Apr 11, 08 5:08pm
Umno will deal internally the calls made by several Kedah Umno leaders for party president and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to step down, said Najib Abdul Razak today.
“It is an internal issue. We will address the matter internally,” said the party deputy president and deputy prime minister.
Najib was commenting on reports yesterday that several Kedah delegates had blamed Abdullah for the Barisan Nasional’s poor showing in the March 8 polls during a meeting with the party’s management committee.
These delegates want Najib, who is also the management committee head, to take over the top post to save the party.
He declined to comment further on what transpired at the meeting yesterday. He also told reporters not to listen to rumours.
Yesterday Malaysiakini reported that the 15 Umno divisions in Kedah - which is now under opposition control - gave a harsh verdict on Abdullah, forcing Najib to call for calm.
Umno has been doing its soul-searching following its terrible defeat in the elections. The party’s candidates lost several safe seats - 36 of which Abdullah blamed on internal saboteurs.
Several factions within Umno, including former president Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had blamed Abdullah’s weak leadership for the defeat. Mahathir has been calling for Abdullah to step down to take responsibility for the poor electoral show.
The Kedah delegate had told Najib yesterday that one of the reasons for the bad election run was due to mistakes made by the party in selecting candidates. They said that division leaders were not consulted in the selection process.
Party candidates were decided by Abdullah after consultation with respective state leaders.
Personal political agenda
Following this, today the influential Seremban Umno division chief Ishak Ismail added pressure on the party leadership by claiming that several state Umno chairpersons failed to listen to division chiefs on the selection of candidates.
He said certain chairpersons or menteris besar felt that they were “too big” to listen to the views of the division and branch leaders who knew the situation on the ground.
"The situation got worse when party president Abdullah entrusted them with the responsibility of selecting the candidates.
“They misused this trust by sidelining people whom they disliked not for the sake of Umno but for the sake of their personal political agenda," he said in his letter to the prime minister which he released to the media today.
Ishak, a three-term state assemblyman for Lenggeng, was not chosen to contest the recent election.
Copies of the letter were sent to the deputy president Mohd Najib Razak, vice-presidents Mohd Ali Rustam and Muhyiddin Yassin; all supreme council members and Negri Sembilan Umno division chiefs.
Abdullah is in Johor today and will be meeting the state Umno leaders, who is expected to tell him their disappointment with his leadership.
Several sources previously told Malaysiakini that the Johor leaders would be asking Abdullah to stipulate his retirement plan and indicate when he would allow Najib to take over.
Friday, April 11, 2008
MCA, MIC welcomes notice-to-convert requirement
Apr 11, 08 12:26pm
MCA today welcomed the move announced by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday to set a new requirement for Muslim converts to declare their religious status to their family members.
"MCA's stand has been consistent in pushing for such move. However, we would like to seek for clarification on the process of implementation of such a requirement," said party president Ong Ka Ting in a statement.
"There should be a time period for the new convert to inform their family members on their new religion so to ensure fairness to the family members and to avoid any disputes at a further stage,” he added.
"At the same time, there must be a transparent process and procedure to ensure that those converted due to marriage or are of a minor age, be allowed to leave the religion without hindrances."
"The court also must not allow the unilateral conversion of any minor children resulting from the civil marriage as the federal constitution clearly states that it must be done with consent of "ibu bapa".
“The court should not view this as a loophole as the religion of the child should remain status quo until he/she attains the age of majority," he said.
He added that his party would like to see that the government take immediate steps to make the necessary amendments to the relevant laws in order that the freedom of religion was upheld.
Samy: A major relieve
MIC president S Samy Vellu also welcomed the decision.
"We consider this decision as a major relieve, particularly to my community. This is because there have been instances where a Hindu-born husband will convert to Islam without the knowledge of his wife for reasons only known to him, and his action becomes a major setback for his wife and her children. This latest decision will put a stop to such practices," he said in a statement.
"This issue of non-Muslim converting to Islam without the knowledge of their families was discussed long ago but now, there has been a permanent decision. The question now is what kind of laws or regulations will be imposed to ensure that it is strictly adhered to by the parties concerned," he added
Samy Vellu urged the government to consult with the relevant parties, including MIC as to how it could be implemented.
He said the laws should also take into account the fate of the children should the father or mother converts to Islam.
"If need be, existing laws, some which may be outdated, need to be amended without hurting the sensitivity of any race or religion.
"There should be transparency and commitment on the part of the authorities to make the changes as clearly indicated by the prime minister’s decision. I wish to thank the prime minister for making this timely announcement," he added.
A positive step
A leading inter-religious council also similarly welcomed Abdullah’s announcement yesterday of a requirement for non-Muslims wishing to convert to Islam to inform their families first.
The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taosim today said that this was a positive step in resolving any abuses and heartaches for the non-Muslim family members.
“This is a positive first step in ensuring that our laws and system of administration are not abused by those wanting to avoid their obligations to their loved ones by converting to Islam,” said the council’s president A Vaithilingam in a statement today.
He also added that the new requirement would encourage state Islamic authorities to ensure that converts to Islam notify their immediate families before they convert.
However, he stressed that, there must be definite document to prove that the immediate families, especially the parents or spouse, have been notified.
“We hope that, among other things, this will end the unseemly and heart wrenching disputes during times of bereavement,” he added.
He said that the council had previously given comprehensive memoranda detailing the other necessary reforms necessary to ensure the law was crystal clear, and fair to all parties.
He added that the council was ready and willing to assist the government to find a solution to these problems.
‘We don’t want problems’
Yesterday Abdullah said that the government would soon introduce a regulation requiring non-Muslims wishing to convert to Islam to inform their family before doing so.
He said that this would prevent problems of families disputing the conversion of their loved ones when they die.
He suggested that non-Muslims who intend to convert have a form or letter declaring that their families had been told and had understood his or her decision.
“We don’t want problems later when the man converts and converts the children also, when the wife has rights too,” he was reported as saying, adding that withholding such information from the family would pose a problem to religious authorities performing their duties.
In recent years a series of legal battles between Muslims and non-Muslims came into prominence, especially in matters involving legal and family rights of the non-Muslim spouse or the fight over the body of a converted person between the Islamic authorities and the non-Muslim family.
Protect all rights on non-Muslim parties
Another movement which welcomed the announcement, the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG), said that it was concerned over several rights affecting the non-Muslims parties although it fully supports the right of the party converting into Islam.
“We are concerned where the exercise of that right impinges upon the rights of that individual’s family and where such an impingement has a retrogressive effect, leaving family members with fewer rights and thus worse off than before,” said the action group in a statement today.
JAG is especially concerned about the following specific rights:
1. The right of married non-Muslim women to continue to rely on the rights and obligations contained in a civil law marriage agreement when their spouses convert to Islam;
2. The right to have all issues relating to a civil law marriage settled according to civil laws and adjudicated only in civil courts;
3. The right to petition for divorce on the basis that conversion to Islam has led to a breakdown of her marriage;
4. Upon divorce, the right to receive maintenance, for herself and her children, as provided for in the civil laws;
5. The equal right, as a parent, to decide on matters relating to her children’s upbringing;
6. The continued right to inherit from a family member who converts to Islam; and
7. The right to be informed of her spouse’s conversion to Islam.
JAG said that the law must be reformed, where necessary, to ensure that when an individual embraces Islam, the convert’s spouse (or ex-spouse), children and other family members’ rights and entitlements under civil laws remain unchanged.
“Regardless of such conversion, all issues arising out of the marriage must be settled according to civil law, and not state Islamic law enactments, since the marriage was solemnized or registered under civil law,” it added.
To do that, the action group said, legislation must be adopted to specify that only the civil courts have jurisdiction to hear any matter arising out of such a marriage, including jurisdiction over the converting spouse.
MCA today welcomed the move announced by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday to set a new requirement for Muslim converts to declare their religious status to their family members.
"MCA's stand has been consistent in pushing for such move. However, we would like to seek for clarification on the process of implementation of such a requirement," said party president Ong Ka Ting in a statement.
"There should be a time period for the new convert to inform their family members on their new religion so to ensure fairness to the family members and to avoid any disputes at a further stage,” he added.
"At the same time, there must be a transparent process and procedure to ensure that those converted due to marriage or are of a minor age, be allowed to leave the religion without hindrances."
"The court also must not allow the unilateral conversion of any minor children resulting from the civil marriage as the federal constitution clearly states that it must be done with consent of "ibu bapa".
“The court should not view this as a loophole as the religion of the child should remain status quo until he/she attains the age of majority," he said.
He added that his party would like to see that the government take immediate steps to make the necessary amendments to the relevant laws in order that the freedom of religion was upheld.
Samy: A major relieve
MIC president S Samy Vellu also welcomed the decision.
"We consider this decision as a major relieve, particularly to my community. This is because there have been instances where a Hindu-born husband will convert to Islam without the knowledge of his wife for reasons only known to him, and his action becomes a major setback for his wife and her children. This latest decision will put a stop to such practices," he said in a statement.
"This issue of non-Muslim converting to Islam without the knowledge of their families was discussed long ago but now, there has been a permanent decision. The question now is what kind of laws or regulations will be imposed to ensure that it is strictly adhered to by the parties concerned," he added
Samy Vellu urged the government to consult with the relevant parties, including MIC as to how it could be implemented.
He said the laws should also take into account the fate of the children should the father or mother converts to Islam.
"If need be, existing laws, some which may be outdated, need to be amended without hurting the sensitivity of any race or religion.
"There should be transparency and commitment on the part of the authorities to make the changes as clearly indicated by the prime minister’s decision. I wish to thank the prime minister for making this timely announcement," he added.
A positive step
A leading inter-religious council also similarly welcomed Abdullah’s announcement yesterday of a requirement for non-Muslims wishing to convert to Islam to inform their families first.
The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taosim today said that this was a positive step in resolving any abuses and heartaches for the non-Muslim family members.
“This is a positive first step in ensuring that our laws and system of administration are not abused by those wanting to avoid their obligations to their loved ones by converting to Islam,” said the council’s president A Vaithilingam in a statement today.
He also added that the new requirement would encourage state Islamic authorities to ensure that converts to Islam notify their immediate families before they convert.
However, he stressed that, there must be definite document to prove that the immediate families, especially the parents or spouse, have been notified.
“We hope that, among other things, this will end the unseemly and heart wrenching disputes during times of bereavement,” he added.
He said that the council had previously given comprehensive memoranda detailing the other necessary reforms necessary to ensure the law was crystal clear, and fair to all parties.
He added that the council was ready and willing to assist the government to find a solution to these problems.
‘We don’t want problems’
Yesterday Abdullah said that the government would soon introduce a regulation requiring non-Muslims wishing to convert to Islam to inform their family before doing so.
He said that this would prevent problems of families disputing the conversion of their loved ones when they die.
He suggested that non-Muslims who intend to convert have a form or letter declaring that their families had been told and had understood his or her decision.
“We don’t want problems later when the man converts and converts the children also, when the wife has rights too,” he was reported as saying, adding that withholding such information from the family would pose a problem to religious authorities performing their duties.
In recent years a series of legal battles between Muslims and non-Muslims came into prominence, especially in matters involving legal and family rights of the non-Muslim spouse or the fight over the body of a converted person between the Islamic authorities and the non-Muslim family.
Protect all rights on non-Muslim parties
Another movement which welcomed the announcement, the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG), said that it was concerned over several rights affecting the non-Muslims parties although it fully supports the right of the party converting into Islam.
“We are concerned where the exercise of that right impinges upon the rights of that individual’s family and where such an impingement has a retrogressive effect, leaving family members with fewer rights and thus worse off than before,” said the action group in a statement today.
JAG is especially concerned about the following specific rights:
1. The right of married non-Muslim women to continue to rely on the rights and obligations contained in a civil law marriage agreement when their spouses convert to Islam;
2. The right to have all issues relating to a civil law marriage settled according to civil laws and adjudicated only in civil courts;
3. The right to petition for divorce on the basis that conversion to Islam has led to a breakdown of her marriage;
4. Upon divorce, the right to receive maintenance, for herself and her children, as provided for in the civil laws;
5. The equal right, as a parent, to decide on matters relating to her children’s upbringing;
6. The continued right to inherit from a family member who converts to Islam; and
7. The right to be informed of her spouse’s conversion to Islam.
JAG said that the law must be reformed, where necessary, to ensure that when an individual embraces Islam, the convert’s spouse (or ex-spouse), children and other family members’ rights and entitlements under civil laws remain unchanged.
“Regardless of such conversion, all issues arising out of the marriage must be settled according to civil law, and not state Islamic law enactments, since the marriage was solemnized or registered under civil law,” it added.
To do that, the action group said, legislation must be adopted to specify that only the civil courts have jurisdiction to hear any matter arising out of such a marriage, including jurisdiction over the converting spouse.
Supporters rally for ill Uthaya
Apr 11, 08 5:27pm
Some 300 Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) supporters today rallied in protest over alleged denial of medical attention being given to ISA detainee P Uthayakumar.
The placard-armed crowd gathered in front of the Kamunting detention camp in Taiping at about 2pm today and held their peaceful protest while being under the watchful eyes of about 50 police personnel for about 90 minutes.
Hindraf coordinator S Thanentheran told Malaysiakini that the crowd were outraged that Uthayakumar - one of the movement’s most recognisable face - was not treated humanely.
“His potassium level is very low. It has caused him to become weak. His diabetic readings are also dangerously high at 15.5. His vision is failing him.
“Hindraf supporters are angry, as they know his condition. This is very inhumane of the government. We hold ministry and camp commandant responsible for his life,” he said.
Camp officials had admitted Uthayakumar to the Taiping Hospital on April 7. He was discharged two days later. Thanentheran said that Uthayakumar has yet to recover fully.
“His detention diet is not suitable for a diabetic. He is not allowed to give himself insulin shots. His sole medications are pills which are not enough,” he added.
Observe law
Thanentheran had earlier failed in an attempt to convince camp authorities to allow a private doctor to treat Uthayakumar.
Padang Serai MP N Gobalakrishnan who also attended the rally warned that the camp authorities must not be negligent in ensuring the well-being of detainees.
“I believe if the camp denies Uthayakumar right to seek medication and doctor of his choice, they are violating the law. Action can be taken against them,” he said, adding that the Home Ministry must act on the matter.
Gobalakrishnan however commended the police for their cooperation extended during the peaceful protest.
Some 300 Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) supporters today rallied in protest over alleged denial of medical attention being given to ISA detainee P Uthayakumar.
The placard-armed crowd gathered in front of the Kamunting detention camp in Taiping at about 2pm today and held their peaceful protest while being under the watchful eyes of about 50 police personnel for about 90 minutes.
Hindraf coordinator S Thanentheran told Malaysiakini that the crowd were outraged that Uthayakumar - one of the movement’s most recognisable face - was not treated humanely.
“His potassium level is very low. It has caused him to become weak. His diabetic readings are also dangerously high at 15.5. His vision is failing him.
“Hindraf supporters are angry, as they know his condition. This is very inhumane of the government. We hold ministry and camp commandant responsible for his life,” he said.
Camp officials had admitted Uthayakumar to the Taiping Hospital on April 7. He was discharged two days later. Thanentheran said that Uthayakumar has yet to recover fully.
“His detention diet is not suitable for a diabetic. He is not allowed to give himself insulin shots. His sole medications are pills which are not enough,” he added.
Observe law
Thanentheran had earlier failed in an attempt to convince camp authorities to allow a private doctor to treat Uthayakumar.
Padang Serai MP N Gobalakrishnan who also attended the rally warned that the camp authorities must not be negligent in ensuring the well-being of detainees.
“I believe if the camp denies Uthayakumar right to seek medication and doctor of his choice, they are violating the law. Action can be taken against them,” he said, adding that the Home Ministry must act on the matter.
Gobalakrishnan however commended the police for their cooperation extended during the peaceful protest.
Land scam team: Hand over the documents
Apr 11, 08 2:06pm
The special executive team - set up last week to get to the bottom of the alleged land fraud cases that took place in Penang during the previous state administration - has directed relevant government departments and agencies to hand over all documents on land dealings for the past decade or more to facilitate its probe.
Deputy Chief Minister II Prof P Ramasamy, who is among those sitting in the three-man high-powered investigating team, said the team which started its probe on Tuesday has issued directives to the relevant departments and agencies to hand over the documents as soon as possible.
The special team expects the departments and agencies to give their fullest cooperation to facilitate its investigation on the alleged land scam that sent shockwaves in Penang.
"We cannot start a thorough investigation without the relevant and valid documents on affected land dealings
"We have issued directives to relevant departments and agencies to hand over the documents to facilitate our probe," Ramasamy told Malaysiakini.
The DAP-led Pakatan Rakyat government set up the special investigating team when it found out that an earlier probe by the Anti-Corruption Agency on the alleged land improprieties "was not up to mark."
"We were not satisfied with the ACA investigation.
"It's findings were shallow and its recommendations for legal action were not appropriate and proportionate with the improprieties committed and colossal monetary loss,'' said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng when announcing the setting up of the special team headed by Deputy Chief Minister I Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin.
State executive councillor Phee Boon Poh is the third member of the team.
'Tens and tens and tens of millions'
Once the team completes its investigations, government insiders have indicated that Penang would be rocked by a major land scam involving millions.
They claimed that Penangites would be in for a shock to discover the extent of misappropriation of land and public funds.
"The land scam has caused colossal financial losses to the state government running to tens and tens and tens and tens of millions," Lim had said.
It's learnt that the special team's directives for land-deal documents were issued to both the island and mainland municipal councils, state secretariat, state land and mines department and district and land offices.
Government officers involved in the alleged land dealings are also expected to be called up to assist investigation.
Former deputy chief minister Abdul Rashid Abdullah (2004-2008) was the executive councilor handling the land portfolio under the previous state administration.
All official executive documents on land dealings in Abdul Rashid’s Komtar office were among the files that had allegedly gone missing from most executive councilors’ offices immediately after Barisan Nasional was voted out as the ruling state government on March 8.
The present state government learnt about the land scam when perusing documents available at the state and district land offices and state secretariat.
Former Gerakan deputy secretary-general and Jelutong MP Lee Kah Choon added more fuel to the fire when he queried about the deafening silence of the previous state administration on the land fraud issue.
"I'm surprised like everyone else on why the previous state administration has been so silent on the issue," he said.
It is said that improprieties happened in the acquisition, conversion, development and title transfer of land with the bulk of the cases allegedly taking place on the mainland.
Ramasamy assured that the special team would scrutinise each case thoroughly without prejudice and would propose appropriate and proportionate legal action.
"We will carry out our investigations fairly to safeguard public interests," he said.
The special executive team - set up last week to get to the bottom of the alleged land fraud cases that took place in Penang during the previous state administration - has directed relevant government departments and agencies to hand over all documents on land dealings for the past decade or more to facilitate its probe.
Deputy Chief Minister II Prof P Ramasamy, who is among those sitting in the three-man high-powered investigating team, said the team which started its probe on Tuesday has issued directives to the relevant departments and agencies to hand over the documents as soon as possible.
The special team expects the departments and agencies to give their fullest cooperation to facilitate its investigation on the alleged land scam that sent shockwaves in Penang.
"We cannot start a thorough investigation without the relevant and valid documents on affected land dealings
"We have issued directives to relevant departments and agencies to hand over the documents to facilitate our probe," Ramasamy told Malaysiakini.
The DAP-led Pakatan Rakyat government set up the special investigating team when it found out that an earlier probe by the Anti-Corruption Agency on the alleged land improprieties "was not up to mark."
"We were not satisfied with the ACA investigation.
"It's findings were shallow and its recommendations for legal action were not appropriate and proportionate with the improprieties committed and colossal monetary loss,'' said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng when announcing the setting up of the special team headed by Deputy Chief Minister I Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin.
State executive councillor Phee Boon Poh is the third member of the team.
'Tens and tens and tens of millions'
Once the team completes its investigations, government insiders have indicated that Penang would be rocked by a major land scam involving millions.
They claimed that Penangites would be in for a shock to discover the extent of misappropriation of land and public funds.
"The land scam has caused colossal financial losses to the state government running to tens and tens and tens and tens of millions," Lim had said.
It's learnt that the special team's directives for land-deal documents were issued to both the island and mainland municipal councils, state secretariat, state land and mines department and district and land offices.
Government officers involved in the alleged land dealings are also expected to be called up to assist investigation.
Former deputy chief minister Abdul Rashid Abdullah (2004-2008) was the executive councilor handling the land portfolio under the previous state administration.
All official executive documents on land dealings in Abdul Rashid’s Komtar office were among the files that had allegedly gone missing from most executive councilors’ offices immediately after Barisan Nasional was voted out as the ruling state government on March 8.
The present state government learnt about the land scam when perusing documents available at the state and district land offices and state secretariat.
Former Gerakan deputy secretary-general and Jelutong MP Lee Kah Choon added more fuel to the fire when he queried about the deafening silence of the previous state administration on the land fraud issue.
"I'm surprised like everyone else on why the previous state administration has been so silent on the issue," he said.
It is said that improprieties happened in the acquisition, conversion, development and title transfer of land with the bulk of the cases allegedly taking place on the mainland.
Ramasamy assured that the special team would scrutinise each case thoroughly without prejudice and would propose appropriate and proportionate legal action.
"We will carry out our investigations fairly to safeguard public interests," he said.
Dr Mahathir: I was rendered speechless (Dr Mahathir's Letter)
PETALING JAYA (April 7, 2008): Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was shocked and speechless when former Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk Shafee Yahya angrily and loudly accused him of interfering in the agency's investigation into the then director-general of the Economic Planning Unit in 1998.
The former prime minister said he had called up Shafee to his office to inquire about an ACA raid on the office of the EPU chief. "I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid," Mahathir said in a letter to theSun today.
"I knew that government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority," he said in response to a letter by former United Nations rapporteur Datuk Param Cumaraswamy theSun, April 2) which referred to testimony by Shafee in the second trial of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in the High Court in June 2000.
Param's letter contained a transcript of Shafee's testimony in which he said Mahathir accused him of trying to fix the former D-G of the EPU.
Mahathir said in his letter:
"I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened.
"I asked many questions, many more than what he said in court. I also asked him if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid.
"He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work.
"I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant, however senior, had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless."
Mahathir's full letter:
"As I had anticipated, my comment on (Minister in the Prime Minister's Department) Dato Zaid Ibrahim's suggestion that the Government should apologise for the action taken against Tun Salleh Abbas would draw accusations against me for my alleged misdeeds during my tenure of office.
I regard this as an attempt to shut my mouth should I find occasion to criticise the present Government. It is always about "You were worse when you headed the Government", even if it is obvious that I had not done badly.
Param Cumaraswamy's letter (The Sun, April 2, 2004) falls in that category. He wants to know why action had not been taken against me over the allegations made by Datuk Shafee Yahya (former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency) during the Anwar Ibrahim trial.
The statement may be a sworn testimony in court but the accuracy of it cannot be accepted unquestioned. There were omissions and inferences which mislead.
Counsel was of course interested in proving that Anwar did not inveigle Shafee into doing something wrong. But during the trial it was revealed that he did get a senior police officer to threaten and intimidate his accusers.
I admit to calling up Shafee to ask him about the raid by the ACA on the office of the director of the Economic Planning Unit. I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid. He also said that he believed the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister had set up the whole thing.
I knew that Government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority.
I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened.
I asked many questions, many more than what he said in Court. I also asked him if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid.
He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work.
I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant however senior had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless.
These exchanges were carried out in my office. No other person was present. No notes were taken, nor was there any recording at least by me. So only the two of us would know what really happened or was said.
What he said in court is his version. There is nothing to verify what he said nor is there anything to verify what I say now is wrong. It is a case of his words against mine, sworn testimony notwithstanding. He had obviously omitted his shouted accusations against me. Had what he said in court was all that happened, then it would not have taken more than three minutes. But what he said and what I said took longer than three minutes.
I wonder how counsel knew of what happened in the privacy of my office. Even the Chief Secretary, the only person who was informed by Datuk Shafee could not have told counsel. Obviously it was Shafee who volunteered information. Why did he do this?
I was not a party to the trial of Anwar. If I was to be accused, I should at least be heard. But clearly Shafee saw Anwar's trial as an opportunity to make statements detrimental to my reputation.
Shafee was an angry man and what he said in court was opportunistic and seem to reflect his desire to take revenge against me. I can only assume that this was what motivated him, because what he divulged did not help Anwar much. But it did put me in a very bad light.
As to why this case has not been followed, I can only assume that the courts are busy and there are tens of thousands of cases which have yet to be heard. Maybe the fault is with the Attorney-General or Police. I would not know.
Still I welcome any investigation by impartial people as to the truth or otherwise of what I say in this letter.
As for Param Cumarawamy and Karpal Singh, their hatred of me is well known and apparently has not abated even after I am no longer Prime Minister.
Many lawyers were angry with me because I had quoted Shakespeare during a Cabinet meeting which says "the first thing we do, we hang the lawyers". I was only joking but they heard of it and believed I meant what I said. The judges also felt unhappy with me.
Besides I had criticised the judiciary for disregarding the intention or objectives of the laws formulated by the legislative wing but instead interpret them based on the words used. Was I committing a crime for saying this? I was merely stating a fact. Can no one comment on the judiciary at all even when they disregard the interest of the country? In many developed countries it is common for the public to criticise the judiciary.
As for Param, he made libellous remarks about a fellow Malaysian when he was a member of a Untied Nations Commission. He should have been hauled before a Malaysian court but he claimed immunity due to his appointment by the UN.
My stand was that his immunity was only with regard to the specific work for the UN. If he breached Malaysian laws on matters not related to this work, then he cannot plead immunity.
His libellous words against a Malaysian individual had nothing to do with his work for the UN. He should therefore be liable, and his immunity could not be invoked. But he got the UN to back him. It was even hinted that if Malaysia prosecuted him, then our case before the International Court of Justice on the issue of the ownership of Sipadan and Ligitan would be jeopardised.
Accordingly, I agreed that he should not be prosecuted. Luckily it was only libel. Had Param Cumaraswamy murdered a person, and he claimed
immunity, then there would indeed be a miscarriage of justice.
I do not think my recalcitrance over his immunity endeared me to him. Now that I am not a Prime Minister, he has expressed his delight at saying that I should not criticise anything the present Government does because I was guilty of worse.
I maintain that in the case of Tun Salleh Abbas, I did what was required of me under the Constitution and Malaysia's laws. I consider the suggestion that I should apologise as frivolous, unwarranted and stupid.
If Param or Karpal is not convinced perhaps they should use their considerable knowledge of the law to shut my mouth."
The former prime minister said he had called up Shafee to his office to inquire about an ACA raid on the office of the EPU chief. "I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid," Mahathir said in a letter to theSun today.
"I knew that government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority," he said in response to a letter by former United Nations rapporteur Datuk Param Cumaraswamy theSun, April 2) which referred to testimony by Shafee in the second trial of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in the High Court in June 2000.
Param's letter contained a transcript of Shafee's testimony in which he said Mahathir accused him of trying to fix the former D-G of the EPU.
Mahathir said in his letter:
"I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened.
"I asked many questions, many more than what he said in court. I also asked him if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid.
"He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work.
"I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant, however senior, had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless."
Mahathir's full letter:
"As I had anticipated, my comment on (Minister in the Prime Minister's Department) Dato Zaid Ibrahim's suggestion that the Government should apologise for the action taken against Tun Salleh Abbas would draw accusations against me for my alleged misdeeds during my tenure of office.
I regard this as an attempt to shut my mouth should I find occasion to criticise the present Government. It is always about "You were worse when you headed the Government", even if it is obvious that I had not done badly.
Param Cumaraswamy's letter (The Sun, April 2, 2004) falls in that category. He wants to know why action had not been taken against me over the allegations made by Datuk Shafee Yahya (former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency) during the Anwar Ibrahim trial.
The statement may be a sworn testimony in court but the accuracy of it cannot be accepted unquestioned. There were omissions and inferences which mislead.
Counsel was of course interested in proving that Anwar did not inveigle Shafee into doing something wrong. But during the trial it was revealed that he did get a senior police officer to threaten and intimidate his accusers.
I admit to calling up Shafee to ask him about the raid by the ACA on the office of the director of the Economic Planning Unit. I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid. He also said that he believed the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister had set up the whole thing.
I knew that Government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority.
I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened.
I asked many questions, many more than what he said in Court. I also asked him if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid.
He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work.
I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant however senior had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless.
These exchanges were carried out in my office. No other person was present. No notes were taken, nor was there any recording at least by me. So only the two of us would know what really happened or was said.
What he said in court is his version. There is nothing to verify what he said nor is there anything to verify what I say now is wrong. It is a case of his words against mine, sworn testimony notwithstanding. He had obviously omitted his shouted accusations against me. Had what he said in court was all that happened, then it would not have taken more than three minutes. But what he said and what I said took longer than three minutes.
I wonder how counsel knew of what happened in the privacy of my office. Even the Chief Secretary, the only person who was informed by Datuk Shafee could not have told counsel. Obviously it was Shafee who volunteered information. Why did he do this?
I was not a party to the trial of Anwar. If I was to be accused, I should at least be heard. But clearly Shafee saw Anwar's trial as an opportunity to make statements detrimental to my reputation.
Shafee was an angry man and what he said in court was opportunistic and seem to reflect his desire to take revenge against me. I can only assume that this was what motivated him, because what he divulged did not help Anwar much. But it did put me in a very bad light.
As to why this case has not been followed, I can only assume that the courts are busy and there are tens of thousands of cases which have yet to be heard. Maybe the fault is with the Attorney-General or Police. I would not know.
Still I welcome any investigation by impartial people as to the truth or otherwise of what I say in this letter.
As for Param Cumarawamy and Karpal Singh, their hatred of me is well known and apparently has not abated even after I am no longer Prime Minister.
Many lawyers were angry with me because I had quoted Shakespeare during a Cabinet meeting which says "the first thing we do, we hang the lawyers". I was only joking but they heard of it and believed I meant what I said. The judges also felt unhappy with me.
Besides I had criticised the judiciary for disregarding the intention or objectives of the laws formulated by the legislative wing but instead interpret them based on the words used. Was I committing a crime for saying this? I was merely stating a fact. Can no one comment on the judiciary at all even when they disregard the interest of the country? In many developed countries it is common for the public to criticise the judiciary.
As for Param, he made libellous remarks about a fellow Malaysian when he was a member of a Untied Nations Commission. He should have been hauled before a Malaysian court but he claimed immunity due to his appointment by the UN.
My stand was that his immunity was only with regard to the specific work for the UN. If he breached Malaysian laws on matters not related to this work, then he cannot plead immunity.
His libellous words against a Malaysian individual had nothing to do with his work for the UN. He should therefore be liable, and his immunity could not be invoked. But he got the UN to back him. It was even hinted that if Malaysia prosecuted him, then our case before the International Court of Justice on the issue of the ownership of Sipadan and Ligitan would be jeopardised.
Accordingly, I agreed that he should not be prosecuted. Luckily it was only libel. Had Param Cumaraswamy murdered a person, and he claimed
immunity, then there would indeed be a miscarriage of justice.
I do not think my recalcitrance over his immunity endeared me to him. Now that I am not a Prime Minister, he has expressed his delight at saying that I should not criticise anything the present Government does because I was guilty of worse.
I maintain that in the case of Tun Salleh Abbas, I did what was required of me under the Constitution and Malaysia's laws. I consider the suggestion that I should apologise as frivolous, unwarranted and stupid.
If Param or Karpal is not convinced perhaps they should use their considerable knowledge of the law to shut my mouth."
Commission on Mahathir's abuses needed
Apr 11, 08 11:16am
The letter of Dr Mahathir Mohamad published in The Sun on April 8, 2008 and in particular the allegations he levelled at me should not go without a response.
The sworn testimony of Shafee Yahaya - in June 2000
In the second trial of Anwar Ibrahim, Mahathir was served with a subpoena by the defence. He applied and had the subpoena set aside on April 21, 2000. The trial continued until August 2000.
Shafee gave his testimony on June 12, 2000. Cross examination by public prosecutor did not cast any doubt on the truthfulness of Shafee’s testimony. Mahathir knew or ought to have known of that testimony. It was serious in nature. The proceedings were reported in the media the following day.
Surely the public prosecutor, who was Abdul Gani Patail, could have advised Mahathir to appear in court and refute the testimony under oath if Mahathir thought they were untrue.
Being of the serious nature of the testimony against him, Mahathir could have volunteered to appear to clear his reputation but he never did. The irresistible inference is that he was afraid of giving sworn testimony in a court of law.
There clearly is no justification for him to now complain that he “should at least be heard”. He had every opportunity.
It is learnt from media reports yesterday that investigations against Mahathir were carried out following Shafee’s sworn testimony and the papers submitted to the Attorney General on Feb 15, 2000.
This sounds incredible. Shafee’s testimony was recorded by the court only on June 12, 2000. What investigation papers were submitted to the Attorney General in February 2000?
In any event as Shafee’s testimony was sworn and in the public domain was a sworn statement then taken from Mahathir and if so can that be made public?
The Inspector General of Police is also reported to have said that the then AG Mohtar Abdullah, decided that there was no case.
Going by how that same AG in November 2000 cleared the then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin, of any wrong doing over the CJ’s holiday trip to New Zealand with VK Lingam, the integrity of some of Mohtar’s decisions during the Mahathir era will remain questionable.
It is also learnt from media reports yesterday that ACA’s investigation into the EPU Director General took three years from 1998 completed and submitted to the AG’s Chambers in 2001 and the file was closed for “lack of evidence”. This is puzzling.
The then EPU Director General was appointed to the high office of the governor of Bank Negara in September 1998 and he served in that office until April 2000.
Does this mean that Malaysia had a governor of the central bank who had an investigation for corruption pending against him throughout his tenure? What happened to the policy Malaysians were always told that those who are appointed to high office are always cleared by the special branch and other agencies before appointment?
There is something very unsettling about the statements of these three high officials of our enforcement agencies as reported in the media yesterday.
My ‘hatred’ for Mahathir
This is really amusing. Mahathir obviously ascribes to others his own motives and outlook.
It is well known that since about 1985 because of my public criticism of attempts to tamper with fundamental rights in the country he has hated me.
I was told by some ministers of his remarks about me sometimes even in cabinet meetings.
His hatred spilled over to New York and Geneva. On Sept 29, 1999 at the podium of the UN General Assembly in New York, he attacked me personally and the UN for appointing me as a special rapporteur.
In Geneva in April 2000 he directed the Malaysian mission there to block my reappointment as Special Rapporteur by the Commission on Human Rights. That failed.
Malaysia appeared a laughing stalk before that commission session.
The UN immunity issue
His remarks that I made libellous statements about a fellow Malaysian and sought immunity as the statements had nothing to do with matters related to my UN work are just outrageous.
It is well documented now since the advisory opinion of the World Court in 1999 that the statements I made and quoted in the Commercial International Litigation journal were within the parameters of my UN mandate on the independence of judges and lawyers.
It was a universal mandate from the UN Commission on Human Rights. The immunity from legal process sought was not personal to me but that of the UN.
The UN sought the immunity under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations which Malaysia ratified without any reservation.
The reference to the World Court was made by a resolution of the UN Economic and Social Council. The opinion of the World Court was binding on Malaysia pursuant to the Convention.
Four suits were filed against me in 1995 by corporations and two individuals claiming a total sum of RM280 million in damages for defamation.
The two individuals are well known to Mahathir, hence his further anger when Malaysia lost in the World Court.
The statements I made about the state of the Malaysian judiciary after the infamous Ayer Molek case and reported in the journal in 1995 are borne out and justified in the light of recent developments and proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Lingam video clip. Lingam was one of the individuals who sued me.
No court, however, found my statements libellous.
The fear over the want of independence, impartiality and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary during the Eusoff Chin era is best illustrated by developments in four other suits filed by the same parties for defamation against a large Kuala Lumpur law firm and two of its partners.
It was over remarks made by the two partners and published in the same article in the International Commercial Litigation. The total amount claimed was RM280 million.
The defences of the law firm and partners were handled by the professional indemnity insurers whose headquarters were in London.
Realising that the defence was constantly losing on interlocutory proceedings in the suits, they no longer had any faith in obtaining justice before our courts. Rather than being saddled with a colossal award in the region of RM280 million after trial they decided and agreed to settle the four suits for a total of RM17.7 million.
Having recorded the terms before the courts here and paid the agreed sum the insurers filed proceedings in London before the High Court of England & Wales in 1999 against the publishers to recover the RM17.7 million or part thereof by way of indemnity and/or contribution.
In their defence the publishers pleaded, amongst others, “that the claimants insurers only decided to capitulate and pay the original plaintiffs exorbitant sums by way of ostensible damages and costs because they apprehended that the claimants would not have received a fair trial at the hands of the Malaysia’s internationally discredited judiciary and legal system”.
By June 2000 Mahathir’s attention was drawn to the conduct of Eusoff Chin and his breach of the Judges’ Code of Ethics justifying the setting up of a tribunal under article 125 of the Constitution.
He was shown those infamous New Zealand holiday photographs. Yet he refused to take any action whereas in 1988 he went out of his way to find flimsy evidence to act against Salleh Abbas. His motives were highly questionable.
Set up Royal Commission
In the light of all what I have set out (and there are many other instances) there is justification for Mahathir to be investigated for abuse of power during his tenure as Prime Minister.
As he himself has welcomed such an investigation I urge the government to seriously consider and set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into just not abuse of power during his tenure as prime minister but also how he consolidated that power during his tenure.
The letter of Dr Mahathir Mohamad published in The Sun on April 8, 2008 and in particular the allegations he levelled at me should not go without a response.
The sworn testimony of Shafee Yahaya - in June 2000
In the second trial of Anwar Ibrahim, Mahathir was served with a subpoena by the defence. He applied and had the subpoena set aside on April 21, 2000. The trial continued until August 2000.
Shafee gave his testimony on June 12, 2000. Cross examination by public prosecutor did not cast any doubt on the truthfulness of Shafee’s testimony. Mahathir knew or ought to have known of that testimony. It was serious in nature. The proceedings were reported in the media the following day.
Surely the public prosecutor, who was Abdul Gani Patail, could have advised Mahathir to appear in court and refute the testimony under oath if Mahathir thought they were untrue.
Being of the serious nature of the testimony against him, Mahathir could have volunteered to appear to clear his reputation but he never did. The irresistible inference is that he was afraid of giving sworn testimony in a court of law.
There clearly is no justification for him to now complain that he “should at least be heard”. He had every opportunity.
It is learnt from media reports yesterday that investigations against Mahathir were carried out following Shafee’s sworn testimony and the papers submitted to the Attorney General on Feb 15, 2000.
This sounds incredible. Shafee’s testimony was recorded by the court only on June 12, 2000. What investigation papers were submitted to the Attorney General in February 2000?
In any event as Shafee’s testimony was sworn and in the public domain was a sworn statement then taken from Mahathir and if so can that be made public?
The Inspector General of Police is also reported to have said that the then AG Mohtar Abdullah, decided that there was no case.
Going by how that same AG in November 2000 cleared the then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin, of any wrong doing over the CJ’s holiday trip to New Zealand with VK Lingam, the integrity of some of Mohtar’s decisions during the Mahathir era will remain questionable.
It is also learnt from media reports yesterday that ACA’s investigation into the EPU Director General took three years from 1998 completed and submitted to the AG’s Chambers in 2001 and the file was closed for “lack of evidence”. This is puzzling.
The then EPU Director General was appointed to the high office of the governor of Bank Negara in September 1998 and he served in that office until April 2000.
Does this mean that Malaysia had a governor of the central bank who had an investigation for corruption pending against him throughout his tenure? What happened to the policy Malaysians were always told that those who are appointed to high office are always cleared by the special branch and other agencies before appointment?
There is something very unsettling about the statements of these three high officials of our enforcement agencies as reported in the media yesterday.
My ‘hatred’ for Mahathir
This is really amusing. Mahathir obviously ascribes to others his own motives and outlook.
It is well known that since about 1985 because of my public criticism of attempts to tamper with fundamental rights in the country he has hated me.
I was told by some ministers of his remarks about me sometimes even in cabinet meetings.
His hatred spilled over to New York and Geneva. On Sept 29, 1999 at the podium of the UN General Assembly in New York, he attacked me personally and the UN for appointing me as a special rapporteur.
In Geneva in April 2000 he directed the Malaysian mission there to block my reappointment as Special Rapporteur by the Commission on Human Rights. That failed.
Malaysia appeared a laughing stalk before that commission session.
The UN immunity issue
His remarks that I made libellous statements about a fellow Malaysian and sought immunity as the statements had nothing to do with matters related to my UN work are just outrageous.
It is well documented now since the advisory opinion of the World Court in 1999 that the statements I made and quoted in the Commercial International Litigation journal were within the parameters of my UN mandate on the independence of judges and lawyers.
It was a universal mandate from the UN Commission on Human Rights. The immunity from legal process sought was not personal to me but that of the UN.
The UN sought the immunity under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations which Malaysia ratified without any reservation.
The reference to the World Court was made by a resolution of the UN Economic and Social Council. The opinion of the World Court was binding on Malaysia pursuant to the Convention.
Four suits were filed against me in 1995 by corporations and two individuals claiming a total sum of RM280 million in damages for defamation.
The two individuals are well known to Mahathir, hence his further anger when Malaysia lost in the World Court.
The statements I made about the state of the Malaysian judiciary after the infamous Ayer Molek case and reported in the journal in 1995 are borne out and justified in the light of recent developments and proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Lingam video clip. Lingam was one of the individuals who sued me.
No court, however, found my statements libellous.
The fear over the want of independence, impartiality and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary during the Eusoff Chin era is best illustrated by developments in four other suits filed by the same parties for defamation against a large Kuala Lumpur law firm and two of its partners.
It was over remarks made by the two partners and published in the same article in the International Commercial Litigation. The total amount claimed was RM280 million.
The defences of the law firm and partners were handled by the professional indemnity insurers whose headquarters were in London.
Realising that the defence was constantly losing on interlocutory proceedings in the suits, they no longer had any faith in obtaining justice before our courts. Rather than being saddled with a colossal award in the region of RM280 million after trial they decided and agreed to settle the four suits for a total of RM17.7 million.
Having recorded the terms before the courts here and paid the agreed sum the insurers filed proceedings in London before the High Court of England & Wales in 1999 against the publishers to recover the RM17.7 million or part thereof by way of indemnity and/or contribution.
In their defence the publishers pleaded, amongst others, “that the claimants insurers only decided to capitulate and pay the original plaintiffs exorbitant sums by way of ostensible damages and costs because they apprehended that the claimants would not have received a fair trial at the hands of the Malaysia’s internationally discredited judiciary and legal system”.
By June 2000 Mahathir’s attention was drawn to the conduct of Eusoff Chin and his breach of the Judges’ Code of Ethics justifying the setting up of a tribunal under article 125 of the Constitution.
He was shown those infamous New Zealand holiday photographs. Yet he refused to take any action whereas in 1988 he went out of his way to find flimsy evidence to act against Salleh Abbas. His motives were highly questionable.
Set up Royal Commission
In the light of all what I have set out (and there are many other instances) there is justification for Mahathir to be investigated for abuse of power during his tenure as Prime Minister.
As he himself has welcomed such an investigation I urge the government to seriously consider and set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into just not abuse of power during his tenure as prime minister but also how he consolidated that power during his tenure.
Abdul Hadi admitted to hospital after mild stroke
Apr 10, 08 12:56pm
PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang was admitted into the Kuala Terengganu General Hospital early this morning after experiencing what appears to have been a mild stroke.
Abdul Hadi, 60, was brought to the hospital around 6:30 am by his son, Mohamad Khalil, shortly after complaining of “numbness”, said the PAS leader’s press secretary Roslan Shahir Mohd Shahir.
“He is not in the intensive care unit, but he has been warded. Family members are happy that his condition is stable,” said Roslan when contacted.
Among the first officials to have paid Abdul Hadi a visit this morning was Terengganu Menteri Besar Ahmad Said, he added.
PAS secretary-general Kamaruddin Jaffar, meanwhile, said medical specialists attending to Abdul Hadi have advised that he be given adequate rest.
“He himself has just called PAS headquarters and said his condition is not serious,” said Kamaruddin in a statement.
“We hope that all PAS members and supporters everywhere bear this with patience and pray Tuan Guru recovers soon,” he added.
PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang was admitted into the Kuala Terengganu General Hospital early this morning after experiencing what appears to have been a mild stroke.
Abdul Hadi, 60, was brought to the hospital around 6:30 am by his son, Mohamad Khalil, shortly after complaining of “numbness”, said the PAS leader’s press secretary Roslan Shahir Mohd Shahir.
“He is not in the intensive care unit, but he has been warded. Family members are happy that his condition is stable,” said Roslan when contacted.
Among the first officials to have paid Abdul Hadi a visit this morning was Terengganu Menteri Besar Ahmad Said, he added.
PAS secretary-general Kamaruddin Jaffar, meanwhile, said medical specialists attending to Abdul Hadi have advised that he be given adequate rest.
“He himself has just called PAS headquarters and said his condition is not serious,” said Kamaruddin in a statement.
“We hope that all PAS members and supporters everywhere bear this with patience and pray Tuan Guru recovers soon,” he added.
Kedah Umno 'unhappy' with Pak Lah
Apr 10, 08 7:24pm
The pressure on Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi went up another notch today with Kedah Umno leaders purportedly criticising his stewardship.
The 15 Umno divisions in the state - which is now under opposition control - had attended an election post-mortem meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and other top leaders at a resort in Sungai Petani.
According to a source, some of the division representatives had blamed the premier for Barisan Nasional's (BN) disastrous performance in the March 8 polls.
It is believed that there were also calls for Najib to challenge Abdullah for the Umno presidency in the party polls scheduled for December 16-20.
It is learnt that the three-hour meeting - which started at 11am - witnessed a slew of heated remarks being passed forcing Najib to call for calm.
"Some of the division representatives also noted that (former premier) Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) during his 22 years in power did not cause BN and Umno to lose so big.
"They also criticised Abdullah for not listening to ground reports (on the dissatisfaction of the people) but choosing instead to forge ahead with his own plans," he added.
In the elections, the ruling coalition failed to secure a two-third majority in Parliament and lost four additional states - including Kedah - to the opposition.
Since then, Abdullah has come under intense pressure to quit with Umno veterans like Mahathir and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah leading the charge.
However - Abdullah who took over the reins from Mahathir in 2003 -has dismissed these calls. Najib has also pledged support for the prime minister.
Umno losing power
Meanwhile, the source said some of the division representatives also complained about how Umno was losing its power in relation to royalties rejecting two menteris besar proposed by Abdullah.
These were Shahidan Kassim in Perlis and Idris Jusoh in Terengganu.
After a brief stand off with the respective palaces, Putrajaya conceded and allowed the Sultans to swear in their choices - Dr Md Isa Sabu in Perlis and Ahmad Said in Terengganu.
Also present at the meeting with Najib were Umno vice-presidents Muhyiddin Yassin and Mohd Ali Rustam, Wanita chief Rafidah Aziz, secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, party information chief and Selangor Umno head Muhammad Muhd Taib, Puteri Umno chief Noraini Ahmad and Putera Umno chief Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim.
Among the notable local leaders who attended were former Kedah menteri besar Mahdzir Khalid, former information minister Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, his brother and Kulim/Bandar Baru division chief Aziz Sheikh Fadzir and Kubang Pasu division chief Johari Baharom, who is also deputy minister in the prime minister’s department.
Banner put up
Several division leaders contacted by Malaysiakini later declined to comment saying that it was a closed-door meeting.
However, Abdul Azeez denied that the issue of Najib taking on Abdullah was raised by those present.
It is also learnt that prior to the meeting, a group of Umno grassroots supporters had put up a banner calling on Najib to take over the party.
Each division had sent nine delegates to the meeting.
Discontentment has been brewing on the ground in Kedah against Abdullah even before the elections due to the choice of candidates.
"The state had come up with its list but Putrajaya made amendments to this at the eleventh hour and this angered the local leaders.
"At that point, there was already talk of possible sabotage and seats falling into the hands of the opposition. Abdullah himself has now admitted that sabotage was a factor," said an observer.
Yesterday, Malaysiakini reported that Umno division leaders in Johor had asked Abdullah to go on leave and hand over control to his deputy.
"This (Abdullah going on leave) is the best way to save Umno from becoming a directionless party.
"The more Abdullah talks more confusion arises," said a division leader who attended a meeting with Johor Menteri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman early this week.
The pressure on Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi went up another notch today with Kedah Umno leaders purportedly criticising his stewardship.
The 15 Umno divisions in the state - which is now under opposition control - had attended an election post-mortem meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and other top leaders at a resort in Sungai Petani.
According to a source, some of the division representatives had blamed the premier for Barisan Nasional's (BN) disastrous performance in the March 8 polls.
It is believed that there were also calls for Najib to challenge Abdullah for the Umno presidency in the party polls scheduled for December 16-20.
It is learnt that the three-hour meeting - which started at 11am - witnessed a slew of heated remarks being passed forcing Najib to call for calm.
"Some of the division representatives also noted that (former premier) Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) during his 22 years in power did not cause BN and Umno to lose so big.
"They also criticised Abdullah for not listening to ground reports (on the dissatisfaction of the people) but choosing instead to forge ahead with his own plans," he added.
In the elections, the ruling coalition failed to secure a two-third majority in Parliament and lost four additional states - including Kedah - to the opposition.
Since then, Abdullah has come under intense pressure to quit with Umno veterans like Mahathir and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah leading the charge.
However - Abdullah who took over the reins from Mahathir in 2003 -has dismissed these calls. Najib has also pledged support for the prime minister.
Umno losing power
Meanwhile, the source said some of the division representatives also complained about how Umno was losing its power in relation to royalties rejecting two menteris besar proposed by Abdullah.
These were Shahidan Kassim in Perlis and Idris Jusoh in Terengganu.
After a brief stand off with the respective palaces, Putrajaya conceded and allowed the Sultans to swear in their choices - Dr Md Isa Sabu in Perlis and Ahmad Said in Terengganu.
Also present at the meeting with Najib were Umno vice-presidents Muhyiddin Yassin and Mohd Ali Rustam, Wanita chief Rafidah Aziz, secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, party information chief and Selangor Umno head Muhammad Muhd Taib, Puteri Umno chief Noraini Ahmad and Putera Umno chief Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim.
Among the notable local leaders who attended were former Kedah menteri besar Mahdzir Khalid, former information minister Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, his brother and Kulim/Bandar Baru division chief Aziz Sheikh Fadzir and Kubang Pasu division chief Johari Baharom, who is also deputy minister in the prime minister’s department.
Banner put up
Several division leaders contacted by Malaysiakini later declined to comment saying that it was a closed-door meeting.
However, Abdul Azeez denied that the issue of Najib taking on Abdullah was raised by those present.
It is also learnt that prior to the meeting, a group of Umno grassroots supporters had put up a banner calling on Najib to take over the party.
Each division had sent nine delegates to the meeting.
Discontentment has been brewing on the ground in Kedah against Abdullah even before the elections due to the choice of candidates.
"The state had come up with its list but Putrajaya made amendments to this at the eleventh hour and this angered the local leaders.
"At that point, there was already talk of possible sabotage and seats falling into the hands of the opposition. Abdullah himself has now admitted that sabotage was a factor," said an observer.
Yesterday, Malaysiakini reported that Umno division leaders in Johor had asked Abdullah to go on leave and hand over control to his deputy.
"This (Abdullah going on leave) is the best way to save Umno from becoming a directionless party.
"The more Abdullah talks more confusion arises," said a division leader who attended a meeting with Johor Menteri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman early this week.
Gov't will not apologise to Salleh
Apr 10, 08 7:47pm
The government will not apologise to the former Lord President Salleh Abas over his sacking in 1988.
This was revealed by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today at a function in Putrajaya.
However the premier said that the government would formulate a way to reinstate the status of Salleh as a former top judiciary officer in the country.
"I don’t want to discuss this matter in detail here, then there will be other complications. But we (government) will discuss this matter,” he said.
Last month, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Zaid Ibrahim said the government should apologise to Salleh and two other supreme court judges over their sacking and suspension.
Many observers have pointed out that the sacking of Salleh was the starting point of the judicial crisis in this country, which still remains unresolved.
Yesterday the judiciary fully backed the call for the apology, however adding that the final call was with the government.
This is the first time Abdullah is commenting on this apology matter. Previously Zaid was reported as saying that his cabinet colleagues were still considering his proposal for the apology.
Meanwhile, talking to reporters after at his office today, Zaid said that Abdullah will make an announcement soon on the measures that the government will institute for judicial reforms.
"The Prime Minister himself as well as his deputy and other cabinet members have said many times that they are committed to judicial reforms.
"I think there is no need for us to doubt the government's commitment in this matter. The premier will announce himself the reforms and the principles behind this move. I think the announcement is going to be made sooner than one thinks," he said.
The government will not apologise to the former Lord President Salleh Abas over his sacking in 1988.
This was revealed by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today at a function in Putrajaya.
However the premier said that the government would formulate a way to reinstate the status of Salleh as a former top judiciary officer in the country.
"I don’t want to discuss this matter in detail here, then there will be other complications. But we (government) will discuss this matter,” he said.
Last month, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Zaid Ibrahim said the government should apologise to Salleh and two other supreme court judges over their sacking and suspension.
Many observers have pointed out that the sacking of Salleh was the starting point of the judicial crisis in this country, which still remains unresolved.
Yesterday the judiciary fully backed the call for the apology, however adding that the final call was with the government.
This is the first time Abdullah is commenting on this apology matter. Previously Zaid was reported as saying that his cabinet colleagues were still considering his proposal for the apology.
Meanwhile, talking to reporters after at his office today, Zaid said that Abdullah will make an announcement soon on the measures that the government will institute for judicial reforms.
"The Prime Minister himself as well as his deputy and other cabinet members have said many times that they are committed to judicial reforms.
"I think there is no need for us to doubt the government's commitment in this matter. The premier will announce himself the reforms and the principles behind this move. I think the announcement is going to be made sooner than one thinks," he said.
Umno's mistake: Selecting wrong candidates
Apr 10, 08 8:25pm
Umno made the mistake in selecting wrong candidates for the general election and that had caused the humiliating defeat for the party.
This hard-hitting verdict was delivered by Umno divisional leaders in Kedah to party deputy president Najib Abdul Razak in a meeting today.
They claimed that these candidates were selected by the party without the consent of Umno divisions. Party president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and respective state Umno leaders were in charge of selection the candidates.
The meeting, conducted by the party’s management committee headed by Najib, is part of a post-mortem exercise undertaken by the party to find out why it lost badly in the March 8 general election.
Talking to reporters after the meeting, Najib said that feedback received by the committee at the meeting showed that many of the leaders and committee members were disappointed because they were not consulted on the selection of candidates.
“We will inform the supreme council about this so that the problem will not recur in the future,” he told reporters after the meeting in Sungai Petani today.
Najib also said that the selection of candidates should have been discussed thoroughly with divisional committees.
Party president Abdullah last week blamed saboteurs for the party’s failure in the election. He said that acts of sabotage - likely from members who were not selected to contest in the election - caused the party to lose 14 parliamentary seats and 22 state seats.
He said that if these seats - previously marked as safe seats - had been won, BN would have retained its two-thirds majority which it lost out by eight seats this time around.
He also said that the 22 state seats would have allowed the Umno-led BN to retain Kedah and Perak. BN lost the two states as well as Selangor and Penang to the opposition while failed to wrest Kelantan from PAS.
Meeting with Mahathir
Meanwhile, in Putrajaya, Abdullah said that the party has decided that it would not be doing away with its quota system for party polls.
Under the system - put in place in the interest of top party office bearers - a challenger for the top post would have to obtain a certain number of nominations before he could contest.
For the president’s post, the required number of nomination is 58 while for the deputy’s post, a challenger would need 38 nominations.
Abdullah, also the prime minister, added that he hoped that party delegates would not be involved in money politics in the coming party polls to be held in December.
He was also asked to comment on the calls made by several Umno leaders that he holds a peace meeting with his predecessor Dr Mahathir Mohamad who has now turned to be his fiercest critic.
To this Abdullah said: “We wait and see the reasons (for the meeting)”.
Mahathir had laid the blame for BN and Umno’s heavy defeat in the elections on Abdullah, asking the his chosen-successor to step down to save the party and the nation.
Ong coy on PKFZ probe details
Apr 10, 08 5:53pm
Newly appointed Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat was coy about his pledge to probe the RM4.6 billion ‘soft-loan’ to the Port Klang Free Zone and refused to divulge any details.
“When I said I’m coming to it, I’m coming to it. I’ll do it at my own pace,” Ong told reporters after visiting the MAS engineering department in Subang Jaya, Selangor this morning.
On Monday, Ong promised that he would investigate the matter, which veteran DAP leader Lim Kit Siang touted as a “scandal” and suggested yesterday that five subjects ought to be probed:
• Whether cabinet had approved the Port Klang Authority and the Transport Ministry to buy 1,000 acres of Pulau Indah land for PKFZ at an grossly inflated price
• Whether the cost of PKFZ had ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM4.6 billion
• Whether the previous transport ministers had dubiously issued four letters of support, acting as government guarantee, to Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd to raise RM4 billion bonds
• Whether former transport ministers had created a RM4.6 billion liability for the government in the “bailout” of PKFZ
• Whether previous transport ministers would be probed over the incident
While refusing to respond to Lim’s questions, Ong stressed that his probe into PKFZ was not done under “duress” or pressure from any parties.
“I’m dictating what I’m going to do, not others,” said Ong, who also refused to divulge the scope or time-frame for his probe.
‘Lim didn’t do anything’
Ong said that his intention was to clear the air regarding PKFZ and chided Lim for not pro-actively reporting the alleged scandal to the authorities.
“At least I made an effort to address the concerns (from the public). Whereas Lim had been talking about it for two years and he has yet to make a visit to PKFZ or lodge a complaint to the authorities. If it’s a scandal, prove it and bring the culprit to book,” he said.
Ong said that he wanted to see PKFZ make progress but he was mindful of a visit to the area by Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim and Selangor exco in charge of industry Teresa Kok.
“Both of them did say that they are keen to takeover. Of course I said fine. You submit the proposal. But until today... such proposal has yet to be forthcoming,” he added.
Reports lodged by DAP
Owned by the Port Klang Authority, PKFZ was the center of controversy after reports surfaced of alleged mismanagement, conflict of interest involving political figures and numerous other irregularities.
Since 2004, DAP’s Ronnie Liu had lodged four police reports and one Anti-Corruption Agency report over alleged graft involved in the project.
Modeled after the highly successful Jebel Ali Free Zone in Dubai, PKFZ was conceptualised as the region’s hub of choice for the export and transhipment of manufactured goods.
Presently, the area hosts only a handful of companies leaving PKFZ looking largely like a mega-ghost town.
In July last year, the cabinet approved a ‘soft-loan’ amounting to RM4.6 billion in the form of bonds to PKFZ in a bid to revitalise the ailing project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
