim’s criticism of the trial and his specific call on Najib to clarify on the picture during a press conference was generally blacked out.
However, despite such suppression of news, irreversible damage is done. There is little doubt that Najib is deeply troubled and his political position seriously weakened.
That this murder case has been subjected to serious political manipulations is obvious from the very start when police commenced its highly questionable investigation, right through to the present trial stage when the conduct of prosecutor and defence lawyers appears increasingly dubious.
The over-riding mission
Instead of prosecutor seeking the truth and defence lawyers fighting to defend the accused as their prime objectives, both seemed to be pre-occupied with an over-riding mission – to prevent the whole truth from emerging.
Their combined efforts to cover up issues of immigration record erasure and identity of Najib in the picture are just two examples of such conduct.
The highly irregular nature of this case was also marked by frequent and mysterious changes of legal personnel, resulting in the complete change-over of defence lawyers, prosecutors and judge even before hearing began.
These weird phenomena were crowned by the shock appearance of a new team of prosecutors who were appointed only hours before the hearing was supposed to begin, thus necessitating an impromptu postponement of hearing for two weeks.
Under these circumstances, the public must brace themselves for more aberrant scenarios from this court, while Najib and his supporters may have to keep their fingers crossed in the long days ahead when many more witnesses have yet to walk through what must have appear to Najib as a minefield.
On a more serious note, this unseemly trial does not exactly add credit to our judicial system whose already wretched image has just been further mauled by the shameful finale of another sham trial – that of Eric Chia of Perwaja Steel fame.
After seven long years of investigations and three years of court hearing, the case was thrown out due to lack of prima facie evidence.
With that, the long drawn Perwaja Steel scandal saga is ended without finding any culprit for the mountain of losses (more than RM10 billion) suffered by the taxpayers.
There has been a spate of criminal cases being dismissed of late due to inadequate investigations and poor prosecution, indicating that the downward slide of our criminal justice system which gathered momentum in the Mahathir era has hastened its downtrend under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership.
With criminal justice system in shambles, rule of law is jeopardized. And that is an important benchmark to judge the efficacy of Abdullah’s administration vis-à-vis his reform agenda.
Malaysiakini
July 3, 2007
The Election Commission (EC) will only be able to implement the use of indelible ink to prevent multiple voting only after September.
This was revealed by representatives of election reforms pressure group Bersih after a three and a half hour dialogue with EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman in Putrajaya today. Continue Reading »
Malaysiakini
Soon Li Tsin
July 3, 2007
With an impeachment proceeding hanging over her head, key prosecution witness Rohaniza Roslan today dropped a bombshell in the Altantuya murder trial, claiming that she had been threatened not to testify by a mystery man.
Rohaniza, 29 (right) told the court this morning that she received the threat through a telephone call on June 11.
She said the caller, whom she identified as a male and believed to be a Malay, told her that she would be shot dead if she was to be a witness in this high-profile murder trial.
July 3, 2007
Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
The Malaysian government has warned private broadcasters to refrain from granting coverage to opposition leaders, according to an independent news site in the Kuala Lumpur capital.
The latest twists that have emerged in the murder trial of Altantuya Sharibu have raised further questions on the integrity of the entire trial.
Just as the prosecution made an application to impeach their own key witness Lance Corporal Rohaniza Roslan, today Rohaniza made a surprising revelation that she has been threatened to be shot dead should she testify in Altantuya’s trial.
Previously, one of the defense lawyers of the accused had discharged himself due to third party interference.
The developments have only fueled further rumours of the involvement of important personalities in the case, while Deputy Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak has reverted to his elegant silence on the case in spite of the fact that his associate and bodyguards charged with the murder as well as the claim by one of the witnesses on the existence of a photography of Altantuya and a government official that shares the same name with him.
I have repeatedly demanded the authorities to act immediately and effectively to preserve the credibility of the entire trial process as the professionalism and competence of the police and the Attorney General’s Chambers is on trial, yet they have failed to do so. This is a chance to restore the image of our country, yet why are the authorities adamant at squandering it at every opportunity?
ANWAR IBRAHIM
July 3, 2007
Asia Sentinel
Kim Quek
July 2, 2007
An unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. Karpal Singh, the lawyer for the victim’s family, attempted to ask a question about a “government official” allegedly seen in a photograph with the victim. At that point, both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer sprang to their feet in unison to block the question.
This resulted in a shouting match, with Singh on one side, the victim’s cousin on the stand, and the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.
Earlier, a similar division of forces occurred when a Mongolian witness – a girlfriend of the victim told the court that immigration entry computer records of the deceased and her two Mongolian companions, including the witness, had been mysteriously erased. When Singh asked the court to take proper note of this highly irregular event, both the prosecution and defense objected to the evidence as irrelevant, and insisted that it be expunged.
