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.

Often they do not even inform their family members and just live day by day, hoping that their self denial will make the disease go away. By the time end stage symptoms develop and they have no choice but to seek treatment, because of pain or obstruction, the disease is beyond treatment.

The third group is the timid and pessimistic type. They become depressed with self pity, leave whatever decision to their family, and passively follow treatment and blame their fate for the illness. The outcome often depends on the type of family members he/she has.

To the second group, getting cancer is an “inconvenient truth”. They hope for the best and hope that the truth will never bother them. They just leave everything as it is and carrying on as if nothing has happened. Ultimately, of course, the cancer will be beyond cure and the patient will succumb to the cancer and die.

The third group is not willing to face the truth either but at least, they have a fighting chance depending on the people around them.

The first inconvenient truth

The same can be said of the ills in a country, and corruption is the mother of all ills. Corruption to a country is like cancer to a person – it spreads and becomes extensive if not treated.

We know there is corruption in the police force as determined by the Royal Commission of Police a few years back. We also know that the Commission also recommended the treatment – the setting up of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

The diagnosis is there, the prescription is there, but we act as if we belong to the second category of patients. We are in a self denial mode believing falsely that things will just sort itself out if everything is left as it is. We deny the inconvenient truth.

When finally we realise our folly and have to face the inconvenient truth, the ills of corruption will have spread beyond every nook and corner- it will be beyond cure.

As a person trained in treatment of diseases, it really does not make sense to me that if the diagnosis is known and the prescription given, why is there a delay in instituting the treatment? Why are we waiting? The longer we wait, the worse will be the prognosis.

Show the will, face the inconvenient truth and fight back against crime by setting up the IPCMC.

Another inconvenient truth

The second inconvenient truth is about our cake – our economic cake. In the early 60s, just after our independence, our Malaysian cake was about three times the size of the Korean cake, despite having a smaller population.

In the early 80s, the Korean cake has caught up with us and was about the same size as our cake, but per capita wise, each of us still eat more cake than the Korean because we have a smaller population.

In 2006, the Korean cake has become four times bigger than our cake. Despite their population being much bigger than us, each Korean now eats more cake than each Malaysian. What went wrong?

If we care to stop and ponder for a while, the reason is very simple. It is because our leaders and politicians are too engrossed in how to divide the cake rather than concentrating their efforts on expanding the cake.

If from the start, our emphasis had been on finding the best ways to expand the cake, like the Koreans, we would have maintained our lead over the Koreans, and each of us now would have a much bigger cake to eat.

If we have been busy expanding our cake, we could have reached first world status by now. Our per capita cake share would have reached the standard of the first world, and all of us, regardless of race, would be much richer.

We could have afforded better education for our kids, we could have afforded better housing, we could have afforded better transport system, better healthcare and the list would go on and on…..

The government would have bigger cake too, which means that there would be more money to help the poor, both rural and urban; more money to give scholarships for children of the poor, regardless of colour, more money to build more schools, colleges and universities.

Sometimes, we need to look further ahead rather than just look at the things in front of our eyes. If we have been more farsighted, all of us would have been rewarded with a bigger share of cake by now.

The inconvenient truth that has caused our cake to grow slower than the Koreans, the Hongkies, the Singaporeans is very simply this: we have been too engrossed in dividing the cake rather than expanding the cake.

We know this inconvenient truth, both the politicians and the people. Are we like the second category of patients mentioned above who are in a self denial state.

The question is: Are we bold enough to face this inconvenient truth, change our tactic and try to concentrate on expanding the cake rather than dividing the cake? This surely needs the political will of a leadership that does not just think of votes but rather the well being of the country.

The third inconvenient truth

One young hawker, who is a patient of mine, an ethnic Chinese Malaysian, chatted with me after seeing me for a stress related symptom some time back. He spoke passable English, but according to him, he can speak, like most youngsters of his age, very fluent Bahasa. He in fact had a fairly good grade in his SPM, and is just past his 21st birthday.

He did not continue studying as he is not from a rich family. He applied to join the civil service but did not receive any reply. He applied to many big corporations to work as a clerk, and was sadly turned down. He worked in a snooker center but found out that there were some bad hats there.

In the end, he decided to open a stall, together with his gir friend and a relative, selling ‘yao cha kui‘, the oil fried flour dough. Business is OK, and he is surviving, but I suspect he does not quite like the work. That explains the stress that he was under.

Some of his classmates have become VCD peddlers, the types in pasar malam selling pirated discs, and often are the ones that end up in a police lock-up whenever there is a raid on VCD peddlers, while their bosses will be safely enjoying themselves in a nightclub.

None of them was employed in any government agencies or civil service. Many others become hawkers like him and that explains why there are so many hawkers everywhere.

The point I wish to put across is a letter I read in malaysiakini some time back by a person called “Free Trade M” who apparently has just came back to Malaysia after a stint overseas. After reading this letter, I can’t help but think of this young hawker that I chatted with.

I quote part of this letter that is relevant to my patient’s plight: “ I have been back two months and I have yet to see a Chinese postman. an Indian toll booth collector. I have not heard of a director-general of a government ministry nor have I met a CEO of any of the key 20 GLC (government-linked companies) who is a Chinese.

“I have yet to see a Chinese face at the immigration booths of KLIA, at the customs counter, in the police patrol cars on the Plus highway. I use the Chinese example but it covers all non-Malays.”

This is indeed the true picture and I believe to be one of the many reasons that racial polarisation is getting more acute.

I can’t help but think that perhaps the government should open some of the vacant positions to non-Malays. It would not augur well for the country if the civil service and the government linked companies and agencies employed only people of one ethnic group.

For one thing, during Hari Raya, there would not be any people of other races to man the departments.

More importantly, this would only make the civil servants think along an ethnic line, perhaps not consciously and purposefully, but more due to a lack of understanding of other races, when planning or carrying out certain projects. When a policy is seen to be skewed in the interest of only one race, bad sentiments will inevitably build up in the others.
.
On the other hand, even if there is only just a small proportion of non-Malays working together with the Malay civil servants in an office, there would be much better racial understanding, much better religious understanding and cultural exchange. Each side will better understand the sensitivities of others, and each side would strive to be more moderate in their thinking. This will encourage broader mindsets among the decision makers of the country.

This group of people can also serve as the bridge builders across the racial divide.

If we are really for a harmonious society, racial lines must be blurred. The private sector perhaps can take in more Malays and the government sectors perhaps should in turn take in more non- Malays.

Another advantage of opening the civil service door a little bit is that by having a bigger pool to choose from, more talented and capable people can be employed in the civil service. More ideas and creativity will be brought into the civil service which will help to spur the country to greater heights.

We need to have the best in the civil service if we want to excel. We need to have friends and colleagues of other races in order to have national unity –real unity! Just paying lip service and shouting slogans of unity will not make us an united nation. This is the third inconvenient truth that we need to face and tackle.

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 Phileo Damansara, I was taken to my house where the police confiscated my computer, some CD’s and some documents.

From the moment I was arrested until about 11 pm, I was not allowed to speak to anyone I knew, or inform anybody of my whereabouts.

I later learnt that this caused an immense and completely avoidable amount of stress and anxiety amongst my loved ones.

I was eventually made to understand that I was arrested in connection to accusations made on the Internet regarding Deputy Internal Security Minister Johari Baharum.

The connection to me was based on a comment made on my blog that was made by an anonymous commentator on Februrary 10 this year.

It was prepostorous of the police to suspect me of publishing these accusations based on documents protected by the Official Secrets Act that were supposedly in my posessesion. There is absolutely nothing even remotely resembling proof to substantiate such claims.

Throughout my detention, the police employed various questioning strategies in what struck me strongly as a concerted attempt to make me admit to things that I had not done.

The police also subjected me to various rounds of questioning between about 5.30pm and 9pm by different police officers who all kept asking me the same questions. I later learnt that questioning at such late hours was in fact illegal.

One of the officers questioning me that evening who refused to identify himself threatened to slap me and throw me across the room.

Not having access to legal counsel, I refused to answer in detail any questions the police posed in their extremely suspicious manner.

Stroke of luck

The situation worsened on Saturday, July 14.

Despite my repeated appeals to the police officers accompanying me to court to be produced before the magistrate for the remand hearing, they absolutely refused to notify my family or, more importantly, my lawyers that I was to be produced in court.

This caused in me a great deal of undue stress because I feared that I would be forced to face the magistrate without any legal representation.

Entirely by a stroke of luck, a lawyer at the magistrate’s court was able to assist me in contacting my lawyer, R Sivarasa. Had the said lawyer not been present, I may have not been given the opportunity to be represented by counsel during my hearing, and my remand order may have been for fourteen days instead of four.

Even after my lawyer arrived, the police made every possible effort to block me from consulting with him, denying me extremely basic human rights connected to judicial due process. This even included repeatedly trying to spy and eavesdrop on the conversations I was attempting to have with my lawyer.

After the remand order was allowed, the police continued to pursue the same line of questioning.

Having being advised by my lawyer during my remand hearing not to answer any questions or sign any statements, I refused to answer the increasingly combative line of questioning by the police.

On Saturday itself, a senior officer employed physical means in an attempt to intimidate me into answering their questions. This included shoving me into a chair while I was standing handcuffed.

Although I had stated my intent to exercise my right to silence, and despite my lawyer’s argument that the police had all the evidence they required to investigate me, the police’s insistence on holding me for all four days proved a complete waste of my time and of police resources. I was also made to endure unhygenic and pitifully substandard accommodations in the lockup throughout this time.

All other attempts to pressure and coerce me into providing information under adverse conditions failed. Finally, on Monday, I was allowed to see my family, who conveyed to me fresh advice from my lawyer regarding what information I could provide.

Armed at last with the knowledge that I had been seeking since Friday, I was more than happy to provide all the information I had available to the police.

The entire ordeal for both myself and the police could have been avoided if the police had extended some basic human courtesy and decency in allowing me to consult fully with legal counsel before cooperating with the police, which I was more than happy to do under fair and reasonable circumstances.

Ill formed and counter-productive

I fear greatly that my arrest despite the non-existent ties between the accusations against Johari Baharum and myself portend badly for Malaysia’s abilty to deal with true cyber crime.

The fact that I appear to be the best suspect they could arrest in relation to this case indicates that the police do not understand how the Internet works, and are at a complete loss as to how to handle true cyber crime.

In my particular case as well, the government and police appear to be sending a signal that while irresponsible bloggers roam free, responsible bloggers who moderate their comments and put a name to their writing are more likely to end up as targets. This policy could not possibly be more ill formed and counter-productive.

Given certain statements in the press recently, I unfortunately cannot rule out completely that the substandard and rushed nature of this investigation is the result of political meddling and pressure in police affairs.

I am also gravely concerned because as my lawyer pointed out in the remand hearing, arrests should take place at the conclusion of an investigation, and not at the beginning of one. What happened to me is beyond doubt an absolute travesty of this principle.

If the police continue in their attempts to procur information from innocent citizens in bad faith and through questionable means such as by coercing information from individuals isolated from legal counsel and outside support, they will find themselves failing the public in their duty to protect Malaysians from true criminal activity.

This entire episode smacks of intimidation. Ongoing and unrelenting intimidation towards social activists, Internet writers and opposition supporters.

The ranking officer in the unit investigating me even took the time to ‘advise’ me to emulate the example and career trajectories of individuals like Lee Lam Thye. The same officer also warned me to be considerate to my parents as I choose my career paths.

While I appreciate the advice, I wish to reiterate here that the causes I have chosen were chosen with due care and consideration, and after thorough analysis of the state of Malaysia’s social and political climate. I love my parents very much, and hate the fact that this episode has caused them such unhappiness. However, my responsibility is also to my future children, and the Malaysia they will inherit.

Extremely effective

Any assumptions that my experience will dissuade other activists and citizens of conscience from exerting all our energies in upholding their responsibilities to their parents, their children, and to all of Malaysia are sadly, sadly misplaced.

My time with the police taught me that all the efforts by political parties and civil society to curb the excesses of the police and the government have proven extremely effective.

The police were extremely concerned that they might be portrayed in a bad light after my release, and took a number of steps to ensure that they did not do things that they knew would be taken up and publicised by activists. I am thus extremely grateful for the efforts of those that have fought before me to make Malaysia a more just and secure place for its citizens.

It is impossible to endure an experience such as mine without having one’s fears and discomfort increased, even in one’s own homeland.

The true mark of human strength however is the manner in which we deal with these fears.

I have chosen not to let my fears overcome me, and as a member of PKR and other activist groups, I have instead chosen to draw inspiration from those who have walked these paths before me and continue refusing to spare any effort whatsoever in our ongoing endeavours to uphold justice for all throughout the homeland we love.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest, most sincerely heartfelt thanks to every single individual and organisation who voiced their support for me throughout this difficult episode. I know this was especially difficult for all of my family and my girlfriend Soon Li Tsin, but despite their pain, they pulled through in every way imaginable to provide me every strength I needed to overcome.

I am not exaggerating in the least when I say the truly touching support I received carried me through the entire ordeal. To all my guardian angels, once again, thank you truly.

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.

He urged the public to show up in full force on Nov 10 at a ‘mass gathering’ in Putrajaya to call for electoral reforms.

Anwar’s comments comes in the wake of the latest announcement by EC chief Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman yesterday, who strongly hinted that the elections would be called soon.

Previously, Abdul Rashid (right) had also called for electoral reforms but his bid to improve the electoral process have thus far been limited to providing a transparent ballot box and forcing voters who are still using old-IC’s to verify their status.

The EC had also agreed in principle, to the use of indelible ink to prevent multiple voting but is awaiting feedback from the National Fatwa Council. The use of the ink is one of the core demands by Bersih.

International observers

Anwar, the final speaker among a long list at the rally last night, vowed to pile in the pressure overseas by speaking about the state of electoral process at international conferences and meetings.

He also announced plans to invite the renowned US-based Carter Centre, to monitor the upcoming general election. The centre is an NGO that has among others, monitored 68 elections in 26 countries.

“The Umno government will definitely say that this will tarnish the country’s image. I wish to tell them that the only way to save Malaysia’s image is to expose the problems within the electoral system.

“Thus I believe the theme for the 50th National Day should be Selamatkan Negara Malaysia (Save Malaysia),” said Anwar to roaring approval from the 2,000 strong crowd.

In his speech, Anwar alleged that Umno was going to distribute thousands of video discs accusing the opposition of inciting violence and disturbing public order.

He claimed that the title of the disc is Evolusi atau Revolusi (Evolution or Revolution).

‘How to topple BN’

Reiterating claims made last month in Kelantan, Anwar said Umno was planning to bring 40,000 ‘phantom’ voters from southern Thailand in a bid to wrest the state from PAS.

“Umno had identify 70 parliamentary seats that is in danger and may fall into the hands of the opposition, thus they will do whatever it takes to retain it,” he added.

In order to topple the government that had been ruling for 50 years, Anwar said the opposition has to secure at least 56 percent of the popular vote.

“The highest managed by the opposition was 48 percent. So if we continue to preach to the converted and maintain our current pace, it is not enough to change the government. We need to attract BN supporters to our cause,” he said.

The rally last night was also attended by PAS president Abdul Hadi Abdul Awang, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng and Malaysian Trade Union Congress president Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud (left).

Bersih comprises of 26 NGOs and five opposition political parties. The rally last night was the first in a series of planned roadshows to create awareness on the need for electoral reforms.

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.

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.

Leader of the Bersih delegation Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad (photo: left) told reporters that Abdul Rashid showed the delegation a sample of an “Indian ink” to mark digits of voters who had cast their ballots.

However, he said this was subject to the approval of the Fatwa Council.

Last December, Abdul Rashid shot down the idea of using indelible ink as suggested by opposition parties as it was deemed to be an ‘archaic’ practice.

But in June, Abdul Rashid announced that the EC was studying ways of implementing the method which is used in Iraq and India, drawing protests from BN component parties.

He revealed that among the issues being considered by the EC in relation to the move was the type of ink to be used and the need to amend the relevant legislation such as the Election (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981.

It is learnt that during today’s meeting, Abdul Rashid had told the Bersih delegation that the EC was not allowed by law, as yet, to compel all voters who had cast their ballots to be marked with indelible ink and such a move must be done voluntarily by the voters.

Journalists were unable to get an official comment from Abdul Rashid as they were barred from entering the EC headquarters where the meeting was held.

Electoral roll

Another Bersih representative Ronnie Liu said Bersih had tried unsuccessfully to obtain a commitment from the EC to ensure that there would be no discrepancy in the electoral roll.

“We have taken the opportunity to inform the EC that in 2004, we were supposed to get electoral roll on nomination day but we didn’t. They admitted that they were kelam-kabut (in a mess).

“We pointed out that the electoral roll received by the (opposition) parties was different from the one received by BN (component parties)… of course they denied it… but we wanted a commitment from then that this won’t happen again,” said Liu.

Electoral rolls are updated every three months and the version of the roll used during an election is determined by the EC, which is distributed to contesting political parties after nomination day.

General elections and by-elections are often tainted with allegations of missing or ‘illegal’ voters in the electoral roll. Since the June 2002 amendments of the Election Act 1954, electoral rolls cannot be challenged in court.

Liu said Bersih also wants fair access to the media by opposition parties and longer campaigning periods.

Meanwhile, Dzulkifli said that Bersih was pleased with the outcome of the discussion and announced that another dialogue would be held next month.

“They showed us their ‘reform guidelines’. We were pleased that 90 percent of their points raised were similar to ours,” he said.

Bersih is a coalition of 26 NGOs and five opposition political parties, which includes PAS, PKR, PSM, DAP and Snap.

In another development, Bersih today announced that it would be organising a “People’s Convention” on July 20 at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall to allow the public to voice their concerns on election reforms.

Opposition figures such as Anwar Ibrahim, Abdul Hadi Awang and Lim Kit Siang are among the scheduled speakers.

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.

Rohaniza said that she immediately lodged a police report on the same day at the Pantai police station.

She added that she could not identify the number of the caller as it was listed as a ‘private number’.

Yesterday the prosecution shocked everyone in the court by announcing that it sought to impeach lance corporal Rohaniza on the grounds that her testimony in court contradicted her original statement which she gave to the police.

Deputy public prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin then listed at least five areas of contradiction after they had gone through Rohaniza’s 16-page witness statement.

Police pressure

This morning when the court resumed its hearing, Noorin outlined in detail the discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution’s own witness to High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin.

These included conflicting statements by Rohaniza on the number of people who were in a green Suzuki Vitara vehicle and her questioning of her then boyfriend – chief inspector Azilah Hadri – as to what had actually happened to Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Rohaniza has testified that she left Abdul Razak’s house in her car along with Azilah and a “Chinese woman”, whom she identified from a photograph as being Altantuya.

Rohaniza said that they followed a four-wheel drive Suzuki Vitara, driven by a man with a cap, to Bukit Aman police headquarters. There, Azilah escorted Altantuya to the other vehicle which then drove off while he went inside to his office, she said.

But the prosecution said she gave a different answer in a Nov 16 statement recorded by police. In it, she said Azilah escorted Altantuya to the other vehicle and got inside with her.

Judge Zaki called it “a huge difference.”

“I want to maintain that Azilah did not enter the car,” Rohaniza responded.

Rohaniza told the court that she had given a different version of events to her earlier statement to the police because of pressure from the investigators.

“I was under tremendous pressure. I said something but something else was recorded” by investigators,” she told Mohd Zaki.

“They wrote things I never said,” added Rohaniza, who testified in her police uniform, with tears in her eyes.

“While I was remanded, they tortured me,” she said, referring to threats that she would be investigated for murder.

Rohaniza was remanded for 14 days last year to facilitate police investigations and was later released without being charged.

After a short break, High Court judge Mohd Zaki Md Yasin at 11.45am told Noorin to submit on the impeachment against Rohaniza only after the prosecution has wrapped up its case in questioning of all its witnesses.

Police promise of freedom

The court continued with the prosecution questioning Rohaniza about the death threat and police pressure.

Rohaniza told the court that before her cautioned statement was taken, a police officer from the Serious Crime Unit offered to free her and Azilah from the charge of murdering Altantuya.

She added that the officer who took her cautioned statement also promised to shorten her remand period.

As such, she said, she agreed with whatever was stated in the cautioned statement made under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code on Nov 16, 2006.

Rohaniza could not remember the name of the officer. She also said that the same promises were made to her by a number of officers from the Technical Assistance Unit while she was under the 14-day remand.

“I was kept isolated in a hotel room… before giving the statement. I was under tremendous pressure. They pressured me, saying I could not go home and would be locked up again.”

Rohaniza earlier wept in court when asked to identify Azilah, who had been her boyfriend for nine years.

She testified they had been out for dinner together on Oct 19 last year when he received a phone call and they left for Abdul Razak’s house in her red Proton car, the night Altantuya was taken away in the car never to be seen again.

Azilah, 30, and corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, are charged with the murder the Mongolian national while popular political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, 47, is charged with abetting them.

Prosecutors say Abdul Razak planned her killing and ordered two police officers – members of a special unit charged with protecting the country’s leaders – to carry it out.

Altantuya was killed by “probable blast-related” injuries in a clearing in Shah Alam after she was driven away from outside Abdul Razak’s house in mid-October.

All three face the death penalty if found guilty.

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.

Online news publication “Malaysiakini” reported on 29 June 2007 that a commission under the Energy, Water and Communications Ministry recently ordered private television and radio stations to black out speeches of opposition politicians.

The directive from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) was issued in a 7 June letter signed by the chairperson, Halim Shafie. It did not give any reason for the order. “Malaysiakini” obtained a copy of the letter, which it published here.

The MCMC regulates communications and multimedia activities, including the licencing of the four private free-to-air television stations and 16 private radio stations in Malaysia.

The commission declined comment when contacted by local communication rights watchdog, the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ).

CIJ, a SEAPA partner, calls the order “a deliberate attack on Malaysians’ rights to freedom of speech and information”.

“CIJ urges the government to stop violating people’s right to freedom of speech and instead, initiate reforms to remove restrictions to people’s access to information,” it said in a 2 July release.

SEAPA shares CIJ’s disappointment at the continued government interference in editorial decisions, in view of promises of openness, transparency and integrity from Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Abdullah who, in 2004, obtained the biggest electoral mandate since 1978 on such pledges. The recent directive to the media comes as another blow for Malaysians who had hoped for reform in governance following 22 years of political suppression and severe free expression restrictions under the previous prime minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Abdullah has also proved disappointing recently for his statement that repressive media laws will not be repealed.

Since the 1987 crackdown which saw the arrest of 106 activists and politicians as well as the suspension of three news publications, the Malaysian government has gotten away with suppression of critical speech, using various repressive laws and ad hoc bans, in the name of maintaining peace and harmony in the multiethnic and multireligious country.

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.

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 with defense lawyers to oppose the victim’s family lawyer? Is this a case of prosecutor vs. defense or a case of prosecutor plus defense vs. victim’s family? Obviously, the prosecution and defense seem to have plenty of common interests. What are those common interests?

The answer may lie in the identity of that “government official” that allegedly appeared in the photograph with Altantuya that both prosecution and defense tried so hard not to allow into court.

The picture
On Day 10 of the trial, Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg testified that after Altantuya returned from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet Burmaa, and showed her a photograph of Altantuya and her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, who is accused of conspiring in her murder, and “a government official” taking a meal together. Answering Singh later, after the shouting match in the court had subsided, she said this “government official” was Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

She could distinctly remember the name, she said, because it bears a similarity to Altantuya’s acknowledged 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 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 a recent by-election, when even the name of Allah was invoked.

What does Najib have to say now that his denial is directly contradicted by the witness Burmaa? His press secretary Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad issued a brief statement on June 30 saying that the deputy prime minister had declined to comment for two reasons. One, any comment might be sub judice, since the case is in court, and, two, Najib had already repeatedly denied an acquaintance with the girl in the past, “as such, the issue over the picture does not arise,” the spokesman said.

Sub judice? That’s ridiculous. How could a simple statement like “I have never had my photo taken with Altantuya” be sub judice? In fact, being the number-two leader in the government, Najib is absolutely duty-bound to say outright whether he was ever photographed with Altantuya, in view of the serious implications 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.

Guilty conscience?

There is only one explanation for Najib’s past denials and his present silence: A guilty conscience. If Najib’s conduct with respect to the case had been above-board, there would be no reason for him to deny an acquaintance with his friend Abdul Razak’s friend Altantuya. Similarly, if the allegation of the picture is false, it is inconceivable and totally incomprehensible that Najib should have chosen not to refute Burmaa’s allegation.

In fact, Najib seems so worried about the publicity of the picture that his secretary called editors in the local press and requested them not to blow up the issue. This resulted in the explosive story being absent from the local headlines the next day. (In one Chinese paper – Guang Ming – the Najib story hit the front page in the evening edition, but disappeared completely by the next morning). And of course, Anwar Ibrahim’s criticism of the trial and his specific call on Najib to clarify the issue of the picture during a press conference was generally blacked out.

However, despite such new suppression, irreversible damage is done. There is little doubt that Najib is deeply troubled and his political position seriously weakened.

Manipulation
That this murder case has been subjected to serious political manipulation has been obvious from the very start, when the police commenced their highly questionable investigation, right through to the present trial when the conduct of lawyers for both sides appear increasingly dubious. Instead of the prosecutor seeking the truth and the defense lawyer fighting for the accused, both seem preoccupied with an overriding mission – to prevent the whole truth from emerging. Their combined efforts to cover up the issue of the immigration record and the identity of Najib Razak 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 a complete change-over of the defense team, the prosecutors and the judge even before the hearings 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 the trial for two weeks. None of these changes of legal personnel has been properly explained, except for the resignation of Abdul Razak’s first lawyer; Zulkifli Noordin, quit, he said, because of “serious interference by third parties”.

Under these circumstances, the public must brace itself for more aberrant scenarios from this court, while Najib and his supporters may have to keep their fingers crossed in the days ahead when many more witnesses have yet to walk through what must appear to Najib as a minefield.

On a more serious note, this unseemly trial does not exactly add credit to Malaysia’s 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 hearings, that case was thrown out due to lack of prima facie evidence. With that, the long-drawn out Perwaja Steel saga ended without finding any culprit for the mountain of losses (more than RM 10 billion) suffered by 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 began in the Mahathir era, has gotten worse under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership. With the criminal justice system in a shambles, the rule of law is in jeopardy. And that is an important benchmark to judge the efficacy of Abdullah’s administration vis-à-vis his reform agenda.

Kim Quek is a Malaysia-based commentator.