Saturday, January 31, 2015

Be careful what you ask for!

TMI - Why is Razak Baginda protecting Najib over Altantuya’s murder, asks lawyer

Our most learned legal counsellor, Mr Americk Singh Sidhu, is back once again, this time to question Razak Baginda on the latter's recent views about the Shaariibuu Altantuyaa case.

What was it that Razak said that so annoys Mr Americk Sidhu?

Well, Malaysiakini reported Razak Baginda saying "... Najib was a 'poor guy' who became a 'victim' of the conspiracy surrounding Altantuya's murder."

Razak claimed that Najib had never met Altantuya before, stating:

"Najib never knew the woman. Najib is innocent. If you all think there is a connection, where is the evidence? Let's not forget that in any situation like this, there are a lot of opportunists out there. We have seen this so many times".

On P Subramnaiam's SD, where our learned legal counsellor helped draft, Razak dismissed it, saying:

"All utter rubbish. Anal sex as well. All rubbish. Everyone took the SD as the truth. Furthermore, in the SD, Balasubramaniam says: ‘someone told me’ or ‘I told him’. It's all hearsay."

And this mention of 'hearsay' was also what had irritated Counsellor Mr Americk Sidhu who commented:

“Bala has admitted right from the beginning that some of the contents of his SD 1 were hearsay. So what is Razak Baginda’s point when he says Bala’s SD is hearsay?"

Well, Mr Americk Singh Sidhu sir, I suppose, nay, I don't suppose, rather I am aware that "some people" (wakakaka) have taken Bala's words as gospel truth, forgetting that they were hearsay, so what's wrong for Razak Baginda to reiterate that legal point?

Surely Razak Baginda has a right to do so inasmuch as "some people" (wakakaka) have been doing otherwise.

Incidentally I've also read Razak Baginda saying, when referring to Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, the two police officers convicted of murdering Altantuyaa:

"There are still people out there who are convinced that police cannot do this without instructions."

"How many people die in remand? The last count was 156 from 2008 and the figure is going up. So who instructed this?‎"

Now the following is interesting. In an interview with TMI, one of the questions with Razak [RB] responding had been:

Q: No fee for her services as interpreter?

RB: What interpreter fee? The whole episode of her being an interpreter is a joke. She can't even speak French. We are all victims of a political game. And we all fell right into it. It's a narrative from the beginning – the murder, Najib, Razak and then the submarine deal.

This narrative was fed to the Malaysian public from day one and everyone like a herd of buffaloes, followed.

Trace and see if she can speak a word of French. None of the French guys in the submarine deal met her or knew her. The French were so sophisticated. They all speak perfect English. Nobody questioned. Why would you want a Mongolian French interpreter?

Think about it. If I wanted an interpreter, I would have a French interpreter or a British-French interpreter. Why on earth would I want a Mongolian? Has she ever been to France and stayed and learnt French? And yet everybody believed she was an interpreter of French and she got paid. Nobody questioned that.

Oui, elle parle français? "... yet everybody believed she was an interpreter of French and she got paid. Nobody questioned that".

Yeah, what about that? But obviously most Pakatan supporters or those against Najib frown on such silly inconvenient statements by Razak Baginda, wakakaka.

But OTOH, a question could well be: Why shouldn't Razak Baginda defend Najib over Altantuyaa's murder?

Helloooooo, freedom of expression? Mananya?

Now, we have been aware that Counsellor Americk Singh Sidhu has, since his initial press interview (or statement) which I saw on YouTube declaring that he was a neutral party, moved on to a far more active role in representing the late P Balasubramaniam.

In 2012 as I had blogged:

Mr Americk Singh Sidhu had then assured us that he was nominated because he was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter (presumably the Altantuuyaa case).

In a Malaysiakini news article on 25 Nov 2009, Mr Americk Singh Sidhu again asserted his political neutrality and his original unfamiliarity/non-interest in the Altantuyaa case, which in fact became the reason* for being nominated, presumably by the group at 'The Backyard' pub
**, to record Bala’s revelation.

* He informed us: "Somehow I was chosen to do this as everyone felt I was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter as I was someone neutral."

** current post addition to explain the significance of 'The Backyard' pub - 'twas a pub in Sri Hartamas where Mr Americk Sidhu, our famous (the late) P Balasubramniam, ASP Suresh, Puravalen (a lawyer) were having a few drinks and discussing the Altantuyaa case, when surprise surprise, they were joined by none other than Sivarasa Rasiah who coincidentally was/is a PKR MP.

I had posted on this before, but nonetheless I reproduce here those questions I had asked of Mr Americk Singh Sidhu in an earlier post, as follows:

(1) Why was Anwar Ibrahim spearheading the press conference which exposed Balasubramaniam’s original (1st) SD?

(2) Why didn't he (Americk) accompany Bala to the police station when Bala was summoned to one of Malaysia’s most dangerous places after the press conference on the first SD, especially more so when the SD was so damning against the then-DPM?

If I recall reading in Malaysiakini, he (Mr Americk Singh Sidhu) had advised Bala to be a good lad or good citizen and to report to the police station* as required ... all by himself unescorted by a lawyer.

In fact Bro Haris Ibrahim wrote a caustic post on this 'negligence', that of allowing Bala to report to a police station 'unescorted'.

* of course now, with subsequent revelations by Bala, we've ‘learnt’he went instead to Rawang with ASP Suresh to ‘burn some copper wires’ and to meet Deepak.

(3) Wasn’t he (Americk) aware of the danger to Bala reporting to the police unescorted by a lawyer, especially after Bala had made such a damning SD against the then-DPM?

(4) Was ASP Suresh part of the group at ‘The Backyard’ pub who encouraged Bala to record all he heard from Razak Baginda and to reveal all in a SD?

(5) Wasn’t he (Americk) aware that the involvement (persuasion) of PKR MP Sivarasa in Bala’s SD (and the high profile chairing of the press conference by Anwar Ibrahim to reveal Bala's 1st SD) would by default be a political involvement, removing any claims of ‘neutrality’ in such an affair?

Sigh, it's such a confusing affair.

For more, you may wish to read  couple of my earlier posts:

(a) Balasubramaniam's lawyer linked Najib to Bala's disappearance

(b) Bala's SD - Americk Sidhu clears Anwar Ibrahim from involvement

Most surprising for me, I read in FMT that Mr Americk Sidhu asked ... why Razak Baginda appeared to be trying to shield Najib. 

“He keeps saying Najib is an innocent victim, that Najib has been dealt with unfairly, that this is all a political stunt and that there is no connection between Najib and Altantuya’s death” ... even though no one had accused Najib of being involved."

Huh? "... no one had accused Najib of being involved"?

Seriously, I wonder where Mr Americk Sidhu has been the last few years?

Anyway, we're now left with only the two policemen-murderers to tell us that Ah Jib Gor has been the principal culprit, or at least Rosmah Mansor, who ordered the murder of Shaariibuu Altantuyaa.

And what if they do .. of course not to save their own bloody necks ... but nobly to serve public interests?

Will that be accepted as concrete evidence?

After all, we can even declare a "hero" out of a person who was obligated to adhere to mandatory instructions but who violated them in a song & dance before the press, so what's so difficult about making convicted murderers into heroes ... if their revelations can "fix" Ah Job Gor, wakakaka.

And indeed such thinking and/or acts would not be so strange if we remember PAS Pak Haji's opinion on the late Dr Azahari Husin, a Jemaah-Ismaiah terrorist bomber-murderer supreme - see my 2005 post PAS does not believe Dr Azahari was a terrorist.

But ... but ... what if Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar were to now reveal that a certain "someone", BUT not Ah Jib Gor or Rosmah Mansor - gasp gulp omigosh, had ordered them to murder Altantuyaa, will that be accepted?

As an old story goes, be careful what you ask for!

Friday, January 30, 2015

Gift of Goddess Ninkasi

Beer - 24 cans in a crate, 24 hours in a day, coincidence? I think not, wakakaka!

However we can at least put the blame Ninkasi, who we learn was the Sumerian Goddess of Beer.

Goddess Ninkasi

She was the daughter of Enki and Ninhursag, one of the eight children born to heal Enki’s wounds. Archaeologists discovered a clay tablet from 1800 BCE bearing a hymn to her, which also includes an ancient recipe for beer.

The Sumerians believed Ninkasi brews beer each day for the Gods. Her name means “the lady who fills the mouth” and which, if I may add, sounds like an English-Malay word as in 'drink-kasi' wakakaka.

Read FMT's Drink beer to ward off Alzheimer’s to see how Ninkasi's endowment will benefit our health, wakakaka.

But at the same time, read also my new post over at KTemoc Kongsamkok titled Grandfather's stories (2) - Why grandma didn't drink to know what happened to my granny in Thailand many many years ago that stopped her from imbibing alcohol.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Damn! Dr Mahathir's & his dam again

How about a bit of comic relief?

smile and the world smile with you?


Just read TMI's Rethink your mega dams plan, Dr M suggests to Sarawak government which reported former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today suggested Sarawak rethink its highly controversial policy of building mega dams to harness electricity by replacing them with series of smaller dams like in Europe.

And this is from a man who gave us the multi-billion ringgit Bakum Dam, the tallest concrete faced rockfill dam in the world. Aha, another entry in the Boleh Land Book of Records, wakakaka.

I could have built it for cheaper

and I'm halal ... er ... I think

Monday, January 26, 2015

Hadi Awang's PAS - be afraid of divine wrath!

FMT - All of PAS against local polls, says Haron (extracts only):

KUALA LUMPUR: The entire PAS membership is against local government elections, the party’s Deputy Spiritual Leader, Haron Din, has claimed, according to Utusan Malaysia.

Utusan, in a report published today, did not say whether Haron cited any resolution taken at any PAS convention.

It quotes Haron as saying that PAS’ ulama leadership believes there is some basis to party president Abdul Hadi Awang’s worry that local elections could cause a repeat of the May 1969 race riots.

Well, that's patently NOT correct at all. If I want to be kind to Haron Din, I would just say, alamak, Utusan has not been known for the accuracy of its news.

But if I want to be unkind, then I would urge Haron Din to take note that DAP's Lim Guan Eng has already criticized PAS party president for dishonest interpretation of what had transpired within Pakatan with regards to DAP's proposal to hold local council elections.

FMT reported Lim saying: “I am shocked that both leaders [Hadi Awang and PAS secretary-general Mustafa Ali] have failed to mention this, which I think is dishonest.”

The report said that according to Lim ... the PAS leaders had told him it was unlikely the Barisan Nasional-led federal government would agree but Penang could go ahead and try.

Lim continued: “So they did not object. None of the PAS leaders objected when (we were) filing in court. None of them objected in the press. Do they dare to say this is not true? Or are they going to continue their dishonest interpretation of facts?”

Dishonest! Ouch, what will Allah swt say!

Now read the following TMI news report to understand why I questioned Haron Din's or Utusan's claim that 'The entire PAS membership is against local government elections'.

TMI - Sorry Hadi, I beg to differ – Mohamed Hanipa Maidin (extracts only - note: Hanipa is PAS MP for Sepang)

[...] As long as Malaysians elect any Malaysian in any local government election, we should not be unduly worry. Let such unwarranted fear be reserved to Perkasa, Isma or Utusan.

If Chinese were not worried to elect PAS candidates in the last general election, why would Malays be worried if they are represented by Chinese, Indian or Malay councillors?

What Malaysians should fear is inefficient, corrupt and irresponsible councillors whatever races they represent.

Honestly, I hope PAS leaders would be the last to succumb to racial lines in promoting any idea to any issue cropping up in this country.

It is just not right and goes against the very notion of "PAS For All" which it seeks to promote.

After all, May 13 is not PAS's political baggage. PAS should be proud and stand tall in that when May 13 took place, Kelantan, governed by PAS at that time, was completely free of racial insurgency.

not in PAS' Kelantan but in UMNO's Selangor

Why would the PAS president, all of sudden, use that baggage to undermine a noble idea to bring back local elections?

May 13 would have not happened if BN graciously conceded defeat in the general election of 1969, and respected the people's choice of other political parties.

It's an excellent article by Mohamed Hanipa Maidin so read it in full to hear his views - Sorry Hadi, I beg to differ – Mohamed Hanipa Maidin.

For more of Mohamed Hanipa Maidin read my last year's post PAS - what could have been! to see the 2 sides of PAS, and as I blogged, what could have been if not for a narrow minded village ustaz who can't see beyond his own ethnicity.

In conclusion I would like to echo Mohamed Hanipa Maidin's query to Pak Haji Hadi Awang: Why would the PAS president, all of sudden, use that (UMNO) baggage (of May 13) to undermine a noble idea to bring back local elections?

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Local council elections? - USTFU

In Malaysia there is a convenient socio-political manouevre called USTFU - that is, it's convenient for a certain party, wakakaka. Its applications would be as follows:

  • USTFU or May 13 will occur again
  • USTFU and don't insult my religion
  • ...................................... my race
  • ...................................... my ruler
  • ...................................... my culture
  • etc

USTFU has proven to be very useful in the distant past but today I reckon it lacks its old latent punch. 

Recent practitioner of USTFU is Pak Haji Hadi Awang when he raised concerns over DAP's keenness to have local council elections.

TMI published In Hadi’s May 13 remarks, civil society sees shades of Perkasa, Isma reporting that Jeffrey Phang, the co-chair of the Coalition of Good Governance (CGG ), lambasted Pak Hai for his May-13 warning as illogical, wrong and an attempt to spread fear.

Phang said: "Bringing in a threat of racial disturbance and violence to substantiate his objection to local council election is highly irresponsible and tantamount to fear-mongering and brings the PAS leader to the same level as the likes of personalities from Isma, Perkasa and Perkida."

"CGG finds it illogical to link a May 13 possibility with local council elections. Hadi Awang’s assumption of racial animosity among the people is wrong."

TMI reported Phang saying ... the public's overwhelming response to the recent flood in Kelantan was proof of the closeness of all Malaysians, irrespective of race and religion.

LKS and daughter with flood relief aid for Kelantan

Phang stated: "The racial threat by Hadi is untenable as the target of charity by the urbanites is towards the rural Malay heartland population which was most affected by the flood. Hadi’s statement that ‘local elections will widen the urban-rural gap and trigger instability’ sounds illogical when put into this context."

Actually local councils already exist but its members are appointed rather than elected.

This was what I wrote in 2009, after Pakatan took over 5 states, including Penang:

When Lim GE said no to state awards of datukship he became even less popular with those PKR members.

We know that some Penang PKR members believe they are entitled to positions and prestige – so, on top of Lim’s no to datukships, they were further pissed off when Lim GE decided to do away with appointing pollies to head local councils, a position badly abused in the past to the detriment of the rakyat's benefits. He and the Penang exco decided on professional administrators to head (note: not ‘helm’ wakakaka) the councils.

On 18 March 2010 I posted Gerakan doesn't support local elections in Penang? Gerakan bloke involved was the notorious attention-seeker so I am not going to even mention his name here, wakakaka.

In 2010 there was an interesting article by TMI titled The lost third ballot written by Lim Sue Goan. The article was originally at

Lim wrote (selected extracts): The garbage, ditches, roads, street lamps and grass in front of your home are all under the management of the local government. It will be the local government’s fault if there is a killing trap on the road.

Even so, it is ridiculous that we pay taxes but enjoy no right to replace the local government.

Local government elections were abolished following the declaration of the state of emergency during the confrontation with Indonesia in 1965. Malaysians have lost the third ballot since then.

The people have no right to question the appointment of local governments by the state governments. It all depends on the people’s luck whether the local governments carry out their duties well.

Lim then blasted the federal government’s arguments against local councillors being elected, giving an example of unaccountable local government:

There are local government elections in other democratic countries and their experiences have proved that the central, state and local governments can be separated while they are working together.

Layers of oversight mechanisms can stop local governments from making mistakes, so that they are more accountable and transparent, achieving the goal of checks and balances.

At the same time, through their votes, voters can replace district officers and city councillors with poor performances. Because they are afraid of being replaced, local government officers will be more responsible and work harder.

Currently, the lack of oversight and checks and balances have resulted in poor management and financial deficit, as well as corruption.

Many local governments have been spending large sums of money from time to time to carry out landscaping projects but these projects ended up as “white elephants projects”.

It is simply a waste of public money. For example, the former Kuala Lumpur Mayor was alleged to have signed a RM32.4mil contract with a private company to supply flowers to the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) for three years.

In other words, a total of RM900,000 would be spent each month to beautify the DBKL’s tower. Would the former Mayor do that if there was a local government election?

My uncle told me there was a government appointee (thus not an elected representative) heading the local council in Sebarang Prai (Butterworth). I think Koh Tsu Koon might have been the CM then. The government appointed council head decided to conduct a ‘study tour’ purportedly on low cost housing, BUT where did he conduct his 'study tour'?

Remember, it's about low cost housing!

Well well well, he planned that tour to take him and entourage to 1st World European countries, yup, 1st World countries, when at that time the World’s most successful authority on low cost housing was just next door, our southern neighbour.

Under whatever council procedural clause, he and his kutu-councillors were entitled to take along their wives on this extensive European tour, and so they did, and one happy huge group of un-elected local councillors and staff plus wives went on an European tour with all expenses paid for by the Penang taxpayers.

That was the precursor of the Selangor infamous Disney World ‘study tour’, but it was far far worse than 'Disney World' because none of those jollying kakis were elected, yet permitted to spent oozes of taxpayers' money without any need to validly justify for the tour nor account for the expenditure.

Despite public outrage he didn't give two hoots – he knew he didn't have to account at all to the Penang public as his appointment was by the BN ruled government.

The then Penang Gerakan CM didn't (or more likely, didn't dare) do a single thing!

And if Lim Sue Goan’s allegation of the contract signed by the KL mayor in 2010 was true, then we have had basically another outrageous non-accountable nonsense of a non-elected mayor signing a contract to spend nearly a million ringgit of public money each month for 36 months, just to beautify the DBKL’s tower with flowers!

It's obvious some government officers had/have a total lack of civic responsibility and/or a propensity for expensive gaya taste at public expense. And isn't it a jolly happy beautiful world when you are allowed to spend other people's hard earned money without any need to account for the expenditure to them.

And it sure as hell didn't help when our successive BN states governments (for Penang and Selangor, up to early March 2008) have for the last 25 years virtually closed one eye to the rot taking place in the nation's system of governments, ministries and departments.

To borrow someone's immortal words, those councillors are just 'unrepresentative swill' (ie. un-elected by the taxpayers).

Perhaps PM Najib should stop worrying about Pakatan sweeping the council elections and reconsider the good of the nation, that is, if he is sincere in his efforts to curb corruption.

Now why has Pak Haji gone to the extent of warning about another May 13, a USTFU warning hitherto monopolized by UMNO kakis, on such a small issue, one which could cut down those unrepresentative swill mis-spending public money?

To try to read his mind, let us go back to 1961 for an example. Then, the ruling party which formed the Penang State government was Perikatan (predecessor of the BN) which was then made up of only 3 parties, UMNO, MCA and MIC. Wong Pow Nee (MCA) was the CM.

Yet when local elections were held in 1961 for the City Council of Georgetown, Penang, it was not the Perikatan who won. The Socialist Front (known to Penangites as goo t’au tong – parti kepala lembu) won 14 of the 15 seats, in any language a humongous landslide.


Because many sectors of Georgetown was the socialist heartland, places like Weld Quay, Beach Street, the Magazine Road - Bricklin Road area and the Campbell Road – Prangin area, Carnarvon Street, etc. It was Karn-neen-nare Land alright, wakakaka.

The MCA which depended on the middle class and above had a snowflake chance in hell of winning.

The mayor was, according to my family, a Socialist Front man named Ooi Thiam Siew, who was quite urbane and spoke very eruditely in both pukka English and Chinese (Hokkien, maybe even Mandarin) even though his cohorts were from the socialist heartland.

14 out of 15 seats won by the Socialis Front! This is what PAS fears because local elections by its urban nature can be and will probably be in the general case (except for places like KB) dominated by the Chinese pollies. Even in Kedah, places like Alor Setar and Sungai Petani could well see the town councils manned by mainly Chinese.

PAS doesn't want this to come about not because it is worried about Chinese-dominated councils not looking after Malay residents but more because (a) it wants to be able to appoint its own people as part of the Pakatan appointment-sharing, (b) it is petrified of UMNO making hay out of Chinese sunshine at PAS’ gloomy expense and (c) in the final analysis it is a parochial Malay party inasmuch as it claims to be an Islamic party.

Both Pak Haji and his former party deputy president Nasharudin Mat Isa have never been comfy working with Pakatan's non-Muslims non Malays and preferred instead to work with UMNO, both PAS leaders being proponents of 'Malay-Unity' in the immediate aftermath of March 2008.

Then, somehow the party Erdogens convinced Pak Haji of the strategic benefits for PAS in remaining as a partner of Pakatan. Thus Pak Haji Awang embraced, perhaps grudgingly, Pakatan's multi-ethnic policies probably because he was shown and had accepted the ‘bigger picture’, of PAS riding on Pakatan’s back to a true Islamic State ... well ... until the recent Selangor MB fiasco among Pakatan partners when he reverted to his true colours.

I suspect Pak Haji, apart from disliking Anwar Ibrahim, has been harbouring a deep grudge (resentment) in his heart when he perceives PKR being given the special treatment by DAP at both national level politics (supporting Anwar Ibrahim as PM-designate) as well as in Selangor (supporting Dr Wan as MB).

No doubt he must have mulled angrily: why should the PM be AI when PAS is the bigger party, or why should the MB in Selangor be from PKR when PAS has 15 seats to PKR's 13?

I personally feel there is some justification for his resentment, that DAP has ganged up with PKR to subtly marginalize PAS from the important appointments.

Even in the halcyon days immediately after the 2008 GE, DAP has supported a PKR ADUN to be MB Perak, but the the Regent stepped in to appoint PAS' Nizar Jamaluddin instead. 'Twas a serendipitous royal choice.

It's for the DAP to explain why it prefers PKR over PAS in Selangor, though in recent times, PAS' unilateral push for hudud in Kelantan would have by now provided DAP with a convenient answer, wakakaka.

Anyway, that has been why PAS in the person of its Pak Haji party president has been lukewarm towards local council elections.

Equally it explains why Najib doesn't even want to think about it,because he realizes that he cannot depend on both MCA and Gerakan to gain control of the local councils.

I wonder who might have been Datuk Bandar of KL if local council elections had been allowed? wakakaka.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Winds of Change (1)

The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.

- Harold Macmillan, PM Britain

On 03 February 1960, slightly more than half a century ago, Harold Macmillan, PM of Britain, made his famous 'Winds of Change' speech in white supremacist South Africa, signalling Britain's increasing concerns over the ultra-racist apartheid system in South Africa. His aim was to persuade the white leaders of South Africa to abandon its racist policies and move towards racial equality.

The phrase 'Winds of Change' became a historical term in contemporary world history, and I want to examine such a possible phenomena in Malaysia today on several areas, but let's start with just one in this post.

So, are we sensing such a 'Winds of  Change' in Malaysia with regards to the government-sanctioned Islamization of Malaysia since 29 September 2001.

Malaysiakini reported that then-PM Dr Mahathir stated in his opening address to Gerakan Party's 30th national delegates conference that: 

“UMNO wishes to state loudly that Malaysia is an Islamic country. This is based on the opinion of ulamaks who had clarified what constituted as Islamic country. If Malaysia is not an Islamic country because it does not implement the hudud, then there are no Islamic countries in the world. 
If UMNO says that Malaysia is an Islamic country, it is because in an Islamic country non-Muslims have specific rights. This is in line with the teachings of Islam. There is no compulsion in Islam. And Islam does not like chaos that may come about if Islamic laws are enforced on non-Muslims.

Lim Kit Siang termed Dr M's pronouncement as the '929 Declaration'. He then sneered at MCA and Gerakan for immediately embracing and enthusing about Dr M's Declaration, not unlike the recent tudung-ed sweeties embracing the Korean pop groups, wakakaka.

Ms MCA and Ms Gerakan hugging K-Pop star Dr M


Lim KS stated: Before his “929 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic state at the Gerakan national assembly on September 29 last year, MCA and Gerakan leaders had been attacking the DAP for working “hand-in-glove’ with PAS to establish an Islamic State, proclaiming at the top of their voices that Malaysia is a secular and not an Islamic State. 

But immediately after Mahathir’s “929 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic state, the MCA and Gerakan leaders were the first to give their full and unequivocal support that Malaysia had always been an Islamic state from day one of our nationhood 44 years ago ...

... as if the founding fathers and early leaders of MCA like Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun S.H. Lee, Too Joon Hing or even the early UMNO leaders like Onn Jaffar, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn would have agreed to multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia becoming an Islamic State.

For eight month after September 29 last year, MCA and Gerakan leaders were trumpeting that Malaysia is a moderate Islamic state

Looks like MCA and Gerakan were K-popped - note: not K-Y-ed though on the 929 Declaration it has to be said they were "asking for it", wakakaka.

But Malaysiakini columnist Lee Ban Chen wrote (in 2001) despairing of the MCA and Gerakan (and presumably MIC) as follows:

The most shameful and ridiculous are the non-Malay based component parties of the BN, which have been opposing the establishment of an Islamic state all along, to suddenly make an about-turn and support unconditionally Mahathir's version of Islamic state - albeit with an guilty conscience, if they still have one, that is.

The MCA propaganda machine had to invent an incredible term, "secular Islamic state", as a compromise to their former strong anti-Islamic state stand. It might be okay to appease the muddle-headed who have very little knowledge about Islamic state, but for the knowledgeable, especially among Muslims, a secular Islamic state is just unthinkable because "there is no half-way house between secularism and Islam", to quote Salleh Abas.

MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik has exposed his out-and-out opportunistic political stand when he, on one hand agreeing with Mahathir's declaration that Malaysia is already an Islamic state, on the other said that Malaysia can also be called a secular state and that it was only a matter of interpretation!

He even resorted to sophistry, saying that many things can be called by more than one name. A rose in English is a rose, in Mandarin it is mei-kwei, in Malay bunga mawar and in Tamil roja but they all mean the same thing.

But sophistry won't alter facts. An Islamic state in English is an Islamic state, in Mandarin it is hui-jiao-guo, in Malay kerajaan Islam. It is true that they all mean the same thing, but they definitely do not mean secular state as suggested by Ling!

I hope you know the meaning of 'sophistry'. It's a polite term for bullshit! The dictionary calls it 'use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving'. Wakakaka.

Apart from Lim KS's objection, significantly two Malaysian leaders disputed Dr 's Declaration. The first was the former Lord President Salleh Abas, who pointed out that the highest law in the country is the Federal Constitution, with Syariah law (Islamic law) being only a branch within the constitution.

Malaysiakini (12 Nov 2001) reported: Salleh said that his stand on Article 3 was clearly stated in a 1988 judgment which ruled that the term 'Islam' in Article 3 referred only to acts relating to "rituals and ceremonies". He stressed that Malaysia can only be converted into an Islamic state when the word 'Islam' in Article 3 is amended so that Syariah could be applied fully to at least all Muslims.

Today we read/hear the same Salleh-like ruling in the recent Court of Appeal decision reaffirming the limits of Shariah law to only familial matters.

Note the word 're-affirming' which means the limited powers of the syariah courts were long since affirmed, as per what former Lord President Salleh Abas had ruled.

The Malay Mail Online reported in its Review Shariah law ambit, observers say after landmark court ruling (extracts):

Voices for change will lead to Winds of change

Lauding the appellate court’s written findings that expressly stated the secularity of Malaysia’s legal system based on the Federal Constitution, Muslim women’s group Sisters in Islam urged authorities to suspend Shariah criminal laws that exceed the stated restriction.

“This is indeed a landmark decision and echoes Sisters in Islam calls to review the Syariah Criminal Offences law given the many unconstitutional provisions that violates fundamental liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution,” Ratna Osman, the executive director of SIS said. [...]

In its written judgment on a high-profile transgender case, the Court of Appeal said that that the Federal Constitution restricts Islamic legislation to marriage, divorce and inheritance, based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 1988 Che Omar Che Soh case.

Former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim lauded the “clear thinking” judges for the decision and said that it took “lots of courage from Muslim judges to pronounce the appropriate place of Islamic law under the Constitution.”

He noted however, such decision has already been made decades ago but today’s ruling is an affirmation to that.

“If our judges had been willing to make the correct pronouncement of the law, the country would have been spared the uncertainty and confusion which 20 years of ambivalence has generated,” he said.

Syarie lawyer Akbardin Abdul Kader also agreed that the Federal Constitution limits Islamic law to familial issues, saying that the restricted jurisdiction has always been “clearly defined.”

“The state legislature has to pass enactments and laws according to these only,” Akbardin added. [...]

The three-judge panel of Malaysia’s second-highest court led by Justice Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Yunus cited former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas, who had ruled that the framers of the Federal Constitution had confined the word “Islam” in Article 3 — which says that Islam is the religion of the Federation — to the areas of marriage, divorce and inheritance law, based on the history of Islamic legislation in Malaya during British colonial times.

“In short, the Supreme Court takes the position that it was the intention of the framers of our Federal Constitution that the word ‘Islam’ in Art. 3(1) be given a restrictive meaning,” Hishamudin said in the appellate court’s full judgment released on January 2 in the case of three Muslim transwomen fighting a cross-dressing ban under Negri Sembilan Shariah law.

The second Malaysian leader to dispute Dr M's Declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic State was, would you believe it wakakaka, none other (then) the spiritual leader of PAS and the Menteri Besar of Kelantan, Pak Haji Nik Aziz who said:

“You can talk all you want. You can declare a piece of wood to be gold, or a wheelbarrow as a Mercedez, but in reality, nothing has changed.
For us, an Islamic country is one which is governed according to the tenets of the Quran and Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammed). Malaysia is a secular State. If the present Malaysia is already an Islamic state, then what do you call the state ruled by Prophet Muhammed and his friends?”

As for our 'Melayu mudah lupa' Dr M himself, just last year he sang a different tune, saying that Malaysia is neither an Islamic nor a secular state, but just an 'ordinary state' (whatever that means, wakakaka) with Islam as the official religion. Wakakaka.

He told reporters that although Malaysia has been proclaimed as an Islamic country before (I wonder by whom, wakakaka), it did not mean that Malaysia has to take steps to “make it Islamic”.

Well, your government as well as those of your successors (wakakaka) have.

He stated: “We are just an ordinary state that recognises Islam as the official religion of the country, and we practise things that are not against the religion of Islam.”

“We have declared ourselves as an Islamic state before, but that does not mean that we have to do all kinds of other things to make it Islamic. There are so many Islamic states that don’t even declare they are Islamic and they don’t practise many of the things that are supposed to be associated with Islamic states.”

Anyway, back again to 2001 - Far far more interestingly, and PLEASE TAKE NOTE of this one, Malaysiakini also reported (bearing in mind the news report was in 2001):

Terengganu Mentri Besar and PAS national deputy president Abdul Hadi Awang was quoted as saying that once an Islamic state is established, non-Muslims will be subjected to Islamic laws involving public interests although there will be exceptions for certain areas.

Gulp gasp omigosh, so there you have it, our dear Pak Haji Hadi and his 'non-Muslims will be subjected to Islamic laws involving public interests'.

In concluding I just want to say two things:

(a) it's evident that the political-ideological relationship between PAS and DAP now has to be, nay, must be deemed as irreconcilable (unless you're obdurately blind), and that DAP will suffer its 1999 punishment if it still insists on proceeding with an alliance with a hudud-bent PAS with serious severe consequences for non-Muslims - see my DAP - remember 1999 in which I penned the following (extracts only):

While politics is the art of the possible, there has to be a limit, i.e, short of a Faustian Pact in working together with PAS.

The DAP has done well enough - see my 2012 post The 2 dreams of Lim Kit Siang.

While it's natural for a political party like the DAP to aspire to majority rule eventually, either in a coalition or even by itself, I urge the party not to be stampeded by the personal agenda and timeline of Anwar Ibrahim who is known to be impatient and whose entire once-glorious career was let down by this, his Achilles heel.

It would be true to say that the concept of Pakatan, one in which a socialist-secularist DAP was brought to work with PAS, obviously a working relationship of dubious but undeniably short-term fashion, has been born out of Anwar's most un-manamanlai impatience to be PM.

Regardless of whether the Erdogens take over PAS, its stripes, fangs and predatory (big cat) scent are now more than ever very obvious to the Chinese and Indians.

And the Chinese in particular love to punish political parties which they believe have betrayed their cause or interests - recall Wong Pow Nee's Perikatan in 1969, Gerakan in 2008, MCA in 2013, wakakaka.

And DAP, please do not forget 1999.

(b) Finally but not least of all, I want to thank the 25 prominent Malaysians who signed an open letter to PM Najib expressing deep concern about the growing influence of extreme Islam in Malaysia. I believe this has given courage to many Malaysian Muslims to come out to the front to say what they have always wanted to say.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015


The word (noun) 'motive' is defined in the dictionary as:

(a) something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive,

and also:

(b) the goal or object of a person's actions, as in 'Her motive was revenge'.

Let us take a local example - eight years ago, on 02 March 2006, Malaysiakini reported in its news article Judge: Daims statement contemptuous! which incidentally featured Daim Zainuddin and Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, wakakaka, the following (note how the word 'motive' was used):

Court of Appeal judge Gopal Sri Ram today said that Daim Zainuddin could be hauled for contempt of court for his statement to the press in which the former finance minister questioned the court's motives in dragging his name into the Metramac scandal. 

"Daim told the press: 'I do not know what the court's motives are'. Our motives here is to do justice without fear and favour. And let me say this: This (Daim's) statement is contemptuous!

"We fear no one, however wealthy or however powerful they are. This institution does not fear anybody! We are the people who have sworn to uphold the constitution and interpret the acts of Parliament. 

"Are we to keep quiet when we see there is something wrong? Is it better to shut up and look like fools rather than to open our mouths and cast doubts?" 

The judge made the hard-hitting remarks while hearing arguments from DP Vijandran, the counsel acting on behalf of Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd's lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who is facing possible contempt proceeding for sending a letter of complaint against the judge.


No? What about another example, say, the Grasshopper of Shaolin which I posted yesterday displaying Sakmongkol AK47's piercing piece about 'motive', wakakaka.

Then, what about what Malaysiakini had published on 02 April 2009, in its article Prayers for Altantuya.

In that 2009 article it reported that PKR politicians (wakakaka), specifically Perak PKR state representatives Tai Sing Ng (Kuala Sepetang) and Chang Lih Kang (Teja), held a mini Chinese 'Cheng Beng' ritual to commemorate Altantuyaa's departed soul.

Very touching but what about Malaysians Preeshena Varshiny and Nurin Jazlin Jazimin? By the by, I hope, dear readers, as Malaysians you would still remember who Preeshena Varshiny and Nurin Jazlin Jazimin were!

Yes, as we can witnessed from the above two photos, poor Mongolian Altantuyaa was not even allowed to rest in peace - see my post Murdering Altantuyaa Shaariibuu Again in which I penned the thoughts of Altantuyaa's soul (extracts only):

But the loudest noises are they calling for ‘justice’
Though, I smile cynically, ‘twas not meant for me
Their shrill proclamations & belated outrage (sigh)
Startled even great Gujir Tngri and the 77 siqar

Grandstanding acrobatics, their excuse to dispense
With all norms, purportedly all for me (wry smile)
I must confess I view with scepticism and distaste
As I would professional chest-pounding mourners

Gnashing Colgate mint-flavoured peroxide-d teeth
Wretchedly wringing manicured Ulan oiled hands
Shedding date-expired plastic bags of lo-salt tears
Proclaiming to be 11th hour paragons of ‘justice’

Even Ataya Tngri rolled his ancient eyes upwards
While Emegelji Eji cackled with caustic laughter
The ancient pair could see abacus shaped hearts
Clicking furiously and shaming Casio calculators

By sheer speed of their computation of advantage
What to extract, exploit, extricate from my name
Squeezing the very last speck of desiccated blood
From my hyper cold shattered fragments of bones

Don't mind me if I ask, so what was the PKR politicians' motive in only mourning a slain Mongolian but not two wee Malaysian sweethearts?

Yes, what was their 'Motive'?

Anyway, with the 'mournful' help of PKR how-laam (mourners) we have arrived at the subject of Shaariibuu Altantuyaa. In Malaysia-Today RPK posted an article from the Malay Mail Online (which I couldn't find) titled PAS MAN SAYS WANTS TO MEET SIRUL TO DISCUSS ALTANTUYA MURDER MOTIVE.

In that post we are informed that Mahfuz Omar, PAS party information chief, wants to meet Sirul Azhar Umar, who was recently sentenced to hang for his crime of killing the slain Mongolian model. Mahfuz claimed Sirul's dear mummy "... had admitted that her son had merely been following orders when he killed Altantuya."

Mahfuz stated, “I do not challenge the court’s decision but I heard the mother said her son admitted to following orders to kill Altantuya. But what are the motives in killing Altantuya? Why did the court not reveal it?”

Mahfuz has a point there. The court should have revealed the motive.

The Malay Mail online report said that 'Mahfuz added that he did not see how Sirul or Azilah Hadri, his convicted accomplice, would have any personal reason to kill the Mongolian translator.'

We're back to motive again.

At that time I did have a suspicion on what might have been their motive but which of course would be only a possibility, but one that is unlikely to satisfy Pakatan and its supporters even if proven correct, wakakaka.

Okay, let me re-publish an old 2012 post of mine Motive for murder - seeking Confucius' help (with some minor editorial improvements on grammar, sentence flow, missing words, etc including an additional couple of sentences at its end, wakakaka) in which I alluded to that 'motive'.

At its end I would like to pose a question on 'motive' to Mahfuz Omar, and I hope he'll help me by answering it.


In my post The motives of love, lust, lucre and loathing I quoted famous crime author, P.D. James, who had served for thirty years in various departments of the British Civil Service, including the Police and Criminal Law Department of Great Britain's Home Office, as well as been a magistrate, that “All the motives for murder are covered by four Ls: Love, Lust, Lucre and Loathing.”

Everyone who has been following the Altantuyaa case including the most learned judge knows that Altantuyaa was blackmailing her ex lover Razak Baginda with such aggression that he became terrified enough to ask for special protection, so most would say there was initially love and lust in their relationship, and then when the passion and ardor turned cool and relationship soured, the blackmailing for money (lucre) kicked in, with the final outcome of loathing, probably of a mutual nature.

To some people it was an astonishing pronouncement by his Lordship that notwithstanding Razak Baginda’s possessing all the likely motives (which of course don't necessarily translate into criminal action), those motives couldn't be the basis to suspect him.

Thus it’s hardly surprising and perhaps also politically convenient (also a motive, wakakaka) that most Malaysians would cast their eyes on siapa godfather-nya?

Of course his close friendship with Najib plus alleged corrupt armed purchases have deepened the suspicions that there had been kow-tim-ness.

Those suspicions are all natural, logical and thus unavoidable, and coupled with the (lack of) reputation of our aleged kow-tim-able judiciary, have led to accusations that our Malaysian Don Corleone might had intervened. I'd go along with such suspicions.

Be that as it may, while it’s one thing to suspect Najib helping his buddy, it’s quite another to accuse Najib of being the killer or the man who gave the order to pull the trigger.

But that is the sentiment currently prevailing among PKR people who wants Najib implicated, not just as an accessory to the crime but as the prime suspect, the man who ordered the murder of Altantuyaa Shariibuu.

* and that's why when Siril and Azilah Hadri were found guilty and sentenced to death, many Pakatan supporters voiced their continuing dissatisfaction with that verdict. Look, they will never ever be satisfied until Ah Jib Gor is pronounced as guilty of Shaariibuu Altantuyaa's murder, regardless of evidence, facts or the truth, wakakaka.

And if they can't get him directly, they'll want to get him through his Big Mama, wakakaka.

All these started ages ago when the G.A.N (Gerakan Anti Najib) campaign was launched.

In my readings of the various available articles and news reports, I could not find a single shred of evidence of Altantuyaa harassing Najib, or waiting outside his (DPM) house to pounce on him. All I gleaned from those was Altantuyaa going after Razak Baginda, her former lover (or even alleged hubby).

Of course there was that alleged mysterious photograph of a threesome French dinner which PKR's Tian Chu loved to have (I suspect he still does even though he already has one which he quite cleverly 'developed' himself, wakakaka) and ...

... of course there's the late Balasubramaniam’s double SD’s (or was it triple - I have lost count). His words - allegedly told to him by Razak Baginda who in turn was allegedly told to him by Najib who in turn was allegedly told to him by Altantuyaa - were like treasure to those who want to finish off Najib, wakakaka.

Quite frankly, after reading the readers' comments in Malaysiakini on the judge’s dismissal of charges against Razak Baginda, such as “The 2 policemen had no motive to murder Altantuyaa” ... and ...

... as someone commented in my last post in Exploiting the murder of Altantuyaa Shariibuu that “The UTK goons who were convicted were just the idiots who shouted 'Aye Aye Sir' and carried out the orders. Who gave the order to drop the bomb?”, ...

... I came to the conclusion that even if the judge had called Razak Baginda to give his defence and he was subsequently found guilty, those baying out for blood would still not be satisfied.

No sirree, as mentioned above, not with Razak Baginda or even those already ‘found guilty’, namely Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar.

Just a reminder, the two policemen were the ones who were the last people with a still-alive Altantuyaa when they whisked her off from Razak Baginda’s house to her sad fate.

Those Malaysiakini readers want Najib’s head. They want him not just as an accessory to the murder (in helping Razak Baginda) but as the murderer.

Why? I suppose we could ask: what's their motive? Wakakaka.

To end this post, I am seeking the help of an ancient Chinese to help me conclude my piece about a possible motive. Kǒng Zǐ or Confucius said that “A picture is worth a thousand words”, so please have a look at the following pictures (or photographs).

Altantuyaa Shariibuu was undoubtedly a very beautiful woman. 

[please note that in my original 2012 post I had mistakenly posted above photographs as those of Altantuyaa, when actually they were of South Korean model U Nee, but nonetheless I continue to use them here as we have been often told that Altantuyaa was no less beautiful, and thus to make a point with Confucius help]

Okay a quick revision, P.D. James said “All the motives for murder are covered by four Ls: Love, Lust, Lucre and Loathing.”

But I don’t suppose any of above photographs can answer the comment in Malaysiakini: “The 2 policemen had no motive to murder Altantuyaa” even with P.D James' advice?

Okay then, in that case I might recall for readers the sad murder of another equally beautiful woman, namely, Canny Ong, whose murder can be read here, here and here.

So having arrived at the end of my rather long-ish post, as promised I would now like to ask Mahfuz Omar what was the motive in the rape and murder of Canny Ong?

Datuk, please ignore your colleague's reason of 'divine wrath' and choose from P.D James' four Ls: Love, Lust, Lucre and Loathing”.