Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II The Recorded Truth 16 August 2010

Di Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL

Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

Permohonan Mengenepikan Pertuduhan

Pihak-pihak:

PP: Semua hadir

PB: KS, SN, Dato CV Prabhakaran, Radzlan, (Marissa, Ram Singh, Datuk Param Cumaraswam tidak hadir)

WB: Andy Yong (Bar Council), Mark Trowell (QC for the Law Asia, CLA and ICJ)

AI hadir

Keputusan 44-176-2010

[9.14 a.m.]

YA: [read his decision]

DSAI, pemohon dalam notis usul memohon agar Mahkamah membatalkan pertuduhan di bawah Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan yang sedang dihadapi oleh beliau. Permohonan ini disokong dengan afidavit sokongan pemohon. Pemohon mendakwa Cik Farah Azlina (FA) mempunyai privy kepada kertas siasatan, FA mempunyai hubungan sulit dgn SP1, SP1 telah diberi taklimat mengenai kandungan kertas siasatan melalui hubungannya dengan FA dan berikutan dari itu, intergriti dan kebebasan pendakwaan terhadap Pemohon telah terjejas.

Pendakwa membantah permohonan ini dan memfailkan dua afidavit balasan yang diikrarkan oleh Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria dan Jude Blacious. Dalam afidavit, pihak Pendakwa tidak menafikan atau mengesahkan terdapat hubungan antara Cik FA dengan SP1 tetapi hanya menegaskan peranan Cik FA dalam kes ini hanya tertumpu pada mencatat keterangan yang diberi oleh saksi dalam Mahkamah. Oleh itu, SP1 juga tidak mempunyai akses kepada maklumat yang ada dalam kertas siasatan.

KS berhujah dan mendesak agar Mahkamah menerima apa yang dinyatakan oleh Pemohon dalam afidavitnya sebagai benar kerana tiada sebarang penafian dari mana-mana anggota pasukan Pendakwaan berhubung hubungan sulit antara FA dengan SP1. Dengan wujudnya hubungan antara FA dan SP1, maka terdapat salah guna proses Mahkamah.

PCN II telah berhujah bahawa Afidavit Pemohon melanggar Aturan 41 Kaedah 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi. Apa yang dinyatakan dalam afidavit tersebut merupakan dengar ! cakap da n tidak boleh diterima pakai. Berdasarkan kecacatan ini, maka tidak ada apa-apa yang perlu dijawab oleh Responden Atas alasan ini sahaja permohonan harus ditolak.

KS tidak menafikan bahawa Aturan 41 Kaedah 5 terpakai tetapi menegaskan bahawa apa yang dinyatakan oleh Pemohon dalam Afidavitnya memenuhi keperluan bawah aturan 41 Kaedah 5 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi dan bukan dengar cakap.

Saya bersetuju sekiranya permohonan pemohon dibenarkan, maka perbicaraan kes ini akan terhenti dan dengan itu akan melupuskan hak pihak-pihak yang terlibat. Oleh itu ia bukanlah sesuatu yang berbentuk interlokutari di mana sesuatu afidavit yang hendak diguna pakai boleh sekadar mengandungi kenyataan mengenai maklumat atau kepercayaan tersebut seperti diperuntukkan di bawah Kaedah 5(2) kepada Aturan 41 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi. Oleh kerana sifat permohonan ini yang bukan bersifat interlokutari, Aturan yang terpakai adalah Aturan 41 Kaedah 5(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi. Ini bermaknan perkara yang hendak dinyatakan dalam afidavit mestilah terhad kepada fakta yang Pemohon boleh buktikan berdasarkan pengetahuannya sendiri.

Responden dianggap mengakui bahawa fakta yang ditegaskan oleh Pemohon dalam afidavit adalah berdasarkan pengetahuan Pemohon sendiri atau dari rekod yang Pemohon mempunyai akses. Ini menepati keperluan Aturan 41 Kaedah 5(1) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi.

Setelah menimbang dakwaan dalam Afidavit pemohon yang lebih bersifat andaian dan kepercayaan Pemohon semata-mata berhubung isu ini dengan apa yang ditegaskan oleh Jude Blacious dan Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria berhubung isu tersebut. Dari penjelasan kedua-dua mereka ini, adalah munasabah untuk memutuskan bahawa walaupun FA merupakan seorang dari kumpulan dalam pasukan pendakwaan tetapi oleh sebab pasukan pendakwa bertindak atas need to know basis dan peranan FA yang begitu terhad maka FA tidak pada bila-bila masa mempunyai akses kepada kertas siasatan atau salinan kertas siasatan termasuk apa-apa dokumen di dalamnya. FA juga t! idak ter libat dalam sebarang taklimat berhubung strategi pengendalian kes. Memandangkan FA sendiri tidak mempunyai akses kepada kertas siasatan atau dokumen berkaitan serta mempunyai pengetahuan berhubung kandungan kertas siasatan atau dokumen atau strategi pendakwa, maka tidak mungkin SP1 mempunyai akses kepada kertas siasatan atau mempunyai maklumat apa yang terkandung dalam kertas siasatan melalui FA.

[]

[]

[]

Peranan FA hanyalah setakat mengambil nota keterangan di Mahkamah. Dia bukan seorang Pendakwa Raya yang membuat keputusan untuk menuduh pemohon. Perjalanan dan arah tuju pendakwaan kes ini bukan ditentukan oleh FA. Dia bukan seorang dari yang mengendalikan pemeriksaan saksi. Dalam keadaan demikian saya berpendapat apa-apa pengaruh SP1 ada atas FA hasil dari hubungan mereka tidak mungkin dapat mempengaruhi pasukan pendakwaan sehingga mengkompromi intergriti dan kesaksamaan pasukan Pendakwa.

Saya dapati tiada apa salah guna proses mahkamah di dalam kes ini bagi membolehkan Mahkamah membatalkan pertuduhan yang dihadapi Pemohon. Oleh itu permohonan pemohon ditolak.

[9.28 a.m.] Application dismissed.

Kes No. 45-9-09

Pemeriksaan balas SP2

[9.48 a.m.]

MY: Kes untuk pemeriksaan balas SP2.

KS: Before we proceed with the trial, as lawyers we are trained to accept decision of the court but sometimes its quite critical that the decision should []. It is quite clear that there is inconsistency in the judgment given. We intend to go on with this matter to the Court of Appeal. Weve filed the notice of appeal this morning. In the meanwhile, weve planned for a stay proceeding. In any event, we cannot make it orally. We are going to file an application and accompany by affidavit and my learned friend should reply. We need time. We will serve this. Could we adjourn to tomorrow morning for the appl! ication for stay to be heard? I cannot see how the proceeding can continue now.

MY: Im objecting for the application of stay pending appeal. We need to proceed. Weve postponed this case for too long. Until the application filed and heard, I think we should proceed with the trial.

KS: My learned friend is being petty. He should not here to push to prosecute. As a matter of right, the accused has the right to file an appeal and as of right he has the opportunity to file an application for stay.

YA: Thats all?

KS: For the moment, yes.

YA: I agree with MY that unless there is an application made and order for stay, the trial should.

KS: Unless with application. Your Lordship has said that.

YA: As far as Im concern, there is no application file before me yet. Thats my order. Ive made my order. Proceed. MY, where is your witness?

KS: Your Lordship cant make an order that is frivolous.

YA: Call the next witness

KS: This is unfair. We cant just sit here and allow injustice done. I will not be intimidated.

YA: Be careful with your words.

KS: We would like a short break before we proceed.

MY: When in lower court, [] we should proceed

KS: We will proceed, but we need to take a break for the defence discuss with our strategy.

YA: I take your word that you need hour. You can have your own strategy.

KS: Yes. Subject to that strategy. Weve the right. You cannot deny the right. Your Lordship should not []

YA: After hour break, well proceed to cross-examination SP2.

KS: Depends on what we have to say. Condition should not be attached. Subject to our strategy and what we have to say.

YA: So you said you are not going to cross-examination him?

KS: Subject to strategy. I take instruction from my client. Your Lordship cant deny that.

YA: hour and then well proceed with cross-examination.

[9.57 a.m.] Stand down

[10.51 a.m.]

KS: [] my learned friend has considered the order made by your Lordship.

YA: I think you silap dengar my judgment. Itu adalah bawah Aturan 41.

KS: It is for striking out the charge. It must be a final order and under such circumstances the charge should be struck out. Your Lordship said unless there is an application for stay. We did not contemplate what is your Lordship decision and therefore no application for stay is made. There is no such thing as oral application for stay of proceeding.

I refer to case of Kosma, last para [read] The application must be file by way of an affidavit and how can we file it unless we have the time. We were given time before. This is precedent set by your Lordship yourself. And MY ought not to try to persuade your Lordship not to do that. Your Lordship is bound by the decision of the Federal Court. Why unholy haste? We are not delaying the proceeding. We ask what we are entitled as of right. We dont beg because this is our right. I believe in demanding. In fact, we are demanding what DSAI is entitled to. We need time to file the application for stay. We need until afternoon. We can even continue after five.

YA: So I take it you want to file it this afternoon?

KS: Yes. We can proceed with the trial perhaps till evening and night.

YA: KS tak puasa.

KS: This is as of right. You cannot deny the right. This is a matter of discretion and in the spirit of Ramadan; you cannot go against the application Ive made. Your Lordship is bound by the authority. Any real prosecutor will agree with our argument.

!

YA: Ive to hear MY.

KS: Yes. You can hear but should not unnecessarily influenced by him. He is the SGII. He must be fair and ensure a fair trial. More so, your Lordship. Give us what is due to us. Well come back in the afternoon. I will file it within an hour.

YA: Itu sahaja?

KS: Yes. Let justice prevail.

YA: MY?

MY: I dont know what to say. Justice is said too many times. For once, I agree with my learned friend that we must do justice. To apply for a stay is not a right. It is a grey area. What your Lordship ruled [] The word decision under Section 3 Criminal Procedure Code and [] does not amount to stay. Im objecting in principle.

my learned friend has given undertaking []

YA: 2.15 p.m.?

KS: It could be a little more than that.

YA: But please. 2.15 p.m. is 2.15p.m., not 2.30 p.m. Just now you said you need hour to file the application, but you took more than that.

KS: We were outside waiting for your Lordship.

KS: You were not here. I was about to come up but you were not here. So now you want to blame the court?

MY: Weve the authority ready for the last time.

YA: Just nice. Now is 11. So, you have more than 1 hour to file. In fact, you have 2 hours to file it. 2.15 p.m. well assemble again.

[11.01 a.m.] Stand down

[3.08 p.m.]

Permohonan 44-186-2010

KS: The notice of appeal against your Lordship ruling has been and following that application, the application for stay has been filed in the Court of Appeal. The ground of appeal is founded and supported by the affidavit of DSAI which had been filed just now. At this point, your Lordship should consider whether no.1 the ruling made by your Lordship is a final order. I refer to Secti! on 3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964. [read Section 3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964] we say here that the ruling made are one which would finally dispose the right of the parties. If the charge is struck out, that is the end of the matter. It finally disposed the right of the parties.

The 2nd requirement is whether the position would be nugatory if your Lordship continues with the trial. I refer to the case of Kosma. [Refer Para 1 of case and read nugatory part]. We say the matter will become nugatory if your Lordship continue with the trial and the Court of Appeal decides the charge to be stuck out and that will be special circumstances nugatoriness. Under these special circumstances, we apply for the application be allowed. As simple as that.

MY: With regard of the 1st issue, whether the ruling made by your Lordship is final order and therefor appealable, we humbly submit it is not a final order and the application for stay does not arise. It is simple, depending on who apply. Just like the case of Saad b. Abas, the final order was against the PP when at the close of the prosecution case, the judge acquits the accused, but it is not a final order for the defence. If prosecution had proved prima facie case, defence can answer and rebut. In our case, what your Lordship ruled against their application was just to maintain the status quo. It is not even coming close to prosecution case. Even if there is a case to answer, that is not enough to constitute a final order. What more to dismiss the application.

We have 2 cases. Saad b. Abas and DSAI v PP. I dont want to read, but Ill give it to your Lordship. Where any ruling made in the course of the trial is not a final order. For Saad bin Abas, holding no.1 and no.2 and DSAI case, 1999 case, holding no.3.

With regard to Kosma case, DSAI affidavit mentioned that the appeal will be nugatory if that stay is not granted. Without saying more, in what manner will it be nugatory? In Mohd Mustafa b. Kandasamy, tab 4 of our bundle ! it will only be nugatory if the parties is deprived of the fruit of the trial. If my learned friend succeeds, it will be the end of the trial. It will be a final order for us, but not theirs. They will not be deprived of the fruit of the trial. Their appeal will not be nugatory and they will enjoy the fruit of success. [Refer Kosma] Stay is granted if the appeal will be render nugatory. In Mustafa b. Kandasamy, it is nugatory if they are deprived as to the result of the appeal. In our case, they will enjoy the fruit of the trial if they succeed in their appeal.

YA: This are civil cases.

MY: In criminal case, refer tab 1. In Criminal Procedure Code, it only talks about appeal against acquittal, and stay will be granted if there is something that cannot be reversed. Example will be whipping and hanging, but not necessarily in all exceptional circumstances. In Kosma, it talks about stay at the end of the trial. If civil cases do not apply, more so in this matter, it should not. Because in criminal cases, stay only apply at the end of the case. I pray for this application to be dismissed and continue with the examination of the witnesses.

KS: Question of stay has already been decided by the Federal Court decision.

YA: Federal Court decision is to continue with the case.

KS: We are not appealing against that. We are appealing on the decision of your Lordship dismissing our application to strike out the charge.

YA: As to my order just now, how would it finally disposed the right of the parties?

KS: Never mind if the Court of Appeal dismisses our appeal. If your Lordship decides on our favour, it will be the end of the matter. This is what meant by finally disposed the right of the parties.

YA: I did not decide in your favour. How does it dispose your right?

KS: If we succeed now, the trial will be nugatory.

YA: How is it?

KS: It is nugatory. Waste of public funds. The court will decide whether your Lordship decision is []

YA: In Kosma, []

KS: That is as the civil case is concern.

YA: []

KS: Assuming it applies to criminal cases with modification.

YA: So, you are saying that the principle in Kosma applies in criminal cases with modification?

KS: Yes. Nugatory in the sense that the entire event had not been embark. The charge is something will be dismissed no authority yet on this matter.

YA: Thats all? MY, anything you would like to add?

MY: No.

YA: Give me some time.

[3.28 p.m.] Stand down

[3.59 p.m.]

YA: [read desicion] Telah menjadi undang-undang mantap bahawa fakta atau rayuan bukanlah satu sebab untuk menagguh prosiding. Mesti ada kadar istimewa untuk menanguh dan nugatory adalah satu daripada contoh kadar istimewa. Sekiranya rayuan permohon dibenarkan, tuduhan akan digugurkan. [] tetapi lebih penting isu salah guna Mahkamah yang dibangkitkan [] menjejaskan intergriti perbicaraan itu sendiri. Ini adalah satu keadaan istimewa. Oleh itu, adalah lebih perlu untuk rayuan permohonan ini didengar dan diputuskan di Mahkamah Rayuan. Permohonan untuk penangguhan prosiding sementara menunggu rayuan dibenarkan. Kes disebut semula pada 20.9.2010. Tarikh dari hari ini hingga 30.08.2010 dilapangkan.

[4.05 p.m.] Application allowed.

See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

MCA-Umno row over quotas: Classic race-based politics at play

UPDATED with DPM's quotes In a bid to milk maximum political mileage, MCA and Umno leaders continued to trade barbs over a recent high-profile economic congress, where Prime Minister Najib Razak and his brother had asked the Chinese community to spearhead the New Economic Model.

“Firstly, the NEM is still a myth rather than a reality. Najib is asking the Chinese to spearhead a shadow. It is actually quite insulting. But this is the nature of race-based politics," PKR strategic director Tian told Malaysia Chronicle.

"Still, the brothers are careful of conceding even this. They have their cousin Hishammuddin waiting in place to make the corrective noises just in case Umno hard liners get upset. Basically, Hisham is warning MCA not to get too swell-headed. So from that you already know - nothing is going to change.”

Will backfire

Indeed the Chinese Economic Congress held on Saturday has helped revived some interest in Najib’s 1Malaysia plan but that is unlikely to last. In fact, pundits expect the entire episode to backfire despite the sabre-rattling by both Umno and MCA to impress their respective constituents.

Malaysians, especially hard-nosed investors, have been shocked at the way Najib has allowed many of his key programmes to suddenly drop off the radar following protests from ultra Malay rights groups like Perkasa and former premier Mahathir Mohamad.

The ease with which Najib let go of his proposals has sparked speculation he knows he is unable to control the Umno hard liners, and has already accepted the fact that his reformist socio-economic plan is unlikely to ever see the light of day.

On Sunday, Hishammuddin had warned the MCA not to forsake the interest of the BN coalition after the Chinese party presented 13 resolution to Najib, including a call to remove the 30 percent Malay and bumiputera quota on company shareholdings.

Even Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin has rushed to show his Malay credentials, warning the MCA not to undermine his community's rights.

“If they want to fight for the Chinese community it must not touch on the interest of the Malays.I hope component parties will take this into consideration, so as not to cause any misunderstanding,” Muhyiddin said on Monday.

Classic example of race-based politics

But it was Perkasa’s colorful president Ibrahim Ali who beat both Hisham and Muhyiddin to it. Ibrahim rained blows not just on the MCA but also on Najib and his brother Nazir.

“Perkasa denounces and condemns outright their (MCA's) request for the government to lower the 30 per cent equity for Bumiputera. This shows their ungrateful attitude to the Malay community and Bumiputeras who have compromised and tolerated because of the social contract in our constitution," Ibrahim shot out.

Umno's and Perkasa's race-based exhortations opened the door for MCA president Chua Soi Lek and even vice-president Chor Chee Heung to fire back in a similar vein.

“If some Barisan Nasional leaders continue to live in their own world, they will certainly push MCA to its doom and it will not bring the ruling coalition any good. Hishammuddin cannot blame MCA for deviating from the objectives and struggles of BN simply because MCA has a different voice from him or other component party leaders,” said Chua in a statement out on Monday.

“MCA has consistently showed its loyalty to BN. In times when Umno had encountered difficulties in the 1980s and 1990s, MCA never abandoned Umno. Nevertheless, we also have to take cognizance that such a statement from a coalition partner which hinges on political hegemony (would) cause voters to turn away from BN,” read Chor’s statement, which was issued separately.

VIDEO Hassan Ali: BN Mentri Besars in Selangor were scandalous

PAS Selangor commissioner Hassan Ali minces no words at a ceramah in Taman Ehsan, exposing the misdeeds of the previous BN administrators.

Watch these videos to find out:

Video 1:

Popout

Video 2:

Popout

The Bumi Story: How Mamak Fucked You For $8B Under Your Nose?

RM8 billion MAS loss: Who is protecting Tajuddin?

By Qayum Rahman, Free Malaysia Today

Who is protecting former Malaysia Airlines Sdn Bhd (MAS) chairman Tajuddin Ramli from being investigated in relation to the RM8 billion loss the airline suffered in 2002? This was the question posed by PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub at a news conference earlier today.

Displaying a document related to the RM8 billion loss, he asked why the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had not taken action on a complaint lodged against Tajuddin.

He also asked why MACC had forwarded the complaint to the Commercial Crime Investigation Department.

“Who is protecting this criminal and this big case from being investigated?

“We want to know why MACC did not act on a report lodged by MAS against Tajuddin . MACC should have investigated the report but it instead forwarded the complaint to the Commercial Crime Investigation Departmednt,” he said.

Salahuddin also showed reporters a letter dated March 26, 2007 from the former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusoff to then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The letter detailed the allegation against Tajuddin.

“Ramli had a special meeting with Abdullah where he explained that the contents of the letter were sufficient evidence to charge Tajudin.

“Even the Commercial Crime Investigation Department had made several proposals for prosecution but no drastic action had been taken in the case,” he said.

Salahuddin added that there appeared to be a conspiracy between the MACC and the police.

“Going by this document, MAS is of the opinion that MACC’s disclosure of the matter to the police shows a collaboration to cover up the loss,” he said.

Okay, what about this affair then?

Aiyah! Prosecution star witness Saiful Bukhari Azlan bonking DPP Farah Azlina Latif. Then Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak aide Khairil Annas Jusoh bonking Saiful Bukhari Azlan. And now the AG himself bonking Head of International Affairs Division Azailiza Mohd Ahad.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Today, the Associated Press reported, "A Malaysian judge said Monday he considered allegations of an affair between a government prosecution lawyer and the man who accused opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy to be true but the relationship did not compromise the case."

Okay, the issue here is that the court has no doubt that the allegation that deputy public prosecutor Farah Azlina Latif is having an affair with the prosecutions key witness in the Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II trial is true. The court is not concerned with whether an affair is going on or not. It is only concerned with whether the affair would compromise the trial.

In other words, is their any pillow talk going on in between the bonking? And the court is convinced there is no pillow talk, just hardcore bonking. So there is no miscarriage of justice and therefore the charge against Anwar need not be dropped.

Why does the Attorney General not want to confirm or deny the allegation that a member of his team is bonking the prosecutions key witness? Would it not be easy if he just denied it and solve the entire problem?

He is not prepared to risk his neck, first of all, because he knows it is true and he knows that if he tries to deny it more shit is going to hit the fan. But more importantly, he is worried that if he denies it then we would bring out another allegation of an affair, this time involving him and Datuk Azailiza binti Mohd Ahad, the Head of the International Affairs Division of the Attorney Generals Chambers.

!

Yes , everyone knows about this affair. It is no secret. The AG and Azailiza make frequent trips overseas together and, to save the taxpayers some money, they share a hotel room rather than book separate rooms.

Aiyah! Prosecution star witness Saiful Bukhari Azlan bonking DPP Farah Azlina Latif. Then Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak aide Khairil Annas Jusoh bonking Saiful Bukhari Azlan. And now the AG himself bonking Head of International Affairs Division Azailiza Mohd Ahad.

There appears to be a hell of a lot of bonking going on in the Palace of Justice. And with the Chief Justice illegally marrying a second wife in Thailand and then destroying the evidence to escape prosecution, like our Member of Parliament from Sabah, it makes one wonder how they even have enough time to prepare for the court cases.

***************************************************

Affair claim in Malaysia's Anwar trial deemed true

(Associated Press) - A Malaysian judge said Monday he considered allegations of an affair between a government prosecution lawyer and the man who accused opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy to be true but the relationship did not compromise the case.

Anwar insists the sodomy charge against him should be dropped after an opposition-linked activist claimed last month that a young female prosecution attorney in the trial had a recent affair with Anwar's accuser, a 25-year-old male former aide. Neither of them has directly responded to the allegation.

Anwar faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of sodomizing his ex-aide, Saiful Bukhari Azlan. He insists the government concocted the charge in 2008 to sideline him after his opposition alliance made unprecedented electoral g! ains. Go vernment authorities deny conspiring against Anwar.

High Court Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah ruled Monday that the prosecution team in the trial had accepted the allegations of an affair to be true because it did not directly confirm or deny them.

"The court must accept what is stated as true," he said.

However, Mohamad Zabidin rejected Anwar's request for the charge to be dropped, saying the affair claim did not compromise the prosecution's integrity. Prosecution lawyers have argued that Farah Azlina Latif had been a junior member of the team and never had important documents in her possession.

Malaysia's attorney general ordered Farah removed from the case last month. He said although there was no proof to support the claim of an affair, the move would protect the prosecution's credibility.

The defense claims Farah might have leaked confidential information to Saiful, who should not have access to prosecution strategies.

Mohamad Zabidin postponed trial hearings until Sept. 20 after Anwar's lawyers said they would appeal his decision.

This is the second time Anwar has been accused of sodomy, a crime in this Muslim-majority country. He was imprisoned for six years starting in 1998 for sodomy and corruption. The sodomy conviction was later overturned.

http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20100816/tap-as-malaysia-anwar-trial-b3c65ae.html

See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

Zaid Ibrahim - DEB dan nasib orang Cina........

Ada banyak kisah benar yang diketahui ramai tentang kejayaan kaum Cina di bawah Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Dalam konteks ini, DEB bermaksud sistem pilih kasih dan naungan orang-orang yang berkuasa. Sepertimana dinyatakan oleh adik Perdana Menteri, Nazir Razak, DEB telah bersimpang dari tujuan asal yang diilhamkan oleh Allahyarham Abdul Razak, ayahanda kepada Najib dan Nazir. Apa yang tidak dinyatakan oleh Nazir ialah bahawa DEB telah sekarang menjadi satu sistem yang korup, tidak mempunyai akauntabiliti kepada rakyat dan diselubungi rahsia sehingga hanya mereka yang berkuasa dan korup mendapat faedah terbesar dari DEB.

Yang sedih, pagar diharapkan, pagar yang makan padi. Orang Melayu menaruh harapan kepada UMNO untuk menjaga kepentingan bangsa; tetapi dibawah sistem DEB yang dikorupkan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO, ada juga beberapa orang Cina yang berjaya meraih kekayaan. Ini termasuk Vincent Tan, Francis Yeoh, anak muda 28-tahun Jho Low (Low Taek Jho) dan Liew Kee Sin dari SP Setia.

Bagaimana mereka berjaya melalui DEB? Kita harus tahu. Orang Cina harus tahu supaya mereka pun boleh berjaya dan menjayakan DEB.

Encik Liew(kiri), yang penuh dengan pujian untuk DEB, mengakui bahawa beliau adalah salah seorang yang berjaya melalui DEB. Beliau adalah pegawai biasa dalam salah satu bank dagangan yang kecil sehingga beliau berkawan dengan dua orang peguam Rashid Manaf and Zaki Azmi (sekarang Ketua Hakim Negara). Kedua, Rashid dan Zaki tidak mempunyai latar belakang dalam alam perniagaan. Syarikat perundangan mereka pun besar tapi tidak lah boleh membuat seseorang rakan kongsinya kaya. Tetapi apabila mereka dilantik sebagai pegu! am untuk UMNO, dan bersahabat dengan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO seperti Mahathir Mohamad, Daim Zainuddin dan Ketua MIC Samy Vellu, maka perniagaan mereka pun mulai mengalami kecemerlangan.

Bukankah SP Setia sebelum ini dipunyai SPK yang dikendalikan oleh sahabat Mahathir iaitu Abdullah Ahmad (Kok Lanas) dan Ramli Khushairi? Liew, Zaki dan Rashid membeli syarikat ini, dengan habuan diberi kepada Dollah Kok Lanas, dan yang lain itu, seperti kata orang, "the rest is history". Perlu di ingatkan bahawa satu ketika dahulu, SPK adalah kooperatif yang mana pegawai kerajaan dan ahli-ahli UMNO menjadi tuan yang punya.

Vincent Tan(kanan) berjaya kerana beliau dapat meyakinkan sahabat beliau, Mahathir Mohamad, yang Perdana Menteri ketika itu, untuk menswastakan Sports Toto kepada beliau, kerana kononnya, disebabkan judi itu haram, orang Melayu dan kerajaan tidak boleh terlibat dalam penjudian.

Tetapi beliau memilih orang Melayu untuk menjadi partner beliau - anak saudara Mahathir yang ketika itu bertugas sebagai pengurus besar agensi berita Nasional, Bernama. Anak saudara Mahathir ini baik orangnya tetapi tidak lama selepas itu, beliau menamatkan perkongsian itu dan saya rasa beliau tidak dapat apa-apa pun. Inilah nasib orang Melayu yang menjadi rakan kongsi orang Cina yang pintar saperti Vincent Tan. Vincent semestinya harus disenaraikan sebagai salah satu cerita kejayaan DEB, seperti juga Liew.

Ayah kepada Francis Yeoh, Yeoh Tiong Lay, memulakan syarikat pembinaan yang tidak begitu menyerlah selama 30 tahun. Tetapi ini semua bertukar apabila Francis, yang berkawan dengan Mahathir, berjaya dapat kontrak membina hospital di Semenanjung Malaysia pada tahun 1980-an. Kemudian, Mahathir memberi kontrak paling mewah kepada keluarga YTL - IPP denga! n bayara n yang paling lumayan sehingga kini dalam sejarah pengswastaan tenaga elektrik. Tenaga Nasional terpaksa membeli eletrik dari YTL dengan harga tinggi itu, biar tenaga itu diperlukan atau tidak. Macam mana tak buat duit? Pelanggan terpaksa beli, mahu atau tidak, dengan harga paling tinggi.

Pengerusi TNB ketika itu, Ani Arope, membantah perjanjian itu tetapi disingkir oleh Mahathir. Hari ini, YTL mempunyai rezab wang sebanyak RM9 bilion dan ianya digunakan untuk apa? Membeli syarikat jana kuasa di Singapuura, membeli separuh daripada Pulau Sentosa di Singapura, dan membeli tanah dengan harga yang paling mahal di Orchard Road. Satu lagi kejayaan DEB. Oh ya...siapa rakan kongsi Bumiputra Francis? Mungkin Mokhzani dan Mukhriz Mahathir boleh jawab soalan itu....

Kata orang bahawa pemuda 28 tahun Jho Low adalah sahabat baik Perdana Menteri Najib Razak; atau pun isteri beliau; atau mungkin pun anak sulung Rosmah. Beliau berada di sana, sini dan mana-mana. Di sini, saya ingin mengucapkan tahniah kepada akhbar The Star kerana berjaya mendapat temuramah eksklusif dengan anak muda yang berjaya ini. Entah siapa yang mengarah mereka membuat temu-ramah ini....

Jho(kanan) selalu kelihatan bersama PM Najib. Semasa pelancaran 1Malaysia Development Fund oleh PM, dia ada; semasa PM bercuti di Monte Carlo tahun lalu, dia ada; dan mereka juga bersama sama di St. Tropez dua minggu lalu. Ahkbar dari luar negara membuat laporan dan andaian bahawa anak muda Jho (kawasan mesra wanita glamor, Paris Hilton) ada penglibatan dalam mendapat Kerajaan Malaysia memberi jaminan kepada 1Malaysia Development fund. Bagaimana Kerajaan dan Perbendaharaan Malaysia boleh setuju kepada ! skim mem injam RM5 bilion dengan bayaran terlalu tinggi faedah terlalu tinggi 5.75% tak masuk akal. Ini bererti jika 1MDB gagal membayar hutangnya, kerajaan akan menanggung hutang interest payment melebihi RM2.4 bilion dari kadar yang lazim?

Dan sekarang ini kawan kawan dalam sektor Bank bercakap tentang kononnya dalam akaun tahunan 1MDB menunjukkan bahawa hanya masih ada RM4.3 bilion dari jumlah asal RM5 bilion. Di mana agaknya RM700 juta dibelanjakan? Itulah dia - Jho Low, suatu lagi kejayaan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (NEP).

Jadi orang orang Cina tahu sebenarnya bagaimana mahu mendapat untung besar dengan menggunakan Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Tak payahlah Liew Kee Sin bimbang. Tetapi berapa ramaikah orang Cina yang ada kaitan dan hubungan intim dengan pemimpin besar UMNO untuk mendapat peluang ini? Itulah persoalannya.


Bukankah lebih baik kita ada sistem pemerintahan dan dasar ekonomi yang terbuka dan adil kepada semua lapisan rakyat? Dan adil kepada semua kaum? Dengan cara itu, peluang besar dan keemasan boleh juga dicapai oleh rakyat biasa. Tak payahlah mereka mesti ada hubungan baik dengan UMNO, atau pihak aristokrat atau pegawai tinggi kerajaan. Sepatutnya sudah memadai rakyat semua kaum yang mahu berjaya hanya memerlukan kebolehan dan azam tinggi untuk berjaya. Malangnya di negara bertuah ini, peluang utama hanyalah kepada mereka yang terpilih. - Zaid Ibrahim(Artikel ini dipetik dan disunting daripada blog Zaid Ibrahim.)

Read 'NEP and the Chinese success stories Zaid Ibrahim' here.

Read 'A case against the NEP: Sports Toto, the inside story' here.

source:Merdeka Review

Perkasa Ibrahim Ali 'the katak' masih dok melalak tak habis-habis.....

cheers.
See W! hat Bari san Nasional Gotta Say?

Rethinking Development and the State: Reflections of the Late Tony Judt

August 16, 2010

http://www.nybooks.com

Ill Fares the Land

April 29, 2010

by Tony Robert Judt FBA (January 2,1948 August 6 2010)

Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: Is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them.

The materialistic and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears natural today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation, the cult of privatization and the private sector, the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all, the rhetoric that accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets, disdain for the public sector, the delusion of endless growth.

We cannot go on living like this. The little crash of 2008 was a reminder that unregulated capitalism is its own worst enemy: sooner or later it must fall prey to its own excesses and turn again to the state for rescue. But if we do no more than pick up the pieces and carry on as before, we can look forward to greater upheavals in years to come.

And yet we seem unable to conceive of alternatives. This too is something new. Until quite recently, public life in liberal societies was conducted in the shadow of a debate between defender! s of cap italism and its critics: usually identified with one or another form of socialism. By the 1970s this debate had lost much of its meaning for both sides; all the same, the leftright distinction served a useful purpose. It provided a peg on which to hang critical commentary about contemporary affairs.

On the left, Marxism was attractive to generations of young people if only because it offered a way to take ones distance from the status quo. Much the same was true of classical conservatism: a well-grounded distaste for over-hasty change gave a home to those reluctant to abandon long-established routines. Today, neither left nor right can find their footing.

For thirty years students have been complaining to me that it was easy for you: your generation had ideals and ideas, you believed in something, you were able to change things. We (the children of the Eighties, the Nineties, the Aughts) have nothing. In many respects my students are right. It was easy for usjust as it was easy, at least in this sense, for the generations who came before us. The last time a cohort of young people expressed comparable frustration at the emptiness of their lives and the dispiriting purposelessness of their world was in the 1920s: it is not by chance that historians speak of a lost generation.

The Young are at a loss

If young people today are at a loss, it is not for want of targets. Any conversation with students or schoolchildren will produce a startling checklist of anxieties. Indeed, the rising generation is acutely worried about the world it is to inherit. But accompanying these fears there is a general sentiment of frustration: we know something is wrong and there are many things we dont like. But what can we believe in? What should we do?

This is an ironic reversal of the attitudes of an earlier age. Back in the era of self-assured radical dogma, young people were far from uncertain. The characteristic tone of the 1960s was that of overweening confidence: we! knew ju st how to fix the world. It was this note of unmerited arrogance that partly accounts for the reactionary backlash that followed; if the left is to recover its fortunes, some modesty will be in order. All the same, you must be able to name a problem if you wish to solve it.

I wrote my book Ill Fares the Land for young people on both sides of the Atlantic. American readers may be struck by the frequent references to social democracy. Here in the United States, such references are uncommon. When journalists and commentators advocate public expenditure on social objectives, they are more likely to describe themselvesand be described by their criticsas liberals. But this is confusing. Liberal is a venerable and respectable label and we should all be proud to wear it. But like a well-designed outer coat, it conceals more than it displays.

A Liberal and A Social Democrat

A liberal is someone who opposes interference in the affairs of others: who is tolerant of dissenting attitudes and unconventional behavior. Liberals have historically favored keeping other people out of our lives, leaving individuals the maximum space in which to live and flourish as they choose. In their extreme form, such attitudes are associated today with self-styled libertarians, but the term is largely redundant. Most genuine liberals remain disposed to leave other people alone.

Social democrats, on the other hand, are something of a hybrid. They share with liberals a commitment to cultural and religious tolerance. But in public policy social democrats believe in the possibility and virtue of collective action for the collective good. Like most liberals, social democrats favor progressive taxation in order to pay for public services and other social goods that individuals cannot provide themselves; but whereas many liberals might see such taxation or public provision as a necessary evil, a social democratic vision of the good society entails from the out! set a gr eater role for the state and the public sector.

Understandably, social democracy is a hard sell in the United States. One of my goals is to suggest that government can play an enhanced role in our lives without threatening our libertiesand to argue that, since the state is going to be with us for the foreseeable future, we would do well to think about what sort of a state we want. In any case, much that was best in American legislation and social policy over the course of the twentieth centuryand that we are now urged to dismantle in the name of efficiency and less governmentcorresponds in practice to what Europeans have called social democracy. Our problem is not what to do; it is how to talk about it.

The European dilemma is somewhat different. Many European countries have long practiced something resembling social democracy: but they have forgotten how to preach it. Social democrats today are defensive and apologetic. Critics who claim that the European model is too expensive or economically inefficient have been allowed to pass unchallenged. And yet, the welfare state is as popular as ever with its beneficiaries: nowhere in Europe is there a constituency for abolishing public health services, ending free or subsidized education, or reducing public provision of transport and other essential services.

Taking on Conventional Wisdom

I want to challenge conventional wisdom on both sides of the Atlantic. To be sure, the target has softened considerably. In the early years of this century, the Washington consensus held the field. Everywhere you went there was an economist or expert expounding the virtues of deregulation, the minimal state, and low taxation. Anything, it seemed, that the public sector could do, private individuals could do better.

The Washington doctrine was everywhere greeted by ideological cheerleaders: from the profiteers of the Irish miracle (the property-bubble boom of the Celtic Tiger) to the doct! rinaire ultra-capitalists of former Communist Europe. Even old Europeans were swept up in the wake. The EUs free- market project (the so-called Lisbon agenda); the enthusiastic privatization plans of the French and German governments: all bore witness to what its French critics described as the new pense unique.

Today there has been a partial awakening. To avert national bankruptcies and wholesale banking collapse, governments and central bankers have performed remarkable policy reversals, liberally dispersing public money in pursuit of economic stability and taking failed companies into public control without a second thought. A striking number of free-market economists, worshipers at the feet of Milton Friedman and his Chicago colleagues, have lined up to don sackcloth and ashes and swear allegiance to the memory of John Maynard Keynes.

This is all very gratifying. But it hardly constitutes an intellectual revolution. Quite the contrary: as the response of the Obama administration suggests, the reversion to Keynesian economics is but a tactical retreat. Much the same may be said of New Labour, as committed as ever to the private sector in general and the London financial markets in particular. To be sure, one effect of the crisis has been to dampen the ardor of continental Europeans for the Anglo-American model; but the chief beneficiaries have been those same center-right parties once so keen to emulate Washington.

No Re-thinking the State

In short, the practical need for strong states and interventionist governments is beyond dispute. But no one is re-thinking the state. There remains a marked reluctance to defend the public sector on grounds of collective interest or principle. It is striking that in a series of European elections following the financial meltdown, social democratic parties consistently did badly; notwithstanding the collapse of the market, they proved conspicuously unable to r! ise to t he occasion.

If it is to be taken seriously again, the left must find its voice. There is much to be angry about: growing inequalities of wealth and opportunity; injustices of class and caste; economic exploitation at home and abroad; corruption and money and privilege occluding the arteries of democracy. But it will no longer suffice to identify the shortcomings of the system and then retreat, Pilate-like, indifferent to consequences. The irresponsible rhetorical grandstanding of decades past did not serve the left well.

We have entered an age of insecurityeconomic insecurity, physical insecurity, political insecurity. The fact that we are largely unaware of this is small comfort: few in 1914 predicted the utter collapse of their world and the economic and political catastrophes that followed. Insecurity breeds fear. And fearfear of change, fear of decline, fear of strangers and an unfamiliar worldis corroding the trust and interdependence on which civil societies rest.

All change is disruptive. We have seen that the specter of terrorism is enough to cast stable democracies into turmoil. Climate change will have even more dramatic consequences. Men and women will be thrown back upon the resources of the state. They will look to their political leaders and representatives to protect them: open societies will once again be urged to close in upon themselves, sacrificing freedom for security. The choice will no longer be between the state and the market, but between two sorts of state. It is thus incumbent upon us to reconceive the role of government. If we do not, others will.

The Way We Live Now

All around us, even in a recession, we see a level of individual wealth unequaled since the early years of the twentieth century. Conspicuous consumption of redundant consumer goodshouses, jewelry, cars, clothing, tech toyshas greatly expanded over the past generation. In the US, the UK, and a handful of other countries, financial transactions have largel! y displa ced the production of goods or services as the source of private fortunes, distorting the value we place upon different kinds of economic activity. The wealthy, like the poor, have always been with us. But relative to everyone else, they are today wealthier and more conspicuous than at any time in living memory. Private privilege is easy to understand and describe. It is rather harder to convey the depths of public squalor into which we have fallen.

Private Affluence, Public Squalor

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. Adam Smith

Poverty is an abstraction, even for the poor. But the symptoms of collective impoverishment are all about us. Broken highways, bankrupt cities, collapsing bridges, failed schools, the unemployed, the underpaid, and the uninsured: all suggest a collective failure of will. These shortcomings are so endemic that we no longer know how to talk about what is wrong, much less set about repairing it. And yet something is seriously amiss. Even as the US budgets tens of billions of dollars on a futile military campaign in Afghanistan, we fret nervously at the implications of any increase in public spending on social services or infrastructure.

To understand the depths to which we have fallen, we must first appreciate the scale of the changes that have overtaken us. From the late nineteenth century until the 1970s, the advanced societies of the West were all becoming less unequal. Thanks to progressive taxation, government subsidies for the poor, the provision of social services, and guarantees against acute misfortune, modern democracies were shedding extremes of wealth and poverty.

To be sure, great differences remained. The essentially egalitarian countries of Scandinavia and the considerably more diverse societies of southern Europe remained distinctive; and the English-speaking lands of the Atlantic world and the British Empire continued to refle! ct long- standing class distinctions. But each in its own way was affected by the growing intolerance of immoderate inequality, initiating public provision to compensate for private inadequacy.

Over the past thirty years we have thrown all this away. To be sure, we varies with country. The greatest extremes of private privilege and public indifference have resurfaced in the US and the UK: epicenters of enthusiasm for deregulated market capitalism. Although countries as far apart as New Zealand and Denmark, France and Brazil have expressed periodic interest in deregulation, none has matched Britain or the United States in their unwavering thirty-year commitment to the unraveling of decades of social legislation and economic oversight.

In 2005, 21.2 percent of US national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners. Contrast 1968, when the CEO of General Motors took home, in pay and benefits, about sixty-six times the amount paid to a typical GM worker. Today the CEO of Wal-Mart earns nine hundred times the wages of his average employee. Indeed, the wealth of the Wal-Mart founders family in 2005 was estimated at about the same ($90 billion) as that of the bottom 40 percent of the US population: 120 million people.

The UK too is now more unequalin incomes, wealth, health, education, and life chancesthan at any time since the 1920s. There are more poor children in the UK than in any other country of the European Union. Since 1973, inequality in take-home pay increased more in the UK than anywhere except the US. Most of the new jobs created in Britain in the years 19772007 were at either the very high or the very low end of the pay scale.

The consequences are clear. There has been a collapse in intergenerational mobility: in contrast to their parents and grandparents, children today in the UK as in the US have very little expectation of improving upon the condition into which they were born. The poor stay poor. (See Figures 1 and 2.) Economic disadvantage for the overwhelming major! ity tran slates into ill health, missed educational opportunity, andincreasinglythe familiar symptoms of depression: alcoholism, obesity, gambling, and minor criminality. The unemployed or underemployed lose such skills as they have acquired and become chronically superfluous to the economy. Anxiety and stress, not to mention illness and early death, frequently follow.

Income disparity exacerbates the problems. Thus the incidence of mental illness correlates closely to income in the US and the UK, whereas the two indices are quite unrelated in all continental European countries. Even trust, the faith we have in our fellow citizens, corresponds negatively with differences in income: between 1983 and 2001, mistrustfulness increased markedly in the US, the UK, and Irelandthree countries in which the dogma of unregulated individual self-interest was most assiduously applied to public policy. In no other country was a comparable increase in mutual mistrust to be found.

Even within individual countries, inequality plays a crucial role in shaping peoples lives. In the United States, for example, your chances of living a long and healthy life closely track your income: residents of wealthy districts can expect to live longer and better. Young women in poorer states of the US are more likely to become pregnant in their teenage yearsand their babies are less likely to survivethan their peers in wealthier states. In the same way, a child from a disfavored district has a higher chance of dropping out of high school than if his parents have a steady mid-range income and live in a prosperous part of the country. As for the children of the poor who remain in school: they will do worse, achieve lower scores, and obtain less fulfilling and lower-paid employment.

Inequal! ity is corrosive

Inequality, then, is not just unattractive in itself; it clearly corresponds to pathological social problems that we cannot hope to address unless we attend to their underlying cause. There is a reason why infant mortality, life expectancy, criminality, the prison population, mental illness, unemployment, obesity, malnutrition, teenage pregnancy, illegal drug use, economic insecurity, personal indebtedness, and anxiety are so much more marked in the US and the UK than they are in continental Europe. (See Figures 3, 4, and 5.)

The wider the spread between the wealthy few and the impoverished many, the worse the social problems: a statement that appears to be true for rich and poor countries alike. What matters is not how affluent a country is but how unequal it is. Thus Sweden and Finland, two of the worlds wealthiest countries by per capita income or GDP, have a very narrow gap separating their richest from their poorest citizensand they consistently lead the world in indices of measurable well-being. Conversely, the United States, despite its huge aggregate wealth, always comes low on such measures. We spend vast sums on health care, but life expectancy in the US remains below Bosnia and just above Albania. (See Figure 6.)

Inequality is corrosive. It rots societies from within. The impact of material differences takes a while to show up: but in due course competition for status and goods increases; people feel a growing sense of superiority (or inferiority) based on their possessions; prejudice toward th! ose on t he lower rungs of the social ladder hardens; crime spikes and the pathologies of social disadvantage become ever more marked. The legacy of unregulated wealth creation is bitter indeed.1

As recently as the 1970s, the idea that the point of life was to get rich and that governments existed to facilitate this would have been ridiculed: not only by capitalisms traditional critics but also by many of its staunchest defenders. Relative indifference to wealth for its own sake was widespread in the postwar decades. In a survey of English schoolboys taken in 1949, it was discovered that the more intelligent the boy the more likely he was to choose an interesting career at a reasonable wage over a job that would merely pay well.2 Todays schoolchildren and college students can imagine little else but the search for a lucrative job.

How should we begin to make amends for raising a generation obsessed with the pursuit of material wealth and indifferent to so much else? Perhaps we might start by reminding ourselves and our children that it wasnt always thus. Thinking economistically, as we have done now for thirty years, is not intrinsic to humans. There was a time when we ordered our lives differently.

This essay is drawn from the opening chapter of Tony Judts newly published book, Ill Fares the Land (Penguin).

The best recent statement of this argument comes in Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger (Bloomsbury Press, 2010). I am indebted to them for much of the material in this excerpt.

See T.H. Marshall and Tom Bottomore, Citizenship and Social Class (London: Pluto, 1992), p. 48.

Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

Sodomy II - Judge refused to drop sodomy charge....

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has dismissed Anwar Ibrahim's application to strike out his sodomy charge, following an allegation that a member of the prosecution team had romantic relations with the complainant. Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah ruled that the allegation does not compromise the prosecution's integrity.

This is because DPP Farah Azlina Latif had no access to vital prosecution documents, as stated int he affidavits of investigating officer Jude Blacious Pereira and DPP Mohd Hanafiah Zakaria. Justice Zabidin said there is no reason for the court not to accept the assertion by Jude and Hanafiah on this issue.

"From their explanation, it was reasonable to decide that although DPP Farah Azlina Latif is part of the prosecution team, her role was limited to a 'need to know' basis.

"She did not have access to the investigation papers or documents, and neither was she involved in the briefing sessions. As Farah had no access to the investigation papers or to knowledge of the contents of the case, then (the complainant) Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan could not have gained accesss to these through Farah."

According to Jude's affidavit, those who have access include DPP Hanafiah, solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden and DPPs Nordin Hassan and Noorin Badaruddin. On the issue of the prosecution's integrity, Justice Zabidin ruled that Farah was not a prosecutor responsible for charging the accused, as she was merely in court to take notes. The judge noted that she was not responsible for examining the witnesses either.

"With that, I am of the view that Saiful did not have any influence on Farah based on the alleged relationship, and that this could not have influenced the prosecution and compromise the integrity of the team.

"...The issue of prejudice to the applicant (Anwar) in this trial, hence does not arise. Based ! on this reason, I find there has been no abuse of the court process as alleged and hence, the application is dismissed."

He also ruled that the matter was interlocutory and ordered the trial to resume, despite objections from the defence. About 10.50am, following a recess, lead defence counsel Karpal Singh said he would file notice of appeal and a stay application within an hour.

The judge said he will hear the application at 2pm.

source:malaysiakini

The judge said that Farah had no access to vital prosecution documents based on affidavits of the investigating officers. To be fair the judge should instruct Farah & Saifool to file their affidavits too.........

cheers.
Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

Vincent Tan, Mahathir, and the NEP: Privatisation of Sports Toto

August 16, 2010

Vincent Tan, NEP and the Privatisation of Sports Toto

by Ahmad Mustapha Hassan*

I read with great interest Dato Zaid Ibrahims article today on the NEP and the Chinese . As he makes a reference to me I need to provide some details and my relationship with Vincent Tan and how people like Vincent Tan had made use of people , especially Malays like me. I am still seething with anger and hurt by the way Vincent Tan had treated me. I played a pivotal role in the privatisation of Sports Toto and Vincent went on to make billions while leaving me out in the cold. That is NEP for you.

Zaid made an indirect reference to my role. He said: So he (Mahathir) privatised Sports Toto.. to Vincent. But to be successful, Vincent had to have a Mahathir relative as his partner. Vincent asked a nice gentleman, Mahathirs nephew, who headed the national news agency Bernama then, to be his partner, with Mahathirs blessings. But I doubt this nice guy got much in the end as Malay partners dont last very long in this high stakes game. The rest is history. Vincent built his fortunes on these haram activities. An NEP success story, certainly.

Let me put it the way it happened.

It is more than three years since I officially disclosed what is being owed to me by tycoons T. Ananda Krishnan and Vincent Tan in my book The Unmaking of Malaysia. The book was for a time a best seller and the intention of my writing the book was to expose how these two billionaires got a head start in business and how I had been instrumental in helping them in some of their initial ventures.

The book had ca! tegorica lly mentioned that these men had made use of my services but had reneged on the terms of payment for my services. These were services that one would have thought impossible to deliver but I made it possible in view of my knowledge, administrative expertise and connections.

The Malaysian Maverick and Friends

I have attempted for years to recover what has been owed to me by Ananda Krishnan and Vincent Tan. Ananda owed me for my services in getting him control of Inchcape Malaysia and Vincent Tan in the privatization of Sports Toto.

I have sent countless letters, e-mails and also used the services of debt collectors. I have also sought the services of eminent personalities who are close to these two businessmen. I had also repeatedly tried to meet them but it was unfortunate that I was unable to have a face to face meeting with them and plain and simple they had refused to see me.

They know that they owe me for what I had done for them and that is the reason why they have not taken me to court to answer the charges that I had levelled against them, especially in my book. The stark and plain details are clearly stated in it. Vincent Tan had the books removed from the shelves of Borders which he operates in Malaysia when he learnt that the international book chain had stocks of it.

I also met up with friends who were involved in the privatization of Sports Toto, especially Ahmad Sebi, a former influential editor and close confidant of former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin and also Vincent Tan. Ahmad Sebi and he wondered why Vincent Tan had not offered me a listed company like how he had taken care of him for the services he re! ndered. I thought then that Vincent Tan would rather offer me what he had promised about the shares in Sports Toto rather than handing me a listed company that he had no more interest in.

I also believed that he was deferring the transfer of the shares to me until Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had relinquished the post of Prime Minister and I was prepared to wait patiently for that day.

I based this belief on what he told me at our meeting at the then Ming Court Hotel, where he said that we should not embarrass Dr Mahathir by appointing me as a Director of Sports Toto. He asked me instead to name a proxy as a director. I chose a close buddy and a virtual unknown Shuib Yaacob, who was then appointed as a director of Sports Toto.

But after the retirement of Dr Mahathir, Vincent simply kept mum on his promise of allotting 15% of the shares of Sports Toto to me. This promise was made when we had the discussion at Ming Court Hotel.

I had at some point before when I was the Chairman of South Pacific Textile (later renamed Berjaya Textiles) informed Dr Mahathir about some unethical business practices of Vincent. One such practice was to rescind Board decisions that displeased him. He did this by calling emergency board meetings and had resolutions approved the way he wanted them.

Thus he felt that my action in revealing this kind of unethical business practices would harm his cordial relationship with Dr Mahathir. He, in fact, demanded that I should absolve him and not report his bad practices so that his relationship with Dr Mahathir would not be affected.

He was also angry that I related in my book the sequence, details and the personalities involved in the quest to privatize Sports Toto to him. It was a gigantic task, something thought impossible at that time but I made that possi! ble

He has forgotten the time when he kept disturbing me in the middle of the night about the urgency in this privatization exercise. He had always called me at unearthly hours to discuss matters with him at the Raintree Club. He also forgot that it was I who told him to follow me to Rome to meet Dr Mahathir to sound out the prospect of having Sports Toto privatized.

He also seems to have forgotten the advice that I gave concerning the content of the proposal for this privatization. In no way must there be mention of gain in this exercise. The gain should only be on the side of the government.

He also seems to have forgotten the reason why I told him to rope in Ahmad Sebi. Ahmad Sebi was very close to Daim Zainuddin who was then the Minister of Finance. It would be Daim who would recommend to the Prime Minister as to who should get Sports Toto.

I might not have been involved in the nuts and bolts of preparing the proposal but I was the ideas man and initiator in this project. I first thought of it and actively canvassed for it to be privatized. Without my initial input Sports Toto would not have gone Vincents way. How he has forgotten this and how he has gone on to renege on his promise to allocate 15% of the shares of Sports Toto to me. I have vigorously pursued what rightly belongs to me and I will not rest till justice is done and the promised shares are allotted to me. It was a gentlemans agreement and I had then thought Vincent was a man of his word although many had forewarned me to have everything in black and white and in proper legal terms.

It is always the case, as many have since pointed out. I was indispensable and highly needed and appreciated ! during t he early stages of the proposal but when it came to the final and closing stages and once it was locked in , I was left to drift and had to beg and plead for what was promised and am still pleading that it be honoured. Vincent and I had worked on this privatisation proposal day and night to ensure that this was the the only proposal acceptable by the Government. Unfortunately, when the privatisation proposal was accepted by the government those runners responsible for the ultimate decision became his blue-eyed boys and given the perks. I was completely left out but I held onto the belief that he would fulfill his promise once Dr Mahathir had stepped down from office. But he felt that he could conveniently push me aside without having to honour his words.

But that will not be and so long as I have some iota of energy I will fight for what I believe is a just cause . I am still waging what I term as a fight to ensure that I am given what is rightly due to me.

Many have said that Vincent has no conscience .It is the fasting month and I am bringing out this matter afresh hoping that Vincent, for all his wealth and the head start he had as a result of the Sport Toto licence, will honour his pledge to me and settle the sums due to me. Until then I will not rest and I will resort to other more drastic measures to let the world know how I have been shortchanged.www.themalaysianinsider

*Ahmad Mustapha Hassan is the author of The Unmaking of Malaysia. The book precedes Barry Wains Malaysian Maverick:Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times

Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

SAPP: Stop forcing dam project onto the people

By Queville To

KOTA KINABALU: A proposed dam in Kota Belud, the rice bowl of Sabah, costing just under half a billion ringgit is sparking fears in the district that the government will bulldoze its way over objections. Residents had been hanging on to promises made by several government representatives that their views would be considered in any decision on the project, but their hope may be dashed.

Work on the proposed RM450-million dam at Kampung Tambatuon in Kota Belud appears set to take off, according to Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) Kadamaian chairperson, Agnes Moi Fun Liewpin.

She was referring to the announcement by Federal Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Minister Nor Omar, last week, that there would be “no stopping the Kota Belud Dam project”.

Nor had said this in response to the conflicting statements by government representatives on the dam, which has now become another controversial project after the proposed Kaiduan dam project in Papar and the newly built Milau dam in Kudat, which has no water source.

Nor's disclosure comes as a shock to the people of Kota Belud who had been promised that their views would be sought and considered, she said.

“How can a federal minister come and say there is no stopping the dam project? Does this mean that the government has already decided to proceed with the project even before the people are consulted?

“Kadamaian assemblyman Herbert Timbon Lagadan have been telling the local people that they will be consulted first. Has he been lying to the people?” she asked.

More confusion

Moi also noted that Herbert had tried to appease the villagers by promising to take them on a tour of the Bakun Dam in Sarawak to get a better picture of the government's plan.

However, the affected villagers had rejected his invitation and instead joined a similar visit organised by an NGO called “Jaringan Pertubuhan Keselamatan Orang Asli” last month.

Again on Aug 12, Kota Belud MP Rahman Dahlan, aware of the sensitivity of the project, said the site of the proposed dam was still under study.

“The conflicting statements on the proposed dam at Kampung Tambatuon from Noh, Herbert and now Rahman have caused more confusion,” Moi said.

She called on the elected representatives to tell the truth and to stop confusing the people.

“We hope that Rahman will make sure that the government will listen to the objections of the people and respect their feelings.”

Awareness campaign

Moi pointed out that the government had previously ordered surveyors and technicians to do site inspection in and around Kampung Tambatuon last year without consulting the people.

This caused anxious residents in the district to speculate and rumours to spread on a government takeover of their land. They later learnt informally from workers that a massive dam was being planned there.

Moi said SAPP would continue with its campaign to create awareness among the people on the consequences of the mega dam project.

She noted that on Aug 1, the people of Kampung Tambatuon were joined by those from Kaiduan and Kampung Sinakut of Tungku Lahad Datu in a solidarity camp at Kampung Tambatuon.

Comprising mainly young people, those from Kaiduan were protesting the proposed Kaiduan dam while the youths from Sinakut were up in arms against the proposed coal power plant at Tungku Lahad Datu.

They submitted a memorandum to protest the proposed projects to Chief Minister Musa Aman on Aug 2.

Chinese name for Sibu? Bumiputera leaders see red

(Bernama) - Bumiputera community leaders are not happy over a plan by the United Chinese Association (UCA) here to seek a new Chinese name for the town.

A front-page report in a local Bahasa Malaysia daily Utusan Borneo today quoted their leader, Temenggong Datuk Wan Hamid Edruce Tuanku Mohammad, as saying they were unhappy that “a number of sensitive issues” had been raised lately.

“Give us a little respect and do not hurt our feelings."

“We have been around for a long long time. Sibu is not going to be our second home,” he said.

He made the statement yesterday together with Pemamca Sharifah Mariam, Temenggong Sir Adrian Ringgau and Pemanca Wilfred Kiroh of the Iban community, Penghulu Shari Ubu of the Melanau community, and others.

UCA president Datuk Lau Nai Hoh had recently proposed for the new name.

He said in Chinese, Sibu was known as “Shi Wu” but the second word or “Wu” was a witch.

Wan Hamid said the community should have been consulted first over any proposal for changes and especially when they involved mutual rights.

“Sad to say, we have never been consulted. We are not against the government or any of its policies."

“But when sensitive issues regarding church, temple, mosque or cemeteries are concerned, we will appreciate it if we are consulted for our views,” he said.
He said even many road names here had been changed lately without any consultation with them.

Time to free Petronas from BN's firm grip

By Tan Kee Kwong - Free Malaysia Today

COMMENT I am alarmed by the fact that for the past three years, national oil company Petronas has given RM290 billion to the Barisan Nasional-led federal government.

What a fantastic sum of money? Can the prime minister and his two predecessors tell us the rakyat how they spent or wasted this huge sum of money?

As I have said before, Petronas as an entity was and still is quite a well run company but the past three prime ministers have ruined it all.

A special Act of Parliament passed in the 1970's – the Petroleum Development Act (PDA), ensured that Petronas was only accountable to the prime minister of the day. In the past, we had two ministers in charge of oil but without any say at all.

Even under PDA, the Finance Minister has no say, even the Cabinet cannot examine the true accounts of Petronas. What a shame. This is totally unacceptable.

Under Dr Mahathir Mohamad , dividends paid by Petronas to the government was about RM2 to RM3 billion annually.

And then when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over, he forced Petronas to pay RM10 billion, and then increased it to RM20 billion before finally forcing the oil company to pay RM30 billion.

Where did all this money go? Did they go to mainly finance all the budget deficits during his rule?

It was during this time there were many useless defence spendings. Let's not forget that in the 1980s and 1990s, about RM100 billion of Petronas money went to bail out Bank Bumiputra, twice.

During the financial crisis in 1997, the government once again relied on Petronas to buy out shipping company MISC in order to bail out Mahathir's son.

KLCC land scandal
I remember in the mid-1950's my family stayed for two years in Jalan Pinang in the heart of Kuala Lumpur. At that time only the race course was there. As kids we enjoyed plucking the delicious rambutans there. Now however it is so different.

When the Petronas headquarters was housed in the Dayabumi building, there was a severe shortage of office space as Petronas operations expanded very fast.

Initially the plan was to build a new HQ in Jalan Tun Razak, opposite the Royal Selangor Golf Club, which presently sites the Prince Court Hospital.

That plan was aborted as the Department of Civil Aviation objected strongly as it was in the flight path of the Sungai Besi RMAF air base.

Then Petronas went ahead to buy a piece of land in Jalan Ampang, behind Yow Chuan Plaza for only RM30 million.

However suddenly Mahatir intervened and came out with a devious plan to steal the money from Petronas to enrich his special cronies.

Part of the plan was to create noise in the press on how the race course in Jalan Pinang was causing massive traffic jams every weekends. After that the federal government and the Kuala Lumpur City Hall decided that the race course must be shifted to Sungai Besi, its present site.

But the government did not ask the Turf Club to surrender or even sell its land to Petronas. What they did was to force the Turf Club to sell its prime land to a very special Mahathir crony.

In turn, the crony made a huge profit by selling off that land to Petronas for RM600 million. The top brass of Petronas was instructed not to negotiate the price and to just pay.

Oil blocks given away
During Abdullah's time, he oversaw a scandal that cost the nation US$100 billion by giving away two oil blocks to Brunei.

I wonder what made Abdullah to agree to give away our oil to Brunei. Maybe in one of his naps in public, he just assigned our rights to Brunei.

In the past Petronas went into joint sharing agreements with Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia and others.

This should have been the same agreement with Brunei in the case of Block L and Block M.

The BN government must come clean on the real affairs of Petronas. For starters, the PDA must be abolished and replaced by a better and transparent piece of legislation.

More importantly, the financial affairs of Petronas must be made accountable to the Parliament.

---

Tan Kee Kwong is a former deputy minister in the BN government. He is now a PKR leader.

Ambil alih tempat Umno: PAS perlu lebih proaktif

Nazar Hashim, Merdeka Review

Bagi menggantikan UMNO sebagai sebuah parti yang memperjuangkan nasib masyarakat Melayu dan Islam dalam negara ini, maka PAS perlu lebih proaktif bagi mengambil alih kepimpinan tersebut. Menurut Naib Presiden PAS Salahuddin Ayub, PAS bukannya sebuah parti kecil lagi, malah merupakan sebuah parti yang memperjuangkan nasib semua rakyat yang memerlukan pembelaan.

Beliau berkata demikian semasa berucap dalam majlis Munaqasyah Ucapan Dasar Presiden PAS di Kompleks An-Nadhoh, Penanti, Bukit Mertajam tengahari semalam.

Salahuddin juga berkata, PAS harus memandang ke hadapan bagi menerajui kepimpinan bersama dengan PKR dan DAP yang berganding dalam Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

"Bagi mencapai realiti ini, maka kepimpinan dan juga ahli PAS perlu mendokong konsep yang diamalkan iaitu sidiq, amanah, tabligh dan fatanah yang merupakan ciri-ciri penting bagi menuju ke arah kejayaan tersebut."

Beliau berkata lagi, "PAS telah meletakkan dirinya sebagai sebuah parti Islam yang lebih inovatif dalam membawa produk baru yang mampu dimanfaatkan kepada semua golongan masyarakat dalam negara ini."

Salahuddin yang juga Ahli Parlimen Kubang Kerian berkata, untuk menjadikan hasrat melangkah ke Putrajaya satu realiti, maka reformasi dalam perjuangan PAS adalah salah satu perkara utama yang perlu mendapat keutamaan semua ahli dan pendokong PAS.

Beliau juga menyokong kepimpinan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng yang ingin menerapkan nilai-nilai murni dalam kepimpinan yang berteraskan konsep perjuangan Khalifah Umar Abdul Aziz.

Beliau berkata, Lim Guan Eng sepatutnya diberi peluang dan ruang untuk merealisasikan hasrat beliau menjadikan sistem pentadbiran Khalifah Umar sebagai satu perkara yang akan membawa kejayaan dalam pemerintahan Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang.

"Guan Eng perlu mengambil pendekatan untuk membuktikan kepada masyarakat bahawa DAP mampu untuk menganjak paradigma yang lebih baik di bawah kepimpinan beliau jika dibandingkan dengan kepimpinan Lim Kit Siang."

"Sekiranya beliau mampu untuk membuktikan bahawa kepimpinan yang ingin diterapkan berdasarkan kepada kepimpinan yang telah dibawa oleh Khalifah Umar itu adalah satu sistem yang boleh memberi keadilan dan kesejahteraan kepada rakyat, maka barulah DAP dapat keluar dari kerangka dan persepsi negatif sesetengah pihak," katanya lagi.

Mujahid:

Manakala Ahli Parlimen Parit Buntar, Mujahid Yusof Rawa dalam ucapannya menyarankan kepada ahli PAS supaya membuang persepsi negatif bahawa PAS adalah pembangkang di Pulau Pinang.

"Di Pulau Pinang khususnya, kita walaupun mempunyai satu kerusi tetapi PAS adalah bersama-sama dengan kerajaan negeri menerajui Pulau Pinang. Oleh kerana itu persepsi yang seolah-olah mengatakan kita adalah pembangkang harus dibuang jauh," kata Mujahid Yusof Rawa (gambar kiri).

"Dalam banyak isu UMNO dan Barisan Nasional (BN) cuba menjadikan isu masyarakat Melayu sebagai modal politik mereka bagi mengaut simpati masyarakat Melayu yang sememangnya semakin tipis menyokong mereka," katanya.

Mujahid yang juga merupakan Timbalan Pesuruhjaya PAS Pulau Pinang berkata, isu tanah perkuburan di Jelutong yang selama ini telah 15 tahun tidak dapat diselesikan oleh UMNO dan BN.

Namun begitu dalam tempoh Kerajaan PR memerintah Pulau Pinang, PAS telah mengorak langkah bagi mengatasi masalah ini bagi manfaat masyarakat Melayu dan umat Islam khususnya dalam kawasan tersebut.

Beliau juga berkata antara kejayaan yang telah berjaya dilakukan oleh PAS di Jelutong ialah menyatukan dua puak yang bertelagah dalam isu Kampung Pokok Assam yang suatu ketika telah diarahkan pindah oleh pemaju bagi projek pembangunan dikawasan tersebut.

"Hasil dari perbincangan yang telah dilakukan maka kita meminta supaya pihak kerajaan negeri menekankan kepada pemaju dasar untuk menempatkan semula penduduk di kampung yang terlibat dengan projek pembangunan. Sekiranya ini dapat dilakukan maka persepsi bahawa kerajaan negeri mengusir masyarakat Melayu dapat ditangkis," tambahnya lagi.

Turut hadir dalam majlis tersebut ialah kepimpinan Pemuda, Muslimat dan PAS Negeri Pulau Pinang.

DEB dan nasib orang Cina - Zaid Ibrahim

Zaid Ibrahim

Ada banyak kisah benar yang diketahui ramai tentang kejayaan kaum Cina di bawah Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Dalam konteks ini, DEB bermaksud sistem pilih kasih dan naungan orang-orang yang berkuasa. Sepertimana dinyatakan oleh adik Perdana Menteri, Nazir Razak, DEB telah bersimpang dari tujuan asal yang diilhamkan oleh Allahyarham Abdul Razak, ayahanda kepada Najib dan Nazir.

Apa yang tidak dinyatakan oleh Nazir ialah bahawa DEB telah sekarang menjadi satu sistem yang korup, tidak mempunyai akauntabiliti kepada rakyat dan diselubungi rahsia sehingga hanya mereka yang berkuasa dan korup mendapat faedah terbesar dari DEB.

Yang sedih, pagar diharapkan, pagar yang makan padi. Orang Melayu menaruh harapan kepada UMNO untuk menjaga kepentingan bangsa; tetapi dibawah sistem DEB yang dikorupkan oleh pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO, ada juga beberapa orang Cina yang berjaya meraih kekayaan. Ini termasuk Vincent Tan, Francis Yeoh, anak muda 28-tahun Jho Low (Low Taek Jho) dan Liew Kee Sin dari SP Setia. Bagaimana mereka berjaya melalui DEB? Kita harus tahu. Orang Cina harus tahu supaya mereka pun boleh berjaya dan menjayakan DEB.

Encik Liew, yang penuh dengan pujian untuk DEB, mengakui bahawa beliau adalah salah seorang yang berjaya melalui DEB. Beliau adalah pegawai biasa dalam salah satu bank dagangan yang kecil sehingga beliau berkawan dengan dua orang peguam – Rashid Manaf and Zaki Azmi (sekarang Ketua Hakim Negara). Kedua, Rashid dan Zaki tidak mempunyai latar belakang dalam alam perniagaan. Syarikat perundangan mereka pun besar tapi tidak lah boleh membuat seseorang rakan kongsinya kaya. Tetapi apabila mereka dilantik sebagai peguam untuk UMNO, dan bersahabat dengan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO seperti Mahathir Mohamad, Daim Zainuddin dan Ketua MIC Samy Vellu, maka perniagaan mereka pun mulai mengalami kecemerlangan.

Bukankah SP Setia sebelum ini dipunyai SPK yang dikendalikan oleh sahabat Mahathir iaitu Abdullah Ahmad (Kok Lanas) dan Ramli Khushairi? Liew, Zaki dan Rashid membeli syarikat ini, dengan habuan diberi kepada Dollah Kok Lanas, dan yang lain itu, seperti kata orang, "the rest is history". Perlu di ingatkan bahawa satu ketika dahulu, SPK adalah kooperatif yang mana pegawai kerajaan dan ahli-ahli UMNO menjadi tuan yang punya.

Vincent Tan (gambar kanan) berjaya kerana beliau dapat meyakinkan sahabat beliau, Mahathir Mohamad, yang Perdana Menteri ketika itu, untuk menswastakan Sports Toto kepada beliau, kerana kononnya, disebabkan judi itu haram, orang Melayu dan kerajaan tidak boleh terlibat dalam penjudian. Tetapi beliau memilih orang Melayu untuk menjadi partner beliau - anak saudara Mahathir yang ketika itu bertugas sebagai pengurus besar agensi berita Nasional, Bernama. Anak saudara Mahathir ini baik orangnya tetapi tidak lama selepas itu, beliau menamatkan perkongsian itu dan saya rasa beliau tidak dapat apa-apa pun. Inilah nasib orang Melayu yang menjadi rakan kongsi orang Cina yang pintar saperti Vincent Tan. Vincent semestinya harus disenaraikan sebagai salah satu cerita kejayaan DEB, seperti juga Liew.

Ayah kepada Francis Yeoh, Yeoh Tiong Lay, memulakan syarikat pembinaan yang tidak begitu menyerlah selama 30 tahun. Tetapi ini semua bertukar apabila Francis, yang berkawan dengan Mahathir, berjaya dapat kontrak membina hospital di Semenanjung Malaysia pada tahun 1980-an. Kemudian, Mahathir memberi kontrak paling mewah kepada keluarga YTL - IPP dengan bayaran yang paling lumayan sehingga kini dalam sejarah pengswastaan tenaga elektrik. Tenaga Nasional terpaksa membeli eletrik dari YTL dengan harga tinggi itu, biar tenaga itu diperlukan atau tidak. Macam mana tak buat duit? Pelanggan terpaksa beli, mahu atau tidak, dengan harga paling tinggi.

Pengerusi TNB ketika itu, Ani Arope, membantah perjanjian itu tetapi disingkir oleh Mahathir. Hari ini, YTL mempunyai rezab wang sebanyak RM9 bilion dan ianya digunakan untuk apa? Membeli syarikat jana kuasa di Singapuura, membeli separuh daripada Pulau Sentosa di Singapura, dan membeli tanah dengan harga yang paling mahal di Orchard Road. Satu lagi kejayaan DEB. Oh ya...siapa rakan kongsi Bumiputra Francis? Mungkin Mokhzani dan Mukhriz Mahathir boleh jawab soalan itu....

Kata orang bahawa pemuda 28 tahun Jho Low adalah sahabat baik Perdana Menteri Najib Razak; atau pun isteri beliau; atau mungkin pun anak sulung Rosmah. Beliau berada di sana, sini dan mana-mana. Di sini, saya ingin mengucapkan tahniah kepada akhbar The Star kerana berjaya mendapat temuramah eksklusif dengan anak muda yang berjaya ini. Entah siapa yang mengarah mereka membuat temu-ramah ini....

Jho selalu kelihatan bersama PM Najib. Semasa pelancaran 1Malaysia Development Fund oleh PM, dia ada; semasa PM bercuti di Monte Carlo tahun lalu, dia ada; dan mereka juga bersama sama di St. Tropez dua minggu lalu. Ahkbar dari luar negara membuat laporan dan andaian bahawa anak muda Jho (kawasan mesra wanita glamor, Paris Hilton) ada penglibatan dalam mendapat Kerajaan Malaysia memberi jaminan kepada 1Malaysia Development fund. Bagaimana Kerajaan dan Perbendaharaan Malaysia boleh setuju kepada skim meminjam RM5 bilion dengan bayaran terlalu tinggi faedah terlalu tinggi 5.75% tak masuk akal. Ini bererti jika 1MDB gagal membayar hutangnya, kerajaan akan menanggung hutang interest payment melebihi RM2.4 bilion dari kadar yang lazim?

Dan sekarang ini kawan kawan dalam sektor Bank bercakap tentang kononnya dalam akaun tahunan 1MDB menunjukkan bahawa hanya masih ada RM4.3 bilion dari jumlah asal RM5 bilion. Di mana agaknya RM700 juta dibelanjakan? Itulah dia - Jho Low, suatu lagi kejayaan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (NEP).

Jadi orang orang Cina tahu sebenarnya bagaimana mahu mendapat untung besar dengan menggunakan Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Tak payahlah Liew Kee Sin (gambar kanan) bimbang. Tetapi berapa ramaikah orang Cina yang ada kaitan dan hubungan intim dengan pemimpin besar UMNO untuk mendapat peluang ini? Itulah persoalannya. Bukankah lebih baik kita ada sistem pemerintahan dan dasar ekonomi yang terbuka dan adil kepada semua lapisan rakyat? Dan adil kepada semua kaum? Dengan cara itu, peluang besar dan keemasan boleh juga dicapai oleh rakyat biasa. Tak payahlah mereka mesti ada hubungan baik dengan UMNO, atau pihak aristokrat atau pegawai tinggi kerajaan. Sepatutnya sudah memadai rakyat semua kaum yang mahu berjaya hanya memerlukan kebolehan dan azam tinggi untuk berjaya. Malangnya di negara bertuah ini, peluang utama hanyalah kepada mereka yang terpilih. - Merdeka Review

*Tulisan ini dipetik dan disunting daripada blog Zaid Ibrahim, bekas Menteri Jabatan Perdana Menteri yang kini menyertai Pakatan Rakyat. Zaid Ibrahim kini sebagai Pengerusi Majlis Pimpinan PKR Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur.