Lazy Melayu Liberal business model

The debate on UDA Holding Berhad (UDA Holding)'s development of the former Pudu Prison land has been on going for quite sometime.

Malay rights group, Perkasa had criticised UDA Holdings Chairman, Dato Nurjazlan for his preference to take the lazy way of sub-"contracting" the project wholesale to a foreign group.

The sentiment then was that Urban Development Agency (UDA), a legacy institution of the late Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Dato Hussein was formed to spearhead Malay's entry into urban property ownership.

Though UDA is no more the agency it was before and the power of UDA was curtailed for it's own reasons, the objective remained. UDA has listed one of it's subsidiary, UDA Holding for fund raising purpose.

Nurjazlan was in the news last Monday in The Star's Business column to explain his dilemma. That column seemed to help prepare the ground for potential controversy in his decision to sub-contract the project to a China company. It triggered a property developer friend to comment.

His inclination towards neo-liberalism is obvious. And it is also obvious that he is a Melayu Liberal and typically is indifferent to national building aspirations.

It only enhance the stigma that Melayu Liberal are nothing more than the lazy native version of the liberalism movement that have moved its rights and freedom mindset from political liberalism to economic liberalism.

That thinking and attitude is not the way for a future leader.

Excuse of a Defiant

The Star's Business column article below:

Monday May 14, 2012

UDA’s dilemma on Pudu Jail project

It needs to follow directive but also needs to consider the best deal for the project

By JAGDEV SINGH SIDHU
jagdev@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: UDA Holdings Bhd is still evaluating proposals of all parties for the redevelopment of its Pudu Jail land and wants the preferred bid to be the one that is in its best commercial interest.

Even though the board has approved the proposal by Everbright International Construction Engineering Corp last year, the Finance Ministry (MOF) has directed UDA not to consider the company and instructed UDA to prepare a masterplan based on parcelling the land into three.

A special committee formed by UDA's board has included the development model proposed by Everbright in its evaluation to ensure that UDA's long-term commercial interests are protected.

On protecting bumiputra interest, UDA, under the Everbright proposal, will own a significant portion of the assets in the project and will ensure bumiputra contractors will be given the opportunity to participate in all stages from consulting, construction and retail space

Chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed said the committee was at the initial stages of developing the masterplan but early indications were that the development model proposed by Everbright gave the best returns to UDA .

“On a commercial basis, Everbright's proposal is the best because it will develop the land as one piece. If the land is cut into three parcels, you know you will lose the value of the land,” he told StarBiz in an interview.

“But we have not come to a conclusion yet.”

MOF has asked UDA to divide the land into three one is for a bumiputra controlled party, another by a bumiputra company in a joint venture with others and the third parcel is open to a non-bumiputra company.


Under Everbright's proposal, the China company will fund the entire development of the land that has been called Bukit Bintang City Centre (BCCC). Its proposal comes with a committed funding of US$1bil and Everbright will take the construction and financing risk, build a contiguous retail space of 2 million sq ft, a car park and a convention centre and hand it over to UDA.

All that time, UDA will retain control of the land and Everbright will, after handing over the assets UDA needs in four years, develop its own properties on the land at its own pace.

Given the amount of commercial space that is planned in Kuala Lumpur, Everbright will have the muscle and foreign connection to handle the flood of floor space that will come on stream in the next few years.

The best option so far for the bumiputra developer will see UDA take on a lot of the risk Everbright is willing to shoulder. UDA, together with the bumiputra developer, must secure the funding for developing the project, which will lower the returns it will obtain.

That means the property will have to be injected into a special purpose vehicle and the ownership of the land will be charged to a bank to get the funding.

The land will have to be charged to the bank in order to raise the funding since UDA does not have the cash to fund the multi-billion ringgit project,

That will translate into lower earnings for UDA compared with the proposal by Everbright.

Furthermore, the floor space it will have to lease out to retailers once the project is completed under the parcelled-out proposal will also be smaller as the land would have been sub-divided among three different developers.

Nur Jazlan said the proposal by Everbright would mean that UDA stands to receive RM300mil to RM400mil a year in income from its property at BCCC, which is essential for a company that has just 400 arces that can be developed.

“The best solution is for UDA to have enough retail space to allow it to earn substantial recurring income to continue to have money to acquire land and grow as a developer.

“What is UDA's long term future and the Puda Jail land provides the only hope for UDA where if developed properly, UDA can get the right quality assets that can give it recurring income.

“That's why the decision on the Puda Jail land is not a normal decision. We need to develop the right quality assets to give us the recurring income for us to have a future,” he said.

Shopping centres need to be of a big size to attract the traffic to be successful. He said the retail space at the Puda Jail land will require a contiguous space in order to compete against the like of Pavilion and Mid Valley Megamall.

If the carved out proposal gives UDA retail space in three separate locations, Nur Jazlan said it would be hard to attract retailers and shoppers to the retail parts of the development.

“If it is not integrated, it will be hard to attract people. We won't achieve the rental yields.”

Nur Jazlan said the Government had not pumped money into UDA after it got listed in the 1990s and he did not think it would do so in the future. UDA has been asking for more land since it has been privatised but has yet to be allocated any.

Nur Jazlan said it was also easier to stratify the assets if the property was built by a single developer.

“It will be a problem if the land was parcelled out as you will be dealing with three different parties,” he said.

Nur Jazlan said it would not be easier to REIT out at a later date if the assets were jumbled up with different developers. - The Star

Sulking Tok Mat family


The article actually reflects Nurjazlan's stubbornness and defiance towards his superior, the Minister of Finance cum the Prime Minister himself. Such discussion on something undecided should not have been disclosed and made open.

More so, if Nurjazlan intend to negotiate. The Prime Minister Office would need to do some prepping.

Such action is not wise but reflects his immaturity. Instead of being a Chairman appointed by the Government to carry out Government policy, his behaviour is that of a sulking spoilt brat wanting things his way without respect for protocal and decorum and being indifferent to nation's agenda.


This reminded us of his late father, Tan Sri Mohamad Rahmat who have been sulking for several years before he passed away.

He wrote a book to criticise his former boss because he privately claimed he should be rewarded for his so-called "sacrifices" to the party and nation and was openly disappointed with Dr Mahathir's decision to sack him.

Don't accuse us of attacking the indefensible dead, because the same was said when he was alive but decided to ignore blogger like us as insignificant.

Sacrifice is sacrifice, thus there is no reward for sacrifice. There is only gratitude of others towards the person.

For that matter, Tok Mat and Nurjazlan owe Dr Mahathir gratitude for giving his floundering political career a second chance. It is ridiculous for him to not accept the termination of his political career.

Since Tok Mat's death, Nurjazlan have been expressing vengence against Dr Mahathir within his closed circle.

But Nurjazlan's sulking did not end there. He has problem with his Division too. He claimed the Division's office building as his family's. On the other hand, there are those that claimed his father donated it to UMNO.

It could well be Nurjazlan's way of threatening the Division against challenges against him. Keep him as head of Division or UMNO Pulai will be homeless.

Dependent Mentality

Returning back to Nurjazlan's tantrum in The Star, our friend, whose held various levels of management position in many property development companies, including public listed ones questioned Nurjazlan's view and attitude.

Unlike Nurjazlan who rose to be Director of PLCs and Head of pulai UMNO Division by virtue of his father, our friend is well grounded in experience and rose out of his own effort and hardwork.

He found Nurjazlan's view to be bewildering and surprised that he could oppose to the Ministry's clear directive against preferring a China company to develop the former Pudu Prison land, to be known as Bukit Bintang City Centre (BBCC).

The nation building agenda and benefit for UDA Holding to give priority to Malaysian companies to develop is obvious and does not need elaboration.

Such statement and excuse should not have come from the Chairman of an establised property development company or a development agency with history that spans many decades more than many other active property developers within the industry.

UDA Holding was given the land, not just to be landowner but to play many other strategic roles in developing and contributing to nation building.

In his view, Nurjazlan was doing the lazy way of acting like a broker of development land. Not only are UMNO politicians being generally perceived as "broker" for quick gains, so-called educated Nurjazlan is playing the same embarassing role in his capacity as Chairman of UDA Holding.

Thus, what is the point of appointing him for his so-called experiance as Executive Director of UM Land Berhad?

By sub-developing it to Everbright of China, UDA Holding does not contribute any resources - be it money or expertise or management - into the development of the valuable large piece of urban land. Other than quick and safe monetary gain, it does not contribute to the future company capacity and capability. Neither does it benefit the local industry or serve any economic role the development was set out to do.

If UDA has nothing to add and contribute but only seek to own "some' of the property for free by riding on it's Bumiputera status and GLC ownership, it shows UDA has not gained and progressed from the years they developed the land plot which sits Sg Way Shopping Complex and Bukit Bintang Plaza.

Our friend felt that the Government should not give the land to UDA Holding to develop in the first place. The land should be given to other property developers in Malaysia who has the right attitude and aptitude to develop it themselves.

By Nurjazlan's talking of development risk in developing one of the last big piece of Government land in Kuala Lumpur City Centre, it shows Nurjazlan to be an unreasonably risk averse and incompetent.

Given the chance to other property developers, they would just grab it without making much fuzz and ludicrous complain of Government not pumping money to UDA since 1990s since it's listing.

All other GLC property development companies are not financially supported and aided to develop their land.

Lazy Melayu Liberals

As a public listed company, UDA Holding need to make reasonable return for it's shareholders.

On the other hand as Nurjazlan should be aware, if he has been keeping track with Government policies since Tun Abdullah Badawi's days, UDA was assigned more social obligation role, thus for oppurtunity to get the development right to the valuable land.

Nurjazlan should have known of this as he cannot argue that he is only serving the interest of shareholders. Even on that argument, the controlling shareholders of UDA Holding is the Government.

Off late, attitude like Nurjazlan seems to be spreading among many other GLC property development companies. Yet the CEOs are paid millions in salary and perks.

If not, why would UEM be doing JV with Sunrise to develop it's land? So is the case of Sime Darby taking over E&O and allowing existing management to continue to manage.

Also the case with PNB controlling intrest in SP Setia. There is a believe that TTDI was doing something similar.

The common factor in all these one can observe is the "Melayu" GLCs giving management control to "Cina" property development companies. But this is not another Malay versus Chinese rivalry but the issue of lazy natives taking the easy way out and doing nothing.

One wonders why the Malays being given position to do things are lazy at dirtying their hands. Might as well change this Melayus.

In the midst of neoliberalism ideas pervading the younger generation and penetrating Government thinking, as in the claim they do not need affirmative actions, what has happened?

Nurjazlan also used to make such bold claims.

The Melayu Liberal wants to think and preach along the Adam Smith of the world but being "given" a land to develop, they behave like the pro-affirmative action Malay asking for handouts.

At least, the tongkat Melayu wants to do something, wants to get out of the tongkat dependence and wants to see the Malay be at par with the other races and preparing to stop needing tongkats.

The Melayu Liberal advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions, no barriers, no tariffs, they said; free trade, meritocrasy and nature (another term for competition as once said by Tan Sri Azman Mokhtar) is the best way for a nation's economy to move forward and the Malays to develop.

In this and many cases, the Melayu Liberals are not as independent as one is led to believe they are.

Now it seems the liberal ideas of freedom and rights in politics and individualism in "free" enterprise, in "free" competition are merely being applied by Melayu Liberals for the capitalist's pursuit to feather their own nest as they wish without consideration for fairplay and the nation in mind.

Looking at the proponents of neo-liberalism amongst Malays like the Tingkat 4s, the Khairys (Air Asia, ECM Libra, etc), the ISIS, the Ethos Consultings, the Khazanahs, the GLCs, and last but not least, the Nurjazlans, neo-liberalism for these Melayu Liberals is only about easy money without responsibility and hardwork.

The Melayu Liberals are justifying their commission taking or bribery practices, lazy ways to refuse dirtying their hands, unashamedly abuse of power and self serving agenda behind pro-globalisation neoliberalism ideology.

And it is not because Nurjazlan is only half Malay.

The problem is that many Malay leaders, from both side of the political divide, bought the idea hook, line and sinker, without understanding its destructiveness.

* Edited 7:20 AM 17/5/2012

MUSICAL INTERLUDE: Mother by Pink Floyd, The Wall

Mother do you think they'll drop the bomb
Mother do you think they'll like the song
Mother do you think they'll try to break my balls
Ooooh aah, Mother should I build a wall

Mother should I run for president
Mother should I trust the government
Mother will they put me in the firing line
Ooooh aah, is it just a waste of time

Hush now baby, baby don't you cry
Mama's gonna make all of your
Nightmares come true
Mama's gonna put all of her fears into you
Mama's gonna keep you right here
Under her wing
she won't let you fly but she might let you sing
Mama will keep baby cosy and warm
Ooooh Babe Ooooh Babe Ooooh Babe
Of course Mama's gonna help build the wall

Mother do think she's good enough for me
Mother do think she's dangerous to me
Mother will she tear your little boy apart
Oooh aah, mother will she break my heart

Hush now baby, baby don't you cry
Mama's gonna check out all your girl friends for you
Mama won't let anyone dirty get through
Mama's gonna wait up till you get in
Mama will always find out where
You've been
Mamma's gonna keep baby healthy and clean
Ooooh Babe Ooooh Babe Ooooh Babe
You'll always be a baby to me
Mother, did it need to be so high.

Myth 6: Saifuddin allegation and Saifuddin view

Somehow or rather, anyone with a pre-fix Saifu- in his name seemed to fail our expectation.

Saifullah should mean the sword of Allah but the one we encounter do not fight the cause of Allah but pick a fight for his own ego. While, Saifuddin should mean the sword of the faith but the two political leaders of such names don't seem to even attempt to replicate the prophet's qualities; Siddiq (truth), Amanah (honest), Tabligh (propagate) and Fatanah (wisdom).

PKR's Saifuddin Nasution is a foreign trained propagandist and part of the trio of compulsive liars; namely himself, Rafizi Ramli and Zuraidah Kamaruddin under the guidance of their Great Teacher Anwar Ibrahim and his most trusted Pupil, Azmin Ali.

While, UMNO's Deputy Minister for Higher Education, Dato Saifuddin Abdullah aspire to be honest and propagate his thoughts but is lost in his own perception of truth and scarcely lacking wisdom.

The analysis of this character answers the last few myths or spins of Bersih 3.0

Alleged UMNO Membership

Saifuddin Nasution is both Secretary General and member of the trio of spinmasters or in plain words, liars for PKR. The other members being PKR's Director of Strategy, Rafizi Ramli and Wanita PKR head, Zuraidah Kamaruddin.

Rafizi is infamous for his revelation of NFC, thanks to the leak and photocopied documents by former Accountant and claimed DAP member, Danny Tan (we believed is his name.)

Zuraidah is known for shooting her own feet with her so-called exposes. She is facing Zahida Rafik's lawsuit and could have faced more such defamation lawsuits. However, she is the odd member of the trio, whose only qualification is her loyalty to Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali.

That spinmaster role is usually slotted by PKR's Communication Director but Nik Nazmi has gone AWOL and some say sulking for some three months. Hope it is not one of those lover's quarrel because posterior is not Nik Nazmi's best asset.


Few days before Bersih 3.0, on April 26th precisely, Sinar Harian published a revelation by Saifuddin allegedly claiming Electoral Commission (EC) Chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Mohd Yusof and his Deputy, Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar are UMNO members.

There is no rule against EC's Chairman and Deputy Chairman being members but not office bearers of political parties. Nevertheless, it will be deemed a conflict of interest by the public, if they were.

Saifuddin alleged that Tan Sri Aziz is a member of the Ampang UMNO Division and Datuk Wan Ahmad with claimed NRIC no. 490101-03-5179 and old NRIC number 2756290 is a member of Kubang Bunggor UMNO branch under the Pasir Mas Kelantan Division.

Stunt by such revelation, Tan Sri Aziz responded to say honestly that he couldn't recall ever filling up any UMNO membership form. It is a cautious statement in case someone may have fabricate his signature to fill-up a form for him.

It was a well set trap for a propaganda. Honestly it is not easy recalling some happening more than 30 years ago. Tan Sri was caught and PKR seize on it to turn it into a propaganda for the ceramah planned everywhere on the eve of Bersih 3.0.

Propaganda means highlighting the negative of the opponent and downplaying the positive of the opponent. But the two are not their political opponent. It does not matter to PKR's scorch earth politics of hatred.

EC is part of the many institutions of Government being systematically attacked as part of their long term strategy to weaken the ruling party. In their hypothesis, institutions of Government exist to sustain Barisan Nasional.

While the crowd were rowdily jeering the police and shoving police vehicle near Dataran Merdeka on the eve of Bersih 3.0, the ceramah in the housing areas were trying to attract more crowd by provoking them with this allegation that EC Chairman and Deputy Chairman are UMNO members.

Brilliant but conceited.

The truth

The blogs had responded within 24 hours to deny the claims and even had details to dispute the allegations. But, the newspapers were either not confident enough or insidiously went along to perpetuate the lie by doing nothing on the details published in the blogs.

That lie went on for a week till Agendadaily got the attention of everyone with their accurate data on May 7th [read here].

True, there was an UMNO member by the name of Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof in UMNO Daisy Branch, Putrajaya.

However, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz never lived in Putrajaya. He lived for quite a long time in Taman Seri Ampang and was an active member of his nearby Surau Al Falah but never was he an UMNO member there. Did the MP of Ampang, Zuraidah's people presumed he was an UMNO member?

Not only that, neither did Tan Sri Abdul Aziz signed up as UMNO member in his other previous residences in Segambut, Kg Nakhoda in Selayang and Government Quarters of Jalan Guillemard. Nor did he in his current residence in Shah Alam.

It turned out the Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof as alleged by Saifuddin is a driver at the Prime Minister's Office. UMNO Head Office confirmed that both Tan Sri Abd Aziz and Datuk Wan Ahmad are not UMNO members.

Unfortunately, the damage is done. By breaking the news two days before event and subsequently spreading it via SMS, ceramah and social media, it has spread by words of mouth and gone viral.

The lie perpetuated is difficult to neutralised. It is compunded further by the reluctance of members and supporters of the opposition to read or hear news from mainstream and pro-Govenment media.

Saifuddin has ungentlemenly refused to apologise to both Tan Sri Abdul Aziz and Datuk Wan Ahmad. This makes it more difficult for them to clean their name. The untrue will continue to be propagated.

In months ahead during the general election, some yokos in a makeshift warong in some village, traditional or new, will claim that the EC Chairman and Deputy Chairman are UMNO members.

Perhaps that is what Saifuddin wants. But that is not fair. Neither it is just. No wonder PKR is dubbed as Parti Kelentong Rakyat.

Tan Sri Abdul Aziz and Datuk Wan Ahmad will only be viewed as collateral damage in their quest for power. They could seek damages in court. But if they do so, it will be spinned as siding with UMNO.

It is really unfair for politicians to victimise non-politicians or non-political players like Tan Sri Aziz, Datuk Wan and Zahida Rafik in their politics.

Just as it is as much unfair for politicians and political players to take their political game outside the political playground into court rooms.

Dumb new politics

Now on the other disappointing Saifuddin.

The Deputy Minister for Higher Education, Dato Saifuddin seems to be another Anwar Ibrahim.

This is not because he studied in MCKK like Anwar, or was a former protege of Anwar Ibrahim in the youth movement, or don't seemed to be seen on the Internet with any other ties than Anwar Ibrahim's Wednesday tie.

His "new politics", which happens to be the topic of his book, reminds one of Anwar Ibrahim as an UMNO politician. He comes out as a sore thumb then with his Islamist image.

Quietly, his liberal side emerged to appease the UMNO not used to his version of Islamic agenda. Before the demise of his UMNO politics, Anwar was already dancing dangdut, wearing Zegna suits, having mistresses and sodomising boys.

Most prominent today, Anwar's liberalism has taken over to the very extreme that he supports the security of Israel but falls short to agree for diplomatic relation.

As for Saifuddin, neither did we read his book nor does he has the standing to interest us to do so. But if we read Saifuddin correctly, he is in the same situation as Anwar Ibrahim but dare to stick out as a sore thumb.

He claimed bloggers or pro-UMNO bloggers are too dumb to understand "new politics." Perhaps he is insinuating that pro-Pakatan bloggers understand "new politics." However, he doesn't get it that his "new politics" is actually nothing new. The dynamics may differ from the past, but it is old politics in the west.

One wonders if he know enough of the practices of western democracy or he know only it's academic theory and background? Has he ever lived abroad for sufficient number of years to actually experience western democracy?

With his inability to hold himself together in the midst of criticism on his actions, which are unbecoming of a member of the cabinet, he himself has not adapted to the temperament of a western politicians.

Looks like he is merely doing copy and paste without appreciating that western democrasy undergo it's own natural evolution from their Judeo-Christian cultural background and history.


If Saifuddin understand "new politics", he would not condone the rude act of students bringing down the flag with Najib's face while protesting against UMNO at UMNO's home, the Putra World Trade Center.

And he should understand that there is still honour in "new politics." He should have not dishonour and ridicule himself to accept the protest on behalf of UMNO. He has no authorisation to represent UMNO. That role is supposed to go to the Secretary General or failing which, the Executive Secretary will accept on his behalf.

A Deputy Minister and member of UMNO Supreme Council should understand basic protocol. Or perhaps his fascination with his so-called "new politics" that there are no more need for formality, protocol and decorum.

Then we sure like to call him merely as Pudin only. He should realise that he has no significant role as Deputy Minister but merely fulfilling ceremonies.

In western democracy, especially in Britain, they behave appropriately and respect and adhere to protocol, though it seemed to be more casual in US. They are open to criticism. And they accept and counter criticism with panache and are witty in their reply.

Mr Abdullah old chap, you're still a Malay boy from Temerloh and hardly comes out as a British gentlemen. Well you may be an old boy but only from Sekolah Melayu Jalan Stesyen.

Prejudice against police

As Deputy Minister of Higher Education, Saifuddin has a strange tolerance for opposition centric students that comes with an aversion against pro Government students. It goes to the extent that in Gua Musang during the Galas by-election, he questioned and warned police against charging student-member of GAMIS caught participating in partisan politics outside campus.

In the recent anti-PTPTN demonstration, Saifuddin was quiet as a mouse. He did not comment n the students' irresponsible behaviour for neglecting their main responsibility to their academic pursuit. It is heard that he encouraged and behind the scene helped this law breaking students.

As a member of the Cabinet, he is contravening with the policies of his own Government and the Government lead by his own political party.

Off course, there is room for dissenting voices but as a party member with position in the party and Government, his has access and channels to express his views or in local political parlance, use proper channel.

If he wish to voice it loudly and openly, he should be a mere backbencher or a normal members. Even backbencher MPs is subjected to the Chief Whip.

As on numerous occasions, Saifuddin made the following comment outside his purview and this time against police handling of Bersih 3.0 as reported by the News Straits Times below:


Who is he to make such comment against the police? Does he understand the ramification of his comment? Is he listening to only one side of the story like the case with students or did he get the true picture?

One thing for sure he was not there at the demonstration.

This time around he commented on the appointment of Tun Hanif Omar as Chairman of Independent Panel probe allegation of police violence during Bersih 3.0 which is not under his Ministry but the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Saifuddin commented that Tun Hanif's appointment as Chairman as inappropriate, however he claimed it alright for him to be a panel member.

As a member of Government, again he keep shooting his mouth where he is not required. On another aspect, his comment seemed prejudicial in the light of his earlier comment in News Straits Times?

Doesn't it reflect his intention to lend a helping hand to save his deviant students like he did in Gua Musang last year?

If he is so inclined towards the opposition, he may as well do so to join Anwar Ibrahim in PKR. He will not be a loss to Barisan Nasional in Temerloh.

In fact, he is a liability to Barisan Nasional in defending the Temerloh seat. Till few weeks ago in our last 'makan' trip to Temerloh, our well grounded source still believe our regular fishmonger for Patin fish is a more winnable candidate than Saifuddin.

Independent Panel

Saifuddin's reservation seemed fashionably consistent with that of the opposition members and opposition-bias National Union of Journalist and Bar Council (if we are not mistaken). They express the same reservation to Tun Hanif's appointment and cited his comment to describe Bersih 3.0 as a potential security problem.


As oppose to the view of the opposition, having Tun Hanif on the panel provide the police perspective as input.

If the journalists is represented by two members from the journalist community; the legal adviser to Sin Chew Jit Poh, Liew Peng Chuan, one of the complainant and Managing Director of the opposition tolerant newspaper, Sinar Harian, Datuk Hishamuddin Yaacob, the police is represented by only one and only a former policemen.

Tun Hanif's presence as Chairman will be counterbalanced by the two members from the Journalist community.

There is nothing deficiently wrong to appoint him there. Tun Hanif is both an illustrious and fair-minded former Inspector General of Police. In 2004-2005, he was a member of the Commission to improve the operation and administration of the police.

And he is still well versed on security matters.

Someone from the opposition suggested bringing in someone from the United Nations. Perhaps the intention is to get a foreign, independent and international perspective.

The last time Anwar Ibrahim made any similar claim for Bersih 3.0, he brought in Nicholas Xenophony from Australia who does not fit the fair-minded description and those with him made stupid and irrelevant remarks.

Perhaps the opposition wish to claim Bar Council as independence. The Bar Council is under heavy shelling from within and without the bar itself.

How about a representative from either the London Metropoliton Police or the New York Police Department, two organisation most conversant with riot control? That should balance the police number in the Panel.

They will find PDRM too soft on the demonstrators. Part of their modus operandi involves use of force to weaken the resolve and the spirit of the demonstrators. In other words, scare the shit out of them.

None of the victims of the claimed brutality video have come forward to show they were badly injured from the abuse as what had happened to the police.

All these request from these anarchist and participants of Bersih 3.0 should not be entertained. Otherwise, they will turn it into another circus like the Teoh Beng Hock, Sarbaini and Kugan death enquiries.

The panel is quite balance. Term of reference is clear. The finding has to be a consensual agreement between all of them.

On that matter, Hishamuddin should remove Sin Chew's lawyer. He will disrupt consensual decision.

If we had it our way, we will not bother with this probe. It will be turned into a scene to nit pick on police with nothing substantive. Why must the probe be on police? Why not on the lawbreakers?

Just ignore Anwar Ibrahim's comment and Bersih's demands. Bersih 3.0 is a lost cause for them and they are trying salvage some lost pride. Don't give these anarchist and propagandists that second chance.

That include the Saifuddins.

Myth 5: Anwar's claimed 300,000

A fake picture of Bersih 3.0

Anwar Ibrahim claimed the attendance for Bersih 3.0 was 300,000. Raja Petra Kamaruddin wrote that it could be 250,000 or 200,000 or 150,000 or 100,000.

One thing we learned of opposition's estimate is that their announced number tend to be a multiplication of ten by the estimated number.

On the night of Black 14 gathering on April 14, 2008 at Kelab Sultan Sulaiman, Anwar proclaimed to the crowd that the gathering that night was 15,000. We were there pretending to go along screaming, "Reformasi! Takbir! Suara Rakyat, Suara Keramat!"

One old hand at estimating crowd responded, "Nak mampus 15,000?"

His estimate was only 1,500. He explained that at full capacity the field, a football field can only take up 2,000. The crowd was only pack in front but generally sparce behind. It could be as low as 1,200.

Back to Bersih 3.0, Al Jazeera only placed it at 25,000. And immediately, they were accused as pandering to the Government censorship. Wonder what BBC estimated since they admitted being censored by Government.

Most pro-Government media or blogs put the number at between 25,000 to 35,000.

Still nevertheless a credible number than Bersih 2.0 which was around 7-8,000. Opps ... one can hear the Bersih 2.0 demonstraters, that was soaked by the water cannon, claiming the moving crowd was 25,000.

Avoiding Stadium

When Bersih 2.0 requested for Stadium Merdeka, initially the authorities were reluctant. Then Prime Minister, Dato Najib called their bluff and offered Stadium Merdeka.

Everyone was too consumed then to call Najib flip flop but most forgot to play up the fact that Anwar and Ambiga decay on their demand. They wanted the streets for it's dynamics, as PAS Member of Parliament, Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad described.

This time the Government offered Stadium Merdeka and they refused. They were determine to invade Dataran Merdeka. Why?

Forget the thought of repeating of Tahrir Square here. Marina Mahathir refuse to think there was such an intention. Clever and informative ... maybe lurus bendul (innocent straight arrow) would be more correct description.

The reason is by having it in a Stadium, it will be a daunting task on their part to fill it. Otherwise it looks barren and embarrassing.


See the picture above of PAS's Solat Hajat program in a closed Stadium in Shah Alam. Imagine how much of the seats were taken up during the ceramah session later. One blogger attending it did an estimated headcount of only 3-4,000.

Another reason is that by having it in a stadium, where most are usually seated and quite stationary, it is easy to estimate the crowd. So they can't spin to claim the crowd to be as much as 100,000 to 300,000.


If Bersih 3.0 was held it in accordance with the Peaceful Assembly Act in Stadium Merdeka and filled to the brim (off course, stadium authority will not allow the crowd to step on the grass), the full capacity is 45,000.

Can Bersih 3.0 crowd fill-up Stadium Merdeka?

Anwar claimed before the event that there will be 500,000 coming. Then he must need a bigger stadium. It will be a great propaganda to have a standing room only event with crowds spilling over into the Stadium parking lots.

He should have taken either the Shah Alam Stadium or the National Stadium Bukit Jalil.


Shah Alam Stadium is a multi-purpose stadium located in Shah Alam, Malaysia. It is used mostly for football matches but also has facilities for athletics. The stadium is the home of Selangor FA, and has a capacity of 80,000.


While the full capacity of National Stadium Bukit Jalil is 100,000. The Bukit Jalil's capacity makes it the 25th largest stadium in the world and the 9th largest football stadium in the world. It is also the largest stadium in Southeast Asia.

The dynamic are all there but Anwar refused. Why?

Frankly, deep inside Anwar he knows he can't fill it up. It is a daunting task to do so within few weeks of preparations. Usually, only sporting or entertainment event can fill up a stadium with such crowd.

M Nasir held a concert in Stadium Merdeka and he can't fill it up.

Street Estimate

The game of numbers is then a question of my estimate against your estimate. Did they estimated it well?

While we were moving around, at Bangsar Putra Station, we over heard a chap claiming he saw the crowd around Dataran Merdeka as 100,000.

Did he see it from above or while standing in the pack crowd at street level? If at street level, then it is unreliable.

Let us prove it. See this picture below.


Just with your eyes, make a quick guess. 3,000? 5,000?


We've made a hypothetical box and did an estimated headcount. It is only 260 people. Supposed the crowd in the picture filled up 2 and half boxes, that is only 650 people.

Now this picture below is zoomed from a higher elevation.


Anybody wanna guess 10,000 for this crowd?

Well ... far from it!


We've done simple drawing of boxes on the crowd and one of the box gives a headcount of 120 people. That crowd only fit into about 26 boxes to give an estimated crowd of only 3,120 people.

Realised the untrained eyes can be deceiving.

Below is another one.


One opposition blog claimed this crowd marching from Jalan Sultan was 15,000 strong.

Really?


By zooming and doing headcount on one of the section and multiply by 7 sections, it is only 1,820 people. Supposed we are about 20% off in our estimate, adding that back still only increase the total to 2,184 or round off as 2,200.

There were 6 gathering points.

Supposed each gathering point managed to gather between 1,800 to 3,000 people. We then take the mid-point of 2,400. Can the total number of people gathering from the six gathering points as only 14,400?

It can't be! That's too little.

Okay we make that 15,000 and add another 5,000 of crowd slipping in from all over. That is still 20,000.

Tell us from these pictures of almost the majority of crowd already gathering that there are crowd more than 25-35,000?

Ask yourself, if the crowd can fill up Shah Alam Stadium or National Stadium Bukit Jalil? It is definitely not in the hundreds of thousand.

At best it can fill up Stadium Merdeka but not up to the top terraces.

The point is ones visual estimate is not reliable. Without aerial photos of the crowd at a particular time and familiarity with doing aerial estimates, your guess is as good as mine.

What if we say an expert gave us the number at 35,400? Is it believable now?

Myth 4: FIght for electoral reform?

Ambiga claimed Bersih 3.0 is a people movement for electoral reform. It is not a people organisation but partisan motivated.

Neither was it genuinely about electoral reform. It is about regime change and the regime chaneg will be by undemocratic means and with foreign subversive forces that are no more covert.

If it really about electoral reform, it does not matter where Bersih 3.0 will hold it's rally as long as they get the media coverage. The important point is to get the message through.

Bersih 2.0 wanted Stadium Merdeka but strangely Bersih 3.0 refused the offered Stadium Merdeka as venue.

Electoral reform?

If Bersih 3.0 is a people movement, as claimed by Ambiga, it is supposed to be driven by NGOs. Ambiga claimed to be supported by 81 NGOs but 61 NGOs are not registered organisations.

It is supported by fly-by-night organisation which are propably the same people with the organising committee members and those 10 registered NGOs.

If it is a people movement, it must be apolitical.

True, Ambiga call on both side of the political divide to help her cause for electoral reform but her's and demonstraters call, chant and rhetorics in their speech are anti-Barisan Nasional.

Benji Lim openly raised in Anwar Ibrahim's press conference that Bersih 3.0 was hijacked by opposition politicians and he could response properly and threw him out.

Ambiga responded by claiming ignorance and said she will look into it. But, she went around during the demonstration protected by Unit Amal.

Who is she trying to fool? Unit Amal is synonymous with PAS for purpose of demonstrations.

From the first Bersih in 2008, the ownership of Bersih is with PAS's Mat Sabu. He remained to play a major role to lead the PAS crowd gathering at Masjid Negara.

Apolitical, my foot!!!

Barisan Nasional could not support Bersih 3.0 for many legitimate reasons and Pakatan Rakyat should not have supported them too.

Subsequent to Bersih 2.0, Barisan Nasional conceded to look into the electoral reform demands. A Parlimentary Select Committee of 3 BN MP, 3 Pakatan MP and 1 Bebas MP was formed. All issues and suggestions from all parties were looked into.

Out of 8 issues raised in Bersih and Bersih 2.0, seven were addressed. Strangely, Bersih 3.0 demanded the same 8 issues. They are not thinking this time, are they?

The single request rejected was the 21 days campaign period. Why would they need 21 days when they hold ceramah non-stop since 9th March 2008, a day after the 2008 general election?

Too much politicking and campaigning only raise public temperature. Politicians can take the exchanges but the public will turn emotional and a similar 21 days campaign resulted in 13 May 1969. It is no threat but fact.

Back to the Bersih 2.0 demands, Pakatan Rakyat MPs were together in PSC helping to draft the proposal for Parliament to approve.

However, they decide to make an issue of the electoral roll to justify holding another Bersih demonstration. They claim they are more than 42,000 unknown names in the electoral roll. The issue can be long and winded to discuss but it is already off the list.

EC claim that the onus to up-date the electoral roll falls on the voter. Ambiga and Pakatan MPs and leaders conveniently in unison, insist EC should do it. EC would only do so if empowered by law.

Like was mentioned earlier, it is a long and winded.

The long and short of it is without an IC, one cannot vote. Given that there could be errors in the electoral roll. Voters need to produce IC to vote. No one can have two IC.

Suppose because of human error, former servicemen and former police are regitered at two different places under two different ICs. They cannot have two ICs. One IC has to be returned before they can get their civilian IC.

Nevertheless, the PSC, which was represented by both side of the political divide, instructed the EC to clean-up the electoral roll and have given them a certain time frame.

That time frame has not expired but Bersih 3.0 already marched and clashed with police on April 28th, 2012.

Off course, as a lawyer, Ambiga has her reason or excuse or "legitimate basis", to do so. She said she does not want to deal with EC, who are civil servants or peon as many of the Bersih 3.0 demonstraters call them.

She claimed she wants to deal with politicians. And she has not engage with EC since the last Bersih 2.0. But the politicians have already taken actions. Naturally, her answer is she does not agree and dispute their actions.

Obviously, Ambiga is talking like a politicians, an opposition politician. She have criticised UMNO on many occasions. She does not want a solution except her own and do not believe in the process of democrasy unless the minority gets they way.

Our message to her is run for election and make sure her party of choice run the country. Another important point she need to understand in realpolitik is that she must have influence in her political party of choice in order to get things her way.

As the coalition party leading the Government, Barisan Nasional have give their trust to the civil servants.

As a party that understand governing, after having lead the country for more than 60 years, BN understand that the implementation of policies or court decisions or Parliamentary approvals are done by civil servants.

The independent party that is empowered by the Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Dipertuan Agong to administer the election is EC. The EC is also within the system of Government.

It can be concluded that Ambiga and the opposition never had any intention for a electoral reform. They were using it to cause a riot.

If one notice, Bersih, in particular the first Bersih and Bersih 3.0 had other agenda attached to it. It was only about having clashes with the police. That way it serves the purpose to paint a bad picture of police and Government.

Indirectly, the ruling party gets the blame and bad rap. That is the dirty politics that Bersih 3.0 it self is against. Same with spinning accusation and slander without facts and spreading it all over.

It's regime change

The Mole had written a summary to explain the real motive of Bersih 3.0 entitled "Bersih, a US tool for regime change?"Indeed, that is what it is all about and Tun Dr Mahathir have said it already before.

The article below:

-------------------------

KUALA LUMPUR: As ties between Bersih and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) affiliated with the US government are brought out into the open, concerns about such organisations and their ties to Malaysia's opposition coalition have at least one journalist examining just how apolitical Bersih really is.

Writing for Montreal-based website Global Research on April 29, Nile Bowie highlighted the support given to both Bersih and Pakatan Rakyat by various American NGOs, and said, “While concern over electoral corruption and the various legitimate grievances of Bersih supporters may be entirely justified, the coalition’s association with opposition political parties and groups financed by the United States government suggests subversion.”

Bowie pointed out an admission by Bersih chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan last year that the coalition had received funding from the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the Open Society Institute (OSI). Bowie also highlighted a New York Times article about US funding of the “Arab Spring”, saying it “reveals organisations such as the National Democratic Institute receive funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a recipient of funds directly from the US Congress.”

“The Bersih Coalition has also received support from the US-based Freedom House, an NGO that receives direct funding from the US State Department,” he said.

Bowie acknowledged warnings by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that foreign NGOs were actively working towards regime change in Malaysia because of the government’s hard line on Israel and criticism of US foreign policy.

In March, Dr Mahathir had highlighted (in his blog here) a crackdown on foreign NGOs by the Egyptian government, and named several groups including NDI, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House, which he said were funded by the US government.

“US intervention in movements to overthrow the governments of countries that do not share its aspirations is quite clear,” Dr Mahathir was said (as reported by The Mole here).

“Of course in Malaysia it is also funding NGOs that are committed to bringing about ‘Regime Change’,” he added.

Dr Mahathir had previously said the US and Israel were supporting Anwar Ibrahim as their “candidate for building a puppet government”.

“For a long time now they have fostered a close relationship with Anwar,” he said.

Shortly after Mahathir wrote about Anwar’s ties to US organisations, Malaysian bloggers highlighted letters which bore Anwar’s signature and which were addressed to the president of the National Endowment for Democracy and also to currency speculator George Soros.

Another blogger (Sel13.com here) said Anwar had connections with the Konrad Adenaeur Foundation (KAF) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), which the blogger said have involved themselves in Malaysia's election process.

The blogger highlighted an Umno press conference during which it was claimed that KAF and NDI "have introduced a 'hate campaign" to antagonise the people against the country's leaders and raise issues that are not relevant. They also do not hesitate to use religious sentiments to arouse feelings of hatred among the people."

"The hate campaign that was born from the ideas and thoughts of KAF and NDI are dangerous and are by nature subversive and subtle," the blogger wrote.

Bowie also highlighted Anwar’s ties to US-funded NGOs.

“Following his stint as Deputy Prime Minister, (Anwar) Ibrahim served as Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, while appearing on the payroll of Dick Cheney’s Foundation for the Future and George Soros’ International Crisis Group,” Bowie said, adding that Anwar had also “served as a panelist at the National Endowment for Democracy's ‘Democracy Award’”.

The close ties between Anwar and Bersih, Bowie said, make the latter anything but apolitical.

“While the demands of the Bersih coalition appear to be coherent and apolitical, the convergence of its leadership with the opposition political establishment provides Anwar Ibrahim and Malaysia's opposition front Pakatan Rakyat with the means to mobilise demonstrators under the benign common cause of ‘clean and fair elections’,” he said.

Bowie said the violence that took place at the recent Bersih rally was bad for both sides, and could ultimately enable the opposition to grab power from the current government.

“As the United States shifts its military focus to the Pacific Region, Anwar Ibrahim’s adherence to western political institutions will likely warrant the continued nurturing of unrest in Malaysia until the opposition successively usurps power,” he said.

-------------------------

Most opposition leaders and supporters would try to swipe aside this foreign link between Anwar Ibrahim, Pakatan Rakyat and foreign-linked local NGOs with these foreign "agencies" as UMNO's hocus pocus politics to scare the voters or in fancier term, UMNO's seige mentality.

The difference with the past is that the Internet have revealed all these links and made it open. One website very dedicated to this cause and for it's incisive research is AIDC. Swiping it aside is all that they can respond. Neither could they dispute it now prove it wrong.

Malaysia's independence is really under siege and the price jewel is the control for the Straits of Malacca.

Wake up, Malaysians. It is no more a case of the boy shouting wolf a bit to many. This time it is no more covert but open. It is a matter of do you wish to believe it or not.

MAS - Air Asia: The chicken and pig joke

Tony F and Kamaruddin Meranun is out. Dato Azman Yahya resigned from the Air Asia board. Supposedly he represents Khazanah's interest.

Rocky Bru here claimed Danny Nanny will eventually leave. So should the CFO and Head of Engineering from Air Asia.

Ahmad Jauhari aka AJ will have a free hand to run MAS. No more nonsense such as CEO for Long Haul and CEO for Short and Medium Haul.

It is obvious. The CEO for Short and Medium is in Tony F's market and truly friendly with him. He is also being given to take charge of aircraft financing, finance, MAS Sdn Bhd, etc. It is an insult to AJ as CEO to be made to look like a puppet.

And AJ, watchout for your sister. The staff are getting annoyed with her.

Big Dog here argued that collaboration is needed to face up to the "open sky" policy. The broad stroke looks fair but the taste has to be in the pudding. However, a series of possible JV mentioned made Syed Akbar here sceptical.

The Mole posed the question: Will the MAS-Air Asia CCF work? There is an old MBA joke from a lawyer classmate related to collaboration ...

The pig and chicken agreed to enter the breakfast business. The pig will supply the bacon and the chicken will supply the egg.

It's a wonderful arrangement. Bacon and egg for breakfast. Both thought they can do well and corner the market.

So they decide to do a Joint-Venture Agreement.

While reading through the draft agreement, the pig realised he will have to sacrifice himself to be made into bacon. The pig raised the issue with the lawyer and the chicken in a meeting.

The lawyer explain, "It's common in a Joint-Venture Agreement. One of you will get slaughtered."

To Mat Diah representing all the MAS Unions seeking input for their meeting with management tomorrow Saturday, be reminded of this joke. AJ wants to regain the trust of the staff. Give him a chance.

But ask what is Air Asia putting in all the planned collaboration, especially Joint Venture. Be wary of them. No "air liur" only. If they have no people, no expertise, no plant and machinery, and what ever, put money where their mouth is or tell Tony F to shut up.

Union should engage regularly with management. Give input and not be interested only on self interest matters. Save the company and the company will be in the capacity to reward you.

Remember that the rakyat that have supported them seek upon them and management to turn MAS around. They want MAS to continue to fly our Malaysian flag with pride. And return MAS back to it's glory days.

Sacrifices have to be done. There are few sacrifices in mind.

First, review the 10% ticket fare.

It is ridiculous that those retired MAS staff, no more working and contributing the company, are still given such privileges. The biggest abusers of this privilege are the former senior management and former members of the Board of Directors.

Look at the picture above of former glamorous but failed CEO Dato Fuad Dahalan in In Focus magazine. He failed as a CEO and destroyed the hope of ever a CEO to come from within MAS.

In the magazine, he gloated of spending much of his retirement traveling abroad. That must be the 10% ticket fare.

Also abusing their status to earn up-grades like buying economy ticket but flying business class or first class are the royals, especially the Negeri Sembilan and Pahang royalties. That should explain where many MAS Managers get their Datukship from. Really no class.

This has to stop. MAS cannot continue such privileges. Neither could they have half price for Government pensioners. They just can't afford it now.

Second, review back the role and cost of maintaining the Adviser. He has to be placed on the sacrificial altar.

Does he have any significant role in MAS? What advise has he given? Answer is none and none.

Tun Abdullah erred in his selection of CEOs and slept in the midst of the Airline Rationalisation Plan that became the root of MAS problem. He gave favourable treatment to Air Asia.

What is his gaji buta salary from MAS? It is heard that MAS had to absorb the cost of renovating his office in Putrajaya. What nonsense?

If he is so recalcitrant to stay on and has no shame, leak the information and let Donald Lim squirm to answer in Parliament. There is no reason to keep this man at all.

Voice it openly!

Third, MAS should not be sacrificed for the wealth accumulation of the Adviser's brother. Or is it the Adviser himself?

MAS should get caterer other than MAS Catering aka Tamadam aka Berahim, so that they have choices to pick to get the best price and product. Airport's KLAS is heard capable of doing that.

Find some loophole in the contract and make them compete. If there is none, use political muscle. Better still, open the book to MACC. The public would like to know.

MAS food service quality have dropped.

If Berahim cannot deliver, let their sales plunge and bleed. Otherwise, sell back to MAS for cheapo.

Forth, review back the outsourcing of IT. The invisible owner is believed to be a member of the board of MAS, that is Dato Azman Yahya.

Sacrifice him.

Make it be known publicly that the former Danaharta Chief had his hand in the cookie jar.

How can something so strategic and important be outsourced? It is like allowing their MIS leaked to outsiders. And it is like exposing the company operation to threat by outside party.

Fifth, review back Danny's new installed accounting system that centralised rather decentralised payment to suppliers and service providers globally.

Gila budak yang tidak ada pengalaman ini!

Does he not think of the consequence of payment to London suppliers having to wait for cheques from Kuala Lumpur?

Sacrifice the system and let him pay back the company from his accumulated salary.

Sixth, heard Panamera Deadwood quit. Good, he abuse his position to travel abroad, offer nothing of value to the organisation and undertaking academic pursuit at company's time, but kept getting promoted.

In MAS, there are lots of incompetent deadwoods taken in from the days of Idris Jala. There are lots of managers only managing 2 to 3 people. Some of these managers have attitude and no heart of human that none wants to be under them.

There senior managers with no managers under them. It is not a surprise to find AGM and GMs with only 20 staff under their authority.

Sacrifice these incompetent managers!

There has to be a certain number of people under a person to be assigned titles, especially those big and fancy titles. Comb through the organisation chart and they should find lots of them.

Seventh, union must sacrifice by cooperating with management to move to KLIA.

There is no two way about it. MAS cannot operate with offices all over the place from Subang to Kelana Jaya, Kuala Lumpur and KLIA.

However, if there is something to be made from Subang property development, MAS or Koperasi MAS must benefit from it.

Eigth, unions must sacrifice to help management to plug loopholes and wastage in the organisation, even how small or how big it is. All will add up.

Work together to cut cost and improve sales.

Union must work hand in hand to give feedback and help management in the running of MAS. No more us versus them attitude. That is colonial mentality.

In the case of corrupt Managers and Management, the union should report them to MACC.

Ninth, Danny had undertake indiscriminate cancellation of services like Middle East hub, Dubai, Buenos Aires and Indonesian points.

It was through hard earned effort to secure routes to Rome and South America via South Africa. The cancellation sacrificed the airline network and gave others the opportunity to fill the void.

Tenth, MAS has to be clear what name will be their battle cry to gather and lead the troop; MAS, Malaysia Airlines or Mas?

It can be costly for the airline to use different names in the same market or different market.

Sound like an idea coming from a boy who doesn't understand business. Sacrifice this idea to the bonfire.

That'll be all for now

The CCF must not mean MAS has to abandon all their plans and not Air Asia. Shell and Exxon can do JV for upstream but they do not close up their gas station for the other to enter.

Why did Khazanah did not pay any attention to MAS internal plans? True that MAS suffered due to lack of leadership and stewardship. Let's be honest, whose fault was it? The staff or the Government-owner? Both?

The Government and leaders had been hoodwinked by Tony Fernandez and his so-called success story that they refuse to hear the true professionals of the Malaysian aviation.

Air Asia was allowed have their way and no proper management team was put in place. Such occurrence must end immediately and the incompetent ones involved packed their bags and get sacrificed.

Up-dated: 11:00 PM

Myth 3: Police brutality

The 28 million population is aghast with the defiance and violence perpetuated by the Bersih 3.0 mob towards the law enforcement agency i.e. the police.

The opposition (and not quite the Bersih 3.0 participants) are in the blame game towards police brutality. The politician and social media propagandist are working overtime in their ceramah circuit and cyber battlefield.

They have got the Bar Council, 'friendly' foreign observer and international media lending their hands to prepare reports to demonise the police. National Union of Journalist (NUJ) are claiming members of the press are being harassed also.

This is the only excuse or weapon left for them. Otherwise, Anwar hope of being Prime Minister in the upcoming general election will be as good as nil. They have made Barisan Nasional ambitious enough to dream of two third majority, though it is still doubtful.

Was it police brutality or law enforcement?

Legally Empowered

As already discussed in previous posting here, The Police Act 1967 Article 27 empowers the police to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions. Article 27 B empowers them to use of force when ordered to disperse, they do not disperse.

The police power comes also under the Federal Constitution. No question over constitutional rights of the police to enforce the law and maintain public order.

The Anwar friendly "independent" foreign observer and Bar Council will likely raise Article 3 and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights on the rights to "peaceful assembly"and no once should be subjected to "inhuman or degrading treatment".

Our posting on that subject here reveals that the police should also not be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment in the course of carrying out their job. There are also eight other Articles to consider in favour of the police, namely Articles 6, 7 , 8, 12, 21, 28, 29 and 30.

Bias Bar Council

If they decide to close one eye on those articles, then Bar Council and Foreign Observers reports are bias. And predictably, page 3 of Bar Council report only quotes Article 3, 5 and 8. Let's not even bother to read the rest of the report.

The 30 page Bar Council is basically only 2 page long. The rest is their arrogant assumption to conclude everyone else are not able to read and understand the law except them, thus attempt to teach the law.

In item 1.3 they unanimously concluded that:

-----------------

i) The rally was peaceful until around 3pm when the police opened fire with their water cannons and teargas;
(ii) The use of force by the police without any obvious provocation or cause, was far worse indiscriminate, disproportionate and excessive;
(iii) Police brutality was more widespread;
(iv) There was a concerted effort by the police to prevent and stop any recording of their actions and conduct;
(v) Police fired tear gas directly at the crowd and their firing pattern was to box in the participants rather than allowing them to disperse quickly;
(vi) After which there were pockets of retaliatory behaviour exhibited by the participants of the rally to the wrongful use of force by the police;
(vii) The police were observed taunting and mocking the crowd;
(viii) When items were thrown by some of the participants at the police, the police
stooped to return like for like; and
(ix) The police personnel were not wearing and displaying their police identification number on their uniform.

-------------------

Notice how bias Bar Council are against the police.


Not only their office front display such contempt of the police, none of their conclusion blame it on the participants.

So-Called Independent

The Foreign Observer was reported as taken from Anwar Ibrahim's blog as below:

-----------

‘Rally Peaceful Until Protesters Were Provoked’

An international fact-finding mission on the Malaysian election also notes that the mainstream media is biased.

KUALA LUMPUR: An international fact-finding mission on election found that the Bersih 3.0 rally yesterday was peaceful until the police acted provocatively.

Speaking at a press conference to present a preliminary report on the rally here today, independent Senator Nick Xenophon from Australia said: “It was peaceful [until the protesters were provoked].”

He also criticised the one-sided report on the rally in the mainstream broadcast media.

“The mainstream media is biased and unfair. We saw more of Prime Minister Najib (Tun Razak) in Sabah on television than the largest political expression in Malaysia,” said Xenophon.

[Comment: Readers should ask is Nick Xenophon is a fair and truly independent observer. Read Rocky Bru's here.

If he criticised the one-sided report in the media, he should be specific. The mainstream media are bias for the opposition. Only few are pro-Government.]

Another member of the seven-men team, India Times editor MJ Akbar, said the participants were actually in a festive mood.

“The crowd had ample time to turn violent if they had wanted to. [But] there was a festive mood until the provocation happened,” Akbar said.

[Comment: Was it police provocation or enforcement? Police is legally empowered and justified but not the protesters. Who provoke who first? Was he around the night before?]

Senator Hasil Bizenjo of Pakistan was surprised that transport services to Kuala Lumpur were crippled yesterday.

“In other countries transport is provided for people to attend a rally. Here some people told me that they had to walk 20km to attend the rally,” Bizenjo said.

[Comment: That is the organiser's job. Does he expect the police to transport protesters who are attending an illegal assembly?]

The other members of the team are writer Nasir Tamara of Indonesia, Clinton Fernandes of University New South Wales, Dean Amado Valdez of the Philippines and Juliane Schmucker from Germany.

Recalling a conversation the group had with Umno secretary-general, Tengku Adnan Mansor, Fernandes said:

“He [Tengku Adnan] stressed the importance of ‘avoiding racial strife. He also said improvement on election is not needed because the people here are immature.”

Fernandes also quoted Tengku Adnan as saying: “One of the problems with Indonesia is that there is too much freedom.”

However, Akbar said that “democracy needs freedom from fear and freedom of assembly”.

“It is unfortunate that some voices believe that this nation wants to exercise harmony without democracy,” he said, adding that he believes Malaysia deserves democracy.

[Comment: Democrasy has the minority and majority to think off too. Rights and freedom to assembly is subjected to the rule of law. Democrasy should not be the excuse to promote lawlessness and chaos. By design, Bersih 3.0 is meant to be violence, incite police use of force, and chaotic! ]

The preliminary report also highlighted the mission’s concern over the integrity of the 240,000 election workers, and the lack of free and fair elections.

Bizenjo pointed out the weakness of Malaysia’s democratic institutions.

“The Election Commission looks so backward… It needs to improve. Even Pakistan has moved to electronic voting,” he said.

[Comment: Bizenjo should improve the practise of democrasy in his country, Pakistan first before meddling in Malaysia which have uninterrupted general elections for the past 60 years.

We do not have Prime Ministers murdered in the streets like in Pakistan.]

The members also declared their independence even though they were invited by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to witness the rally.

“We don’t care who wins. I am not a Malaysian,” Fernandes said.

[Comment: Anwar and the obserrvers are most improper to make claim of independence. It has to come from other credible parties. Do they have any?]

---------------------

Police Action

Obviously the two reports withheld important pieces of information.

Bar Council report acknowledged the unruly behaviour of the participants. They intentionally hid that part in the Appendices in page 26 of the 30 page report.

The Mole had expanded on this fact that the Bersih participant provoked the police to carry out their duty here.

This is what happened. The police had acted only after protesters had violently and in rage broke the first two line of barricades.

The first barricade were the police human barricade.



Protesters ran after the police after the first barricade was broken


The second barricade was the steel fences.


The last barricade left was the barbed wire fence that Anwar and Azmin irresponsibly provoked the crowd to break. Thus it was the protesters that provoked the police to defend by spraying water and tear gas to the crowd and not otherwise.

This provocation had build-up from the night before, around midnight. The police were being jeered, patrol cars were thrown bottles and objects, and bus ferrying riot police were abused.

The police were patient from the night till afternoon. If it had been the army, they would have shot into the crowd for repeatedly ignoring warnings and disperse orders. Mind you, the so-called 'brutal' police have a court order and empowered under the Police Act 1967 and Federal Constitution to act to disperse the unruly and defying crowd.

After being warned to disperse and subjected to water spray and tear gas, the mobs did not disperse but turned violence. The police has a duty to control and bring back public order. The violence must not be allowed to continue.



Some of these protesters were armed with sticks and bamboos. There was a case of a police pistol being taken by mobsters swarming them.

The next course of action was to not allow the mob to regroup at Sogo, Jalan Tun Perak, Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman, among other places. The police had to 'attack' by moving forward with the backing of water cannon and tear gas.

They arrested the hardcore and ringleaders including "Chegu" Bard, Tian Chua, etc. Hishamuddin Rais was too coward, as usual, to face the police despite orchestrating it from afar.

Till 6:30 pm, the mobs still resisted.


The police went on another mode to not allow any chance of regrouping by the mob. The went for the Genghiz Khan tactic to "scare off" several hard-core stubborn ones and released them. They then spread the news that police is on rampage albeit tactically selective.

If it had been other foreign countries, including the so-called democratically advanced one, the treatment would have been more severe. Read RBF here.

Casualties

If the police were brutal, what are casualties for the Bersih side as compared to the reported police casualties?


Police on motorcycle were thrown large stones and beat up in numbers.

Patrol car was thrown objects and window smashed while moving causing the car to lose control. Then mobs smashed the car badly and overturned it.


Before that a roadside cone was poked towards the driver, Constable Mohd Kamil Parimin that gave him a broken nose. When he was taken out, he was subjected to further aggression that resulted in seven stitches on his head.


The Al Hijrah cameraman, Mohd Ariz's act of chivalry in his attempt to save the police man was rewarded by the mobs with nine stitches!

There are many more policemen badly injured in the line of duty:

Bil	Pangkat//No/Nama	Tempat Tugas	Kecederaan	Tempat Rawatan
(i)	KONST 165534MOHD FAIRUZ bin ZULKIFLI	Anggota Trafik KL	Cedera di badan akibat ditendang dan dipijak.	HKL.
(ii)	KONST 171668NAZRIL AZIZ bin RAHMAN	Anggota Bukit Aman	Cedera di kepala akibat di baling batu.T.H.S. Lee Rpt. : 15081/12	HKL
(iii)	KPL 141269ABU BAKAR bin ABD RAHIM	Anggota Petaling Jaya	Cedera di mulut akibat dibaling objek keras.	HUKM
(iv)	KONST 171506AZIZI bin MOHD NOH	Anggota Trafik Bukit Aman	Cedera di pipi kanan akibat dibaling objek keras.	HKL.
(v)	KONST 179157MOHD NOR FIRDAUS bin Hj ABU BAKAR	Anggota Caw. Khas PUTRAJAYA	Retak tulang tangan kanan akibat dipukul dengan kayu.Dang Wangi Rpt:- 16848/12	HUKM
(vi)	KONST 175128MOHD KAMIL bin PARIMIN	Anggota Bahagian Pengangkuta IPD TERENGGANU	Cedera di kepala dan menerima 7 jahitan	HKL
(vii)	L/KPL 152574MOHD NASIR bin ABU MANSOR	Anggota Trafik KL	Cedera di Badan dan tidak boleh duduk.	HKL
(viii)	KONST179689 ZAMAN bin ALI	Balai Polis Wangsa Maju Setapak	Patah hidung	HKL
(ix)	KONST 184197 SHUIB bin JAMALUDIN	IPD KANGAR	Tekanan Darah Tinggi	HKL
(x)	KONST 171481 BASIRON A/L BAH PELON	BALAI POLIS TUN RAZAK	Cedera di buku lali akibat disepak. Dang Wangi Rpt :- 16857/12	HKL
(xi)	KPL 148646 MOHD ISKANDAR RIMIE BIN ALI	PGA Pengkalan Hulu	Pengsan	HKL
(xii)	L/KPL 124962 TUAN RUZI BIN TUAN SENG	IPD Machap, JOHOR	Luka di bahagian bibir dan lebam seluruh badan	HKL
(xiii)	L/KPL AMIRUL BIN NAWRI	Balai Polis Port Dickson	Sesak nafas	HKL

List courtesy of Bigdog here.

What about the other side?


Thus far it is only an unfortunate passerby Su Kuang Hong hit at the car side by the
uncontrolled police car. He was admitted into HKL.

There is one death at around 11:00 am but that was due to hs personal health issues.

Perhaps they are many more. But are their injuries as bad as the that experienced by the police? Are those beaten up by the police broke any bones or bruised badly?

Trust the opposition to make a big news and turn it into a political propaganda if any of them were to be badly injured. Without any, it is as good as none.

Spoilt Press

As far as the claimed violence on the press, did they have their press tag on? Secondly, were they registered with the police to cover for the event? Thirdly, are the complaining press members from the pro-opposition Chinese press?

One press member, a camerawomen with Malaysiakini was together as part of the mob. Among others, she was on record screaming curses at the police and instructing the crowd to overturn the car. When there is no one stuck under the car as many spinned it to be, she yelled to the crowd to run out of fear of an explosion.

See the video below:

With a press behaving irresponsibly, don't expect Waldord Astoria butler service from the police. In the first place, why should they expect such pampering?

Pak Kadiaq Jasin here reminded them not to be cry babies:

----------------------

1. Journalists, media photographers and cameramen must accept that their occupations carry a certain degree of risk. If they cannot accept that they should not be journalists, photographers and cameramen.

2. It is easy for a “peaceful” demonstration to turn violent and for media personnel to be mistaken for protestors in the melee, especially now when every other Dick, Tom and Harry carries a camera and, in many instances, claims or pretend to be members of the Press and some members of the Press were attired like protestors. (That is why, despite my ugly face being fairly widely known, I still carry the press accreditation card issued by the Information Department because some young police personnel and state officials may not recognize me.)

3. I hold the Bersih 3.0 organisers responsible for their flock breaking the agreed and publicised rules and breaching the barriers because they claimed that the demonstration would be a peaceful and apolitical one.

4. I hold the police force responsible if its members provoked or acted unreasonably against the Press and the protestors.

5. When the reporter asked about protests in the early days, I told her that in those days, protesters (including Anwar Ibrahim) seemed to know and accept what they were getting into. They were willing to be arrested or had their legs beaten with rotan by the riot police (FRU).

6. In fact, they took pride in being “caned” and considered the cane marks as battle wounds and proofs of commitment to what they stood for. I told her that too many people who took part in the protest were clueless and were made up of “ponens”, “pondans” and “darai” who cried foul at the slightest mishandling or injury.

7. Some were so ignorant that they thought the Bersih 3.0 demonstration was a festival, a fiesta, a carnival and a family outing such that they turned up with their young children.

8. I posed the question: Could the Bersih 3.0 organisers have misled the public by deliberately misrepresenting the event?

9. And despite the demonstration being billed as apolitical, opposition leaders, led by Anwar Ibrahim and his loyal aide Azmin Ali, turned up in full force.

---------------------

Why? Why Why?

If Bersih wish to exercise the right to peaceful assembly to express their demand for free election, what does it got to do with taking over Dataran Merdeka (or in the past Bersih 2.0 was Stadium Merdeka)?

They could have voiced it peacefully in any of the stadium assigned by Government without having to risk the safety of protesters and policemen but still get their point through.

A blast from the reformasi past

It is fair on pollice to be wary of big protest involved opposition political parties. The reformasi era protest seldom resulted in cars being smashed as what happened at Bersih 3.0.

Although they claim to be non partisan, Bersih 3.0, just like Bersih and Bersih 2.0 were hijacked by politicians and non partisan protesters were used. That is the reason Anwar Ibrahim had Benji Lim thrown out of his press conference when he couldn't answer allegations that the opposition party hijacked Bersih 3.0.

Wait till the independent committee absolved police from brutality and violence against the press.

Be sure to expect the committee be accused as bias from these non-rationale opposition and opposition sympathisers. In fact, they will accuse them before the committee convene.

They are dead set to make a political propaganda of the police as committing brutality and smear this important pillar of the nation.