MUSICAL INTERLUDE: Bach Air Suite No. 3 in G

Facing up to the truth

There was just no such losses!

Last Monday, September 12, Raja Petra wrote a piece, "Not cheating, just bending the rule" which relates to alleged loss of RM8 billion loss of MAS during the tenure of Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli as Chairman.

This time we are not responding to another of his grumbling to keep his conspiracy theory alive and defend the reputation of crooked, manipulative and arrogant lawyer Rosli Dahalan. This time Raja Petra and Din Merican (read here) are trying to make something out of a recent MACC raid on the house of Attorney General, Tan Sri Gani Patail in Nilai, Negeri Sembilan.

Earlier on August 29th, we responded to his attempt to deny us the satisfaction of proving his many years of false allegation by a cute spin to claim we do not trust the police. We wrote, "The police we trust, Your accomplice we don't", where we made further expose as to why we can't trust the characters close to him.

Yesterday, a report broke out yesterday that there is an out-court settlement to the RM200 million lawsuit by Tajuddin against The Malaysian Insider. The settled amount is said to be in the tune of RM30 million.

The out of court settlement serve only to save MI's face. Tajuddin has proved his point and it only add further proof of our hunch that there was no such RM8 billion MAS loss.

How will they respond to this news? If only they know that it is better to admit to the truth and move on than continuing to sustain an untrue story. It will open up the story to more discrepencies. No wonder the Christians always say the truth shall set you free.

Yes, free from ill will, bad intention and impure heart.

The Bernama report on the out-of-court settlement below:

Parties Seek Out-of-court Settlement In Tajudin's Suit Against News Portal

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 19 (Bernama) -- The parties in the RM200-million suit brought by former Malaysia Airlines executive chairman Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli against The Malaysian Insider news portal are seeking to settle the case out of court, counsel for The Malaysian Insider said Monday.

Lawyer George Miranda said this after he, Tajudin's counsel Lim Kian Leong and the news portal's executive and journalist had met Judge Harminder Singh Dhaliwal in chambers.

The case had been set for case management today. After the meeting, the judge set Sept 28 for case management.

On Aug 18, Tajudin filed the suit over the news portal's publication of an article on the airline company.

He named The Malaysian Insider Sdn Bhd, its chief executive officer Jahabar Sadiq and journalist Shazwan Mustafa Kamal as defendants.

Tajudin, who helmed the airline from 1994 to 2001, had stated that the portal had published defamatory words in the article on May 31, 2011.

He also claimed that the portal repeated the defamatory words in other articles, despite a letter sent to it to not do so.

He said the Malaysian Insider, when responding to his letter, stated that the words in the article were not defamatory and that they had obtained the information from multiple sources.

Besides general damages of RM200 million, Tajudin is also seeking aggravated damages and interests.

Our hunch for the truth stems from a simple fact that everyone refuse to remember and by design, intentionally hide from the public. Tajuddin sold MAS shares at RM8 per shares when market was lower but everyone forgot that he bought it at RM8 billion when the highest the market was trading RM4-6 per share.

Tajuddin was cleaning up the mess of Tan Sri Nor Mohamad Yakcop at Bank Negara
Malaysia. The vindictive snaky Mamak he is, instead of thanking him, Nor Yakcop did several numbers on him. It puzzles us why Najib still keep him in Cabinet?

The out of court settlement only shows The Malaysian Insider have no proof to back their allegation.

Neither do politicians Salahuddin Ayub, Saifuddin Nasution and Mahfuz Omar making the same allegation in press conferences and ceramahs.

The last one would expect from politicians is to admit they are wrong. If it is below their dignity to admit they are wrong, the least they could do is to honourably refrain from talking about it anymore.

Nor are the conspirators.

Rosli Dahlan, Dato Ramli Yusof, Raja Petra, and Din Merican with their barking dogs, Tan Sri Robert Phang and now Dato Md Zin Ibrahim could only make allegations but for the past few years could not produce a single shred of proof.

The police under conspirator, Ramli Yusof could not. MAS officers, who supposedly have access to records, documents and accounts, only made the same allegation but never could prove it.

The little proof they attempted to spin have been debunked and Court of Arbitration have proven them wrong.

If they are purveyor of good, then live with the truth and move on. They have been proven wrong and pursuing it further only shows their lack of honour.

Such quantum of loss just do not exist and is merely a figment of someone's imagination to develop a perception on Tajuddin. Why?

It is our suspicion that a larger hand is out there to create a perception of a villain on someone to justify an evil intention so that he will continue to be blame. That unlucky villain happen to be Tajuddin.

Not only has this off court settlement partly proof the allegation is false, the fact that Government is willing to negotiate a global settlement with Tajuddin add further indication that he was victimised and the Government has no choice but to sit down and settle.

How will Government settle Tajuddin's lawsuit of RM13 billion, which could be more than RM20 billion by now?

Tajuddin should know Government can't afford it. Thus, the amount he is willing to settle down for would give him a chance to show he is the better man than the nasty perception created out of him.

One wonders why him?

Could it be because Tajuddin was a serious boss that hardly smile? But that only shows Malaysian as a spoilt brat.

Really, what so bad about having a difficult perfectionist boss? It puts you on your toe and you get better from the higher expectation. If it really happened as what the gossip say, what is so embarrassing about getting thrown files for scrappy work? Face up to the boss again with better work. He should appreciate.

Haris Ibrahim: A law unto himself?

Dr MIM posting on a fake news from the hacked pages of the Bangla Deshi Prime Minister Minister's website caught our attention. [Read here]. The quick respond of the opposition raised the suspicion that they had a hand in hacking the Bangla Deshi PM's website.

This observation was highlighted further by The Mole here. They ended their story by asking: Harris Ibrahim - Where is the proof?

Having read all the materials, it is difficult to comprehend how The Mole could have used comments made by Haris Ibrahim regarding the issue of Bangladeshis to vote in Malaysia when all he did was make accusations without a shred of evidence.

In fact, Haris contradicts himself from the word go.

First he claims to have a reliable source to back his claims that foreign workers in Malaysia had been given MyKad and registered as voters, to vote in Penang.

In the very next breath, Haris said: “We are investigating this matter and trying to get the verification from certain quarters about this.”

So which is which.

Is Haris saying that he had already made the accusations when he is still investigating the matter and trying to verify it?

So far no proof and in the next sentence he accused Umno’s involvement and when asked on what premise, Haris retorted by saying “Do you know of any non-Umno Home Minister?”

It is actually surprising that Umno and the Home Minister had not sued Haris for such slur. Then again, the Umno Home Minister is only known to issue warnings without any gumption to walk the talk.


To make the issue more interesting, Haris had put up a posting on the issue based on a Malaysian Insider’s report about Bangladeshis being given citizenship to allow them to vote in the next general election. The citizenship is on the condition that they vote the present Government.

Now that it had been exposed that Malaysian Insider had been irresponsible and reported on a website that had been hacked without attempting to verify it.

The Malaysian Insider had proven itself to be unreliable in the past and overzealous in undermining Umno and BN.

Now it has been exposed to write a story without verifying the source and contents.

Is Haris and Malaysian Insider a case of birds of a feather?

Perkasa's position on the abolishment of ISA

Perkasa is one of the most vocal supporter of ISA. Since the annnouncement on abolishment of ISA, they have held back any comment. They were assessing the situation.

After their emergency meeting yesterday, in which ISA was high on the agenda, Dato Ibrahim Ali stated their stance in a press conference yesterday.

Ibrahim Ali is a wice detained former ISA detainee. While, their Information Chief, Encik Roslan Kassim was detained once under ISA. In addition, there are 8 lawyers, a former Deputy IGP, former Air Force Chief and many community activist on Perkasa's Dewan Tertinggi.

Perkasa insist that the preventive element in the new law in the newly enacted law to remain. They expressed reservation of the courts in making decision in extension of detention. The new law must give people's right for security and safety and not be made political tool of both ruling and opposition party. This is in concurrence with ABITW view here.

Secondly, Ibrahim expressed agreement to certain relaxation to the current ISA practices believed to be implemented in the new preventive law. Among others are family visitation rights, shorter detention period from 60 to 30 days, etc.

Read The Malaysian Insiders report on the call to maintain preventive spirit:

Perkasa to reject new laws if too unlike ISA

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 18 – Perkasa will reject the new anti-terrorism laws the prime minister has proposed if they do not keep to the “preventive spirit” of the recently scrapped Internal Security Act (ISA).

Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali said it was necessary to preserve or even improve upon the preventive aspects of the ISA to ensure security forces have a viable “instrument” with which to quickly stamp out subversive activities and keep the nation safe.

The Malay rights leader cited alleged insults to Islam and increasing criticism of Article 153, which accords a special position to Bumiputeras, as examples of activities that could threaten the stability and safety of the people.

“We know who did it but it’s difficult to prove in court. But security (forces) know who is responsible,” he told reporters here after Perkasa concluded an emergency meeting to discuss the ISA’s repeal.

Ibrahim stressed that there should be no compromises when formulating the new laws as Malaysia’s development and progress hinged entirely on its security, adding that the ISA was one of the most effective tools to ensure the nation’s peace.

He urged the government to discuss the new laws with stakeholders, especially the police, before deciding on the contents of the proposed anti-terrorism laws.

“I hope the government doesn’t bend to political sentiment from any party when creating these new laws... What’s key is that the people should decide on their own security. This is the people’s right,” he said.

Perkasa will meet with Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein soon to discuss the details of the new laws, Ibrahim added.

On Thursday night, the prime minister announced that the repeal of the ISA and the three Emergency Declarations when both the Dewan Negara and Dewan Rakyat have their next sitting.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak said new laws will be enacted to protect the peace, harmony and security of the country.

The Bernama report on Perkasa's agreement on some relaxation:

Perkasa Wants New Law Replacing ISA To Be More Fair To Detainees

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 18 -- The Malay right-wing group, Perkasa, hopes that the two new laws replacing the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 will have improvements and will be more fair to the detainees.

Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali said that in addition, the movement wanted preventive elements in the ISA, which had become an instrument for the police in checking subversive activities in the country all this while, to be retained.

"We want the two new acts to be better than the previous act, such as reducing the detention period.

"But at the same time, we want preventive elements to be retained because two aspects in the ISA, namely prevention and rehabilitation had been most effective in tackling security issues in the country," he told reporters, here Sunday.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, in his Malaysia Day message on Thursday, had announced that the ISA would be abolished and two new laws would be formulated to preserve the peace prevailing in the country.

In this context, Ibrahim said, he and the Perkasa supreme council members would meet with Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein shortly to discuss elements that should be included in the two new acts.

"Perkasa also hopes that political sentiments from any group will not influence the formulation of the new acts, whether from the opposition or the government in order to fish for votes.

"We will not hesitate to reject the two new acts if they are perceived as not containing the preventive elements because we want the people's security to continue to be defended," he said, adding that the government should also review the Universities and University Colleges Act and the Official Secrets Act 1972.

Big Dog and Cuit-Cuit seen at PAS's Hasan Ali raya open house

This is a picture received from a mole. No, not The Mole but a mole at the Ghufran Masjid at Taman Tun Dr Ismail.

It is the picture of Mohamad Zakhir Mohamad, Dato Dr Hassan Ali and Dato Zaini Hassan at the open house raya celebration at Hasan Ali's home.

Mohamad Zakhir is Big Dog, the blogger Rocky usually described as rabid pro-UMNO blogger. He was recently known for exposing Christian pastors making in an oath swearing ceremony to turn Malaysia into a Christian state and have a Christian Prime Minister.

He has not been happy lately with Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib for abolishing the ISA.

Hassan Ali is the Selangor exco in charge of Islamic affair.

He is likely not quite happy with the recent gag order and actions of the Selangor Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim with regard to the JAIS investigation on suspicion of proselytising Muslims by the Damansara Utama Methodist Church.

Hassan is no more the favoured name for PAS party line-up but the recent controversy brought back some PAS grassroot support for him.

There is an event to gather 1,000,000 Muslim against proselytising of Muslims on October 23rd. Pemuda PAS has expressed support. But the Syariah court date on DUMC case is October 19th. Why demo after?

What can one speculate from that picture?

Is Big Dog, whose in an all blue attire, turning green? Is he there to celebrate raya or becoming a PAS member?

Will PAS as purveyor of welfare state allow dogs in their ranks?

Or is Hasan Ali whose a Selangorian Giant fan with their traditional Yellow and Red jerseys, turning Yellow and Red too?

Don't know what to expect of the presence of Zaini.

Zaini Hassan is the Editor of Utusan Malaysia and columnist Cuit-cuit. As mainstream media, Utusan supports the Government and is the favourite target of opposition for raising issues that's putting them on the defense.

Proselytising of Muslim and Selangor issues is pretty much in their alley.

He could be either applying for a job at Harakah or present to stop Big Dog from filling in PAS membership form.

One can bet that Khalid Samad or dubbed by pro-UMNO cybertroopers as Khalid Gereja will look at this picture with glee.

It is easy to spread rumour that Hassan is jumping ship and betraying the baiah oath required of PAS wakil rakyat.

But if Khalid is in raya spirit and non political mood, it means nothing to him.

There are time for politics and time to put it aside for raya celebration. That means even with ones political enemy or competitor.

Neither Politicians nor Judges should decide on preventive law

To prevent undesired subversive activities, organised violence, and criminal activities from causing harm to the safety and security of the public, two new laws will be enacted under Article 149 of the Federal Constitution to replace the Internal Security Act, 1960 (ISA) and other existing preventive laws.

Some view it as not wise on the part of the Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak to announce the abolishment when the two new laws is not passed by Parliament yet. Dispel any thoughts of some Menteri Besar or Prime Minister have a personal development project on the sites of the Kemunting or Simpang Renggam ISA detention camps.

It can be seen positively as the Prime Minister inviting comments, responses and inputs from the public.

The PM's position is that the new laws will take into account the Fundamental Liberties spelled out in Part II of the Federal Constitution.

Najib said that detention without trial for questioning will be shorter than the maximum of 60 days under the ISA and the power for further detention will be shifted from the Minister to the courts, except for those relating to violence will remain in the hands of Minister.

In the opinion of this blogger, neither politicians nor judges should be empowered to decide on further detention. Instead of the power vested in a SINGULAR person, it should be based on a committee of experts.

Najib’s position

Before arguing further, let's read again Najib's speech with regard to the abolishment of ISA, below:

23. Sepertimana yang saya janjikan dalam ucapan sulung saya semasa mula-mula mengambil alih jawatan Perdana Menteri pada 3 April 2009, bahawa Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960 (yakni ISA) akan dikaji secara komprehensif. Sehubungan dengan itu, suka saya mengumumkan pada malam yang bersejarah ini, bahawa Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960 (yakni ISA) akan dimansuhkan terus.

24. Untuk mencegah perbuatan subversif, keganasan terancang dan perbuatan jenayah bagi memelihara ketenteraman dan keselamatan awam, dua undang-undang baru yang sesuai akan digubal di bawah semangat serta payung Perkara 149 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Pokoknya, akta-akta ini nanti bermatlamat untuk memelihara keamanan, kesejahteraan, kesentosaan serta kerukunan hidup rakyat dan negara.

Article 149 together with Article 150 and 151 form Part XI of the Federal Constitution that deals with Special Powers Against Subversion, Organised Violence and Acts and Crimes Prejudicial to the Public and Emergency Powers.

The Prime Minister's position as per the quote from his speechis still vague:

25. Di atas segalanya, Kerajaan akan tetap memastikan hak asasi mereka yang terbabit terpelihara. Apa-apa undang-undang yang diperbuat akan mengambil kira hak dan kebebasan asasi berlandaskan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Undang-undang baru ini akan memperuntukkan tempoh tahanan oleh polis yang secara substansialnya lebih pendek daripada apa yang ada sekarang dan apa-apa tahanan lanjut hanya boleh dibuat dengan perintah mahkamah kecuali undang-undang berkaitan keganasan, masih dikekalkan bawah kuasa Menteri.

26. Di sudut lain, kerajaan juga memberi komitmen bahawa mana-mana individu tidak akan ditahan semata-mata hanya kerana ideologi politik. Umumnya pula, kuasa untuk melanjutkan penahanan akan beralih daripada badan eksekutif kepada badan kehakiman kecualilah undang-undang berkaitan keganasan itu tadi.

This allows for public discussion and input into the enactment process. This could be done direct to those in authority or via their representative Member of Parliament.

Hopefully this time, the Menteri Amaran Dalam Negeri will not be a chicken out pondan who cancelled several scheduled dialogues with bloggers to discuss ISA amendments. Most unfortunate that he is stuck with those labels and any political harm done. He should blame the many kaki bodek around him.

Consider it as part and parcel of public life. For the common rakyat, they have to bear the collateral damages from the blunders of Ministers with aristocratic and royal background that's totally vague of the rakyat's predicament.

Understanding Preventive Law

Politicians come and go but the laws remain forever. Since politicians are usually more concerned with their popularity than making the right decisions, it is the rakyat that have to bear the down side of their myopically-enacted laws. Here lies the long term risk on public safety and security.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that preventive law as the term describe is meant to prevent the occurrence of violence, public unrest, and crime from happening. If the violence, public unrest or crime had occurred, it is too late and no more needed prevention.

In the past, the "official" or "operational" reason for detentions without trial under ISA were to secure information. The detainees may not have committed any offenses but is detained to help investigation.

Will it mean there will be no more such detentions deemed as imposition on individual's civil liberty for the benefit and safety of the majority?

If detainees cooperate and do not pose any threat to the public, they are released. If they do not cooperate and/or pose a threat to the public, the new prevention laws will require politicians or judges to decide whether to extend detention.

Our contention is: can politicians or judges, with their limited background, capability, and inclinations, able to decide as to anticipate the possible threat the detainee pose to the public?

Questioning Politicians and Judges

Based on books and references on organised subversive and criminal activities, detainees are usually part of an organisation and they operate in small cells. Can politicians or judges appreciate the possible links with other activities of the same organisation?

Then there are cases involving ideologies and not related to violence and crimes, like deviationist teachings.

Judges relies on legally proven evidences to make judgement and that can only be obtained after event. Will any crime prevention agencies be able to secure evidences to legally prevent such occurrences as the Guyana mass suicide by reverend Jim Jones and sarin gas attack in Japan?

Their inclination to see cases as black or white, innocent or guilty will not be applicable in deciding in preventive laws meant to protect the rights of the majority for peace and tranquility.

Legally minded judges or popularity minded politicians will most likely not be able to appreciate the technical information in the operations of subversive activites, organised violence and crimes. It will result in delays in decision-making by judges. While 11th hour decision maker type politicians will create bureaucrasy to stall decision and may put lives at stake.

By leaving it in the hands of individual judges or politicians to decide, does it ensure that their decisions are independent, objective and most important free from political pressure and threats?

The more than 55 times delayed sodomy case of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim leaves much confidence on the judiciary to put justice above politics. Will the judiciary be able to put public safety and security ahead of political and legal consideration and pressure?

This is not taking into possible hazard in the system due to judges on the take, in collusion with friends and family members, intervention by more superior judges, etc.

Are judges capable of evaluating cases of economic sabotage which is more complex and sophisticated than insider trading cases in which the court's track record in conviction worldwide is less than satisfactory?

Supposed providers of essential goods like sugar and flour decide to withhold supply and put the nation in their economic strangle, but no crime is committed, how will a judge, used to the usual treatment of evidence, make a quick decision to protect the public?

Also, there is serious doubt that judges can help stem subversion activities by communist trade unions activist working to stifle public transportation like what happened in the 1950s, without any efficient and effective preventive laws. This sort of occurrence can repeat itself in this millennium and the ringleaders need to be swiftly apprehended.

In the case of deviationist teachings that usually occur within the Muslim community, it had resulted in sectarian clashes within the community and criminal activities like in the case of Al Maunah. If the security had known, the arms heist could be prevented and no lives sacrificed.

Are judges capable of justifying such cases?

And, can indecisive and popularity seeking politicians act fast enough?

Preposition

By now, the point that should hit home is that the best for decisions be left to the experts in the area of security, crimes, and terrorism including deviationist teachings and economic sabotage.

Not only should politicians or judges not be empowered to act on extending or canceling further detentions, no one should SINGULARLY be empowered.

The informed consensus decision of many experts is better than that of a person.

There is a need to protect the civil liberty rights of the individual, but the stakes are more for the security and safety of the masses. It can be done better by a committee of experts than individual politician and judge.

Do take into consideration.

Ready or not, Malaysian must rise to this newfound freedom

Chaos & Order by 000studio

In his Malaysia Day message delivered just a couple of hours ago, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak made major announcements towards relaxing restrictions on civil liberties in this country.

He announced the annulment of the three emergency declarations that are still in force today under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution.

In his maiden speech as Prime Minister on 3rd of April, 2009, Najib had promised Malaysians that he would review the Internal Security Act, 1960, but in his speech tonight the Prime Minister announced the abolishment of the preventive law.

There will be a new law in place under Article 149 of the Federal Constitution as a preventive law, specifically against subversion, organised violence, and criminal acts.

He also promised a comprehensive review of the Restricted Residence Act 1933, Banishment Act 1959 and Printing Press and Publication Act 1984.

There will be a review of Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 with regards to the rights of assembly under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Street demonstrations are still not welcomed but permission to assemble will be given in accordance with international norms.

This milestone announcement is quite a surprise in today's climate of unbridled politics of slander, spin and diversions. Will this newfound freedom lead towards more wild accusation, slanders and untruth?

In light of the newfound freedom amplifying into people's revolutions in the Middle East, Najib's decision is considered bold. He saw what happened next door in Singapore in their recently concluded general election.

Instead of resisting, he is going with the flow.

Suppression of personal freedom eventually led to such people's revolution in the Middle East. The question now is: will Najib's announcement douse any subversive effort to create a Tahrir Square-like revolution here?

Now, in the event of real threats to public security and lives, will the yet-to-be-enacted law be sufficient to prevent such subversive and criminal activities?

The changes announced today will definitely shift public discussion from the viability of such freedom to whether Malaysians will be able to rise to the occasion.

Are Malaysians, irrespective of race, religion, educational background, economic status, occupation, urban or rural, West or East Malaysia, and political inclination, ready to transform themselves for more open, freer and less constrained politics with maturity, greater intellect and better articulation?

It means politics should shift from the old-school politics of brawn and benevolence to brains and big ideas. Nor more is it about propaganda and psychological warfare but reasons and rationale. Will Malaysians be ready to agree to disagree in the environment of greater diversity to come?

This has been what the more liberal segment of society and opposition supporters (usually in the more urban areas) have wanted over many decades but resisted by economic, social and intellectual disparity within and between urban and rural, and other subdivisions.

Since it has finally arrived, what will their response be? What will their excuse to reject or downplay this change be?

You can bet Lim Kit Siang and the DAP will say it is not enough because they have a long list on their plate. Is it the same list that the people of Singapore demanded of the DAP’s sister party, the PAP?