Hishamuddin: Ura-ura mahu kekal jawatan Ketua Pemuda

oleh Pemuda Pejuang, MyKMU

Jangan salahkan akar umbi jika persepsi akar umbi terhadap Dato adalah sebagai seorang pondan, dayus dan kerbau.

Sejak seminggu dua ini, kencang perkhabaran mengatakan Dato Hishamuddin kini mahu mengekalkan jawatan Ketua Pemuda UMNO. Ini bermakna Dato Hisham telah mengubah pendiriannya yang mahu mengundur yang telah diumumkan dan membatalkan rancangan bertanding untuk jawatan Naib Presiden UMNO.

Desas desus mengatakan perubahan pendirian ini diatur oleh Khairy dengan meminta kuncu-kuncunya memujuk Hisham. Dato Hisham dikatakan akan mengubah organisasi Pemuda UMNO dan ini adalah bayangan kepada rancangannya untuk mengubah pendirian.

Kebencian Akar Umbi

Khairy sedar tsunami politik sudah tidak dapat tertahan dan dia tidak diterima akar umbi untuk bertanding sebagai Ketua Pemuda.

Kemungkinan besar dia mahu kekal sebagai Naib Ketua Pemuda dan mengatur langkah kepada pemilihan yang akan datang. Namun begitu, dia tidak sedia untuk berketuakan Dato Mukhriz atau Dato Dr Khir Toyo.

Samada Mukhriz atau Dr Khir, percayalah Pemuda UMNO akan selamat di bawah kepimpinan mereka. Kedua-dua mereka lebih berupaya memimpin Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO. Mereka berdua mempunyai keupayaan dan pengalaman tersendiri, kedewasaan dan kematangan dalam tindakan, dan dihormati ramai. Bukan seperti Khairy!

Kebencian akar umbi UMNO dan rakyat terhadap Khairy begitu ketara. Mereka sudah faham percaturan politik Khairy yang jahat, campur tangannya di dalam senarai calun dan pemilihan kabinet menteri, dan sabotaj yang dilakukan terhadap pesaing-pesaing politiknya semasa PRU12 dan sepanjang penggal lepas.

Kini Khairy takut untuk turun berkempen dan menghadapi kemarahan orang ramai. Dia sedar bahawa dia akan kecundang jika bertanding Ketua Pemuda.

Sejak Dato Mukhriz dan Dato Khir Toyo mengumumkan minat untuk bertanding, Khairy, yang memang pengecut, tidak berani turun berdepan dengan pemimpin-pemimpin pemuda di peringkat akar umbi. Dia hanya menghantar wakil-wakil yang kebanyakkannya Ketua Pemuda negeri dan memberi “pelincir”. Kekuatan politiknya sudah lumpuh dan pengaruhnya sudah merudum.

Dia sedar orang ramai tidak lagi takut membidas bapa mertuanya depan-depan dalam majlis-majlis dengan ketua-ketua cawangan. Khairy memang lama diketahui tidak berani berhadapan dengan hadhiran yang bukan penyokongnya.

Percaturan Khairy

Ramai menganggap Ezam diajak masuk kononnya untuk membendong pengaruh Dr Mahathir. Ezam dikatakan akan membantu Pak Lah mendedahkan korpsi, kronisma dan nepotisma pentadbiran Dr Mahathir.

Jika dilihat usaha memburukkan Dr Mahathir dengan isu-isu kehakiman VK Lingam dan Tun Salleh Abas sudah backfire atau melantun kembali, ini tidak menjadi isu.

Zaid Ibrahim dikritik secara terbuka oleh ahli-ahli Parlimen dan akar umbi sudah mempersolkan agenda kepentingan diri Zaid yang tidak ada kena mengena dalam memperkukohkan kembali UMNO. Usaha memburukkan Tun Dr Mahathir akan menyemarakkan kemarahan akar umbi, walaupun dia bukan lagi ahli UMNO.

Sebenarnya kemasukkan Ezam ke dalam UMNO mempunyai kaitan dengan rancangan Khairy untuk menjadi Ketua Pemuda UMNO.

Jika Semangat 46 masih mengekalkan perjuangan asal UMNO, PKR langsung tidak ada. Malah, PKR menhancurkan perjuangan orang Melayu dari perjuangan mendaulatkan agama Islam, bangsa Melayu dan negara tercinta. PKR membawa multiculturalism, multipluralism, globalisasi, dan liberalisma yang diunjurkan barat dan persekongkolan Anwar untuk memporak perandakan negara ini.

Ezam adalah pengikut taksub Anwar Ibrahim yang begitu lantang mengkritik dan bersunggoh mahu melumpuhkan UMNO. Dia juga adalah pelopor politik demonstrasi jalanan dan anarki untuk mengkucar kacirkan keamanan dan kestabilan negara. Mengapa musuh ini dibawa kembali ke dalam UMNO?

Umum mengetahui Khairy mempunyai pertalian dan perhubungan rapat dengan pemimpin-pemimpin PKR dari Anwar Ibrahim ke Ezam dan Azmin. Malah jangan hairan melihat gambar Khairy begitu mesra dengan Tian Chua di akhbar pada hari Parlimen bermula.

Rancangan kemasukkan Ezam Mohd Nor ke dalam UMNO pun diatur olehnya. Ramai sudah lama mengetahui bahawa rancangan membawa Ezam sudah lama dirancang. Khairy, Norza, Wan dan Farid sudah lama berkomunikasi dengan Ezam dan mungkin sekali Azmin.

Malah, penulis politik, Yahya Ismail telah menjangkakan persekongkolan Khairy dan Anwar Ibrahim dalam bukunya pada 2005.

Usaha kemasukkan Ezam ini dimudahkan dengan pengambilan orang Anwar dan bekas Presiden GPMS, Dato Suhaimi Ibrahim sebagai ahli staf Dato Shahrizat Jalil, Penasihat di JPM. Dato Suhaimi yang berpendirian apologis terhadap prestasi UMNO pada PRU12 telah memujuk Pak Lah untuk menerima Ezam.

Khairy menyedari dia tidak boleh mengharap ketua-ketua pemuda yang ada dan memerlukan personaliti-personaliti baru bagi mencapaikan cita-citanya.

Kemasukan Ezam akan membantu Khairy untuk memujuk pengikut-pengikutnya dalam PKR untuk melompat masuk UMNO dan menyusup ke dalam Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO di peringkat Bahagian-Bahagian.

Jika usaha ini dapat juga melumpuhkan PKR, Khairy akan dapat membetulkan persepsi terhadapnya dan kelihatan sebagai hero.

Dengan kembali kuatnya Khairy dan Ezam, rancangan "politik paspot" Khairy akan berjaya. Prime Minsiter-in-waiting Anwar Ibrahim akan kembali ke UMNO. Anwar tidak akan kembali melainkan untuk dapat menjadi Presiden UMNO dan Perdana Menteri Malaysia. Habislah Melayu dan Malaysia!

Persepsi



Mungkin Dato Hisham boleh berdalih mengatakan ini semua atas permintaan ramai dan menggunakan alasan untuk meredakan politik dalam Pemuda UMNO.

Malah ada mesyuarat Pemuda Bahagian di Selangor tahun lepas ada meminta Dato Hisham kekal. Jangan lupa bahawa permintaan itu bertujuan untuk menyelamatkan UMNO dari pengaruh jahat Khairy. Senario sudah berubah dan Khairy sudah boleh dinyahkan.

Orang ramai tidak bodoh untuk memahami Khairy yang akan untung dari tindakan menarik handbrake Dato Hisham.

Keahlian Dr Mahathir jangan diperlecehkan dan dianggap ancaman kerana akar umbi masih menyayanginya dan mereka faham dia masih memperjuangkan UMNO. Lihat sambutan kepulangan Pak Lah dari Jepun yang begitu diatur tetapi tidak seberapa yang datang hingga terpaksa akhbar-akhbar menipu membesarkan jumlah yang hadhir.

Dalam politik, persepsi lebih penting dari realiti. Oleh sebab, Dato Hisham sudah mengumumkan penarikan diri, reputasi Dato Hisham akan rosak jika ia berpatah baik. Kata-katanya akan terus tidak dipercayai dan diomok-omokkan. Prospek kerjaya politik jangkamasa panjang pun akan luntur.

Ramai masih ingat kata-kata Dato Hisham, “over my dead body” untuk Ezam atau Anwar kembali ke UMNO. Jika ia tidak berjaya, Dato Hisham boleh dianggap “mati”. Tahniah kepada UMNO kerana menggantikan keahlian negarawan Tun Dr Mahathir dengan pembelot UMNO, Ezam Md Nor.

Sudahlah reputasi Dato Hisham mengangkat keris dipersendakan. Kemudian, Dato Hisham meminta maaf pula seolah-olah isu keris menjadi penyebab prestasi BN lembab di PRU12. Rata-rata orang Melayu - ahli politik, para cendiakawan, budayawan dan orang ramai - menganggap Dato Hisham sebagai dayus dan menjatuhkan maruah orang Melayu.

Banyak lagi yang lain tetapi akar umbi UMNO tidak lupa kata-kata Pak Lah yang mengatakan Dato Hisham yang beriya-iya sangat untuk membawa Khairy sebagai Naib Pemuda. Ramai mengetahui Dato Hisham juga yang terlibat dalam memujuk calun-calun lain supaya mengundur untuk memberi jalan mudah kepada Khairy.

Lihat apa sudah jadi. Dato Hisham mempunyai saham langsung dalam kehancuran UMNO hari ini.

Selama ini Dato Hisham sudah menjadi bayang-bayang kepada Khairy. Dia yang menjadi penentu dalam mesyuarat – mesyuarat exco pemuda yang mana persetujuannya diikuti oleh ahli-ahli exco lain. Orang beranggapan Dato Hisham sudah di bawah telunjuk Khairy.

Jika ura-ura ini benar, tanggapan atau persepsi ini akan bertambah kuat. Dato Hisham akan sentiasa dianggap sebagai kerbau yang hidung dicucuk dan mudah ditarik ke sana sini dan disuruh sesuka hati.

Usah di Ulang Kesilapan

Di persimpangan ini, Dato Hisham perlu meletakkan kepentingan dan masa hadapan Pemuda UMNO dan UMNO lebih dari memikirkan politik sendiri. Tidak hairan juga “yang dikejar tidak dapat, yang dikendung berkeciciran”.

Sebarang tindakan politik Dato Hisham perlu mengambilkira maruah keluarganya dan nama baik datoknya, Dato Onn Jaafar dan bapanya, Tun Hussein Onn, yang merupakan Presiden UMNO ke 4 dan Perdana Menteri Malaysia ke 3. Jangan sampai orang mengata Dato Hisham hingga nama-nama mereka ikut terpalit.

Senario politik sudah berubah dan ledakan tsunami politik kedua sedang menunggu untuk meluah. Air yang tenang jangan disangka tiada buaya. Permainan politik murah sudah tidak laku lagi dan ini semua akan terurai sekejap masa lagi. Jangan tersilap langkah.

Keikhlasan, ketegasan dan keberanian dalam perjuangan yang akan menentukan terpilih Dato Hisham sebagai Naib Presiden UMNO atau jika tidak, apa-apa pencapaian masa hadapan, Insya Allah.

Yang penting, letakkan kepentingan UMNO mendahului diri.

Zaid Ibrahim: Pak Lah Masih Berdegil

Satu insan, dua bayangan (dari blog Hard-T)

Pak Lah berdegil dan enggan melucutkan jawatan Menteri Zaid Ibrahim. Adakah ia mempunyai rancangan jahat disebalik mengekalkan Zaid? Adakah kedaulatan Melayu sudah tidak penting lagi dan hanya pentingkan politik cetek dan agenda pandnag ke Singapura sahaja?

Disamping itu, Zaid Ibrahim pula mahu menidakkan hak ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional untuk bersuara dan menyampaikan suara rakyat. Di mansa letaknya prinsip demokrasi dan liberalisma Zaid? Adakah dia sudah menjadi anjing salak untuk Pak Lah?

Atau dia kini hanya mementingkan agenda peribadi dan kepentingan kumpulan special interest yang condong kepada barat? Adakah dia berniat untuk memusnahkan kedaulatan Islam sebagai ugama Persekutuan?

Laporan beberapa akhbar dipetik.

Masih Kurang Pendengaran?

Petikkan dari Utusan Malaysia

Pelantikan Zaid tidak dinilai semula

KUALA LUMPUR 28 Mei - Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi memberitahu, beliau tidak bercadang untuk menilai semula pelantikan Datuk Zaid Ibrahim sebagai Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri.

Perdana Menteri memberitahu, beliau tidak mempunyai cadangan untuk berbuat demikian.

"Tidak ada, tidak ada cadangan untuk nilai semula pelantikan Datuk Zaid Ibrahim sebagai menteri," katanya di sini hari ini.

Abdullah diminta mengulas gesaan Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak) agar beliau menilai semula pelantikan Zaid sebagai menteri kerana tidak boleh menerima teguran.

Tajuddin semalam menegaskan, tindakan Zaid yang menyerang secara terbuka di luar Dewan Rakyat terhadap ahli-ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BN) yang dianggapnya sebagai penentang kerajaan merupakan perbuatan tidak bertanggungjawab.

Abdullah memberitahu, BN dan UMNO mengamalkan pintu terbuka kepada ahli untuk membuat teguran.

Katanya, tidak perlu mengambil tindakan terhadap ahli-ahli ataupun ahli Parlimen BN dan UMNO yang membuat teguran.

"Kalau menegur mengenai dasar yang kurang kemas serta perlu diperkemaskan lagi serta pelbagai masalah yang timbul, tentulah menjadi kewajiban untuk ahli-ahli BN dan UMNO membuat teguran membina," katanya.

Perdana Menteri bagaimanapun yakin kedua-dua pemimpin UMNO itu akan baik semula selepas masalah yang wujud antara kedua-duanya reda.

Kita pegang kata-kata Perdana Menteri.

Prinsip Bercanggah

Petikkan Utusan Malaysia

Cadangan Mukhriz, Tajuddin diambil tindakan

KUALA LUMPUR 28 Mei - Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim hari ini sekali lagi mencadangkan Barisan Nasional (BN) mengambil tindakan ke atas Ahli Parlimen Jerlun, Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir dan Ahli Parlimen Pasir Salak, Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman.

Katanya, kedua-dua wakil rakyat BN itu seharusnya memberi kritikan membina bukannya berbentuk menghina kerajaan atau Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Menurut Zaid, ini kerana tindakan Mukhriz dan Tajuddin mempertikaikan pelantikan beliau sebagai menteri dianggap satu kenyataan yang menghina dirinya, kerajaan dan juga Perdana Menteri.

"Saya tidak cakap seseorang itu tidak boleh kritik kerajaan atau Perdana Menteri tetapi biarlah kritikan itu membina dan bukannya menghina. Saya lebih lama mengkritik kerajaan daripada kedua-dua wakil rakyat ini.

"Tetapi kritikan saya yang membina bukannya yang menghina. Mereka yang mengeluarkan kenyataan mendesak Perdana Menteri letak jawatan seharusnya diambil tindakan oleh parti (BN)...

Betulkah Tu?

The Star Online Monday May 26, 2008

Zaid: Government becoming transparent

KOTA BARU: Moves to investigate individuals involved in the Datuk V.K. Lingam video clip, the formation of a judiciary commission and the revamp of the Anti-Corruption Agency show that the Government was becoming more transparent.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said the Government's actions were for everyone to see.

He said this when opening the fourth annual general meeting of the Kelantan Malay Journalists Association at Sutera Inn here...

Orang lain ada Agenda politik, tetapi Perdana Menteri tiada?

Helah Menghidupkan Interfaith Commission?

Dari Blog Patriot bertarikh Mac 28hb, 2008, petikan akhbar yang tidak diberi rujukkan.

Zaid Ibrahim: Replace archaic laws

He said some of the state constitutions, dating back to the 1910s, were obsolete and needed to be replaced.

"Yes, of course (we are looking into this). I suppose the attorney-general is looking into this and I think other ministries are also doing the same. We have many cases to look at but we have to focus on this to prevent future conflicts.

"We have to discuss this and get a consensus on how to harmonise the expectations of a democratic government where the majority decides.

"At the same time, we also have the monarchy as the second power. When you have both and there appears to be a conflict between the two, it needs to be ironed out but this must be done through consultation. This is what we must do," he said after his first cabinet meeting yesterday.

He was asked whether Umno could "challenge" the decision of the Terengganu Regency Advisory Council to appoint Datuk Ahmad Said as Terengganu menteri besar.

"The word 'challenge' is not appropriate as it suggests you want to attack people and do something that is illegal.

"There is bound to be a difference of opinion. What is important is that we look at the issues. Sometimes, things get complicated because we have outdated, old laws but they are still laws.

"Though it is an old law, they have to observe it because it is still there. That is why I told my staff to look at law reforms. There is a need to change it. If it no longer suits the times, it should be changed."

Zaid said a combination of factors - constitutional and non-constitutional - had created this issue....

Demi keterbukaan, kebebasan dan liberal, biar anak-anak cucu kita hilang identiti agama, bangsa dan warganegaraan.

Seolah-olah kita tidak ada sejarah sebelum Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan Malaysia? Hidup Federalisma dan Negara Republik!

Betulkah begitu, Zaid?

Nilai semula pelantikan Zaid - Tajuddin

Utusan Malaysia
18 Mei, 2008


KUALA LUMPUR 27 Mei - Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak) meminta Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi menilai semula pelantikan Senator Datuk Zaid Ibrahim sebagai Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri.

Tajuddin menegaskan, tindakan Zaid yang menyerang secara terbuka di luar Dewan Rakyat terhadap ahli-ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BN) yang dianggapnya sebagai penentang kerajaan merupakan perbuatan tidak bertanggungjawab.

Tambah beliau, tindakan Zaid itu yang turut menggesa BN serta UMNO mengambil tindakan terhadap penyokong-penyokong kerajaan merupakan perbuatan yang memalukan.

"Dalam kes saya, belum buat teguran dianggap telah menentang Perdana Menteri sedangkan sebagai ahli Parlimen, peranan kami ialah untuk menegur serta memberi pandangan membina kepada kerajaan," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian ketika membahaskan Rang Undang-Undang Pembekalan Tambahan (2007) 2008 pada sidang Dewan Rakyat hari ini.

Tajudin membangkitkan perkara itu berikutan kenyataan terbuka Zaid di lobi Parlimen pada 24 Mei lalu mengenai tindakan ahli-ahli Parlimen BN seperti Datuk Mukhriz Tun Dr. Mahathir (BN-Jerlun) dan Tajudin yang menentang kerajaan seperti disiarkan akhbar pada 25 Mei.

Beliau menambah, sikap Zaid ini amat mendukacitakan dan tidak melambangkan sikap menteri yang sepatutnya boleh menerima peranan yang dimainkan oleh ahli-ahli Parlimen.

''Saya ingin persoalkan berapa lama menteri ini telah berada dalam BN, berapa lama dalam UMNO, malahan semasa Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-12 lepas tidak berada di kawasan sebaliknya berada di luar negara.

''Berbanding dengan saya telah berada dalam BN selama 36 tahun dan berada dalam UMNO sejak dari muda serta sanggup mempertahankan parti hingga sanggup di tahan di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA)," katanya.

Sehubungan itu Tajuddin meminta Perdana Menteri menyemak balik pelantikan Zaid sebagai menteri kerana lebih ramai lagi pakar undang-undang dalam BN dan UMNO.

Beliau memberitahu, sebagai menteri, Zaid sepatutnya menerima teguran dengan positif dari pembangkang ataupun dari penyokong kerajaan.

Katanya, sekiranya penyokong kerajaan membuat teguran tidak bermakna menjadi pembangkang.

''Saya tidak semestinya bersetuju dengan rakan-rakan dalam perkara yang tidak membawa kebaikan kepada kerajaan, sebab itu saya meminta menteri tersebut menarik balik kenyataan tersebut.

''Minta maaf daripada saya mengenai kenyataan umum yang dibuat lepas," katanya.

TDM Kembali, Bersuara dan Akan Terus Bersuara ...

Masih ramai yang menyambut kepulangannya. Ahli-ahli UMNO masih turut menyambut.

Padahal sejak Isnin minggu lepas pada cuti hari Wesak, Tun mengumumkan pengunduran keahlian dari UMNO.

Dr Mahathir pulang dari Jepun semalam petang Mei 27hb, 2008. Hampir 800 orang datang dari jauh dengan kereta dan bas, "cabut kerja" pulang awal, dan orang-orang yang berjawatan dalam UMNO pun menyambutnya.

Pihak polis terpaksa membuat roadblock demi "keselamatan" ditempat masuk ke kawasan depot Petronas dan mengurus lalu lintas.


Kehadhiran ini hanya pengumuman di MyKMU dan penghantaran SMS kepada kawan-kawan.

Di atas sebuah van, Dr Mahathir memberi sedikit ucapan spontan berterima kasih kepada yang hadhir dan menyampaikan pesanannya kepada penyokong yang berkumpul.

Hari minggu ini pada pukul 9 pagi Sabtu Mei 31hb, 2008, dia akan berucap lagi di sebuah Majlis di Petaling Jaya (butiran di akhir artikel ini).

Tun Kembali


Sa'odah Elias, mSTAR melaporkan berikut:

Mahathir kembali 'serang' Pak Lah sebaik tiba di Subang

SUBANG: Belumpun setengah jam menjejakkan kaki sekembalinya beliau dari menghadiri Persidangan Nikkei di Jepun, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad meneruskan serangannya terhadap Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Perdana Menteri, dakwa Dr. Mahathir, ialah seorang yang tidak tahu mengenang budi dan kini telah terbukti gagal meneruskan perjuangan Umno, orang Melayu dan menjadikan Malaysia negara yang dihormati orang lain.

"Sekarang dengan Singapura pun takut," katanya sambil menambah, Abdullah bagaimanapun tidak takut pada ahli Umno.

Ini merupakan penampilan pertama beliau pada 'majlis dihadiri ramai' selepas memutuskan untuk keluar Umno.

Sejak keluar Umno beliau juga menggunakan blognya untuk mengkritik kepimpinan parti dan kerajaan.


Beliau berkata demikian dalam ucapan sepontannya di hadapan kira-kira 500 penyokong yang hadir untuk menyambut kepulangan beliau di Lapangan Terbang Persendirian Petronas di sini petang ini.

Kata Dr. Mahathir, beliau berasa pelik apabila banyak pihak mentakrifkan kesetiaan pada presiden Umno sebagai setia pada parti, dan mereka yang mengkritik pemimpin dikatakan tidak setia.

Bekas Perdana Menteri itu seterusnya mengungkit hakikat Abdullah juga pernah pada satu ketika dahulu tidak setia kepadanya semasa beliau masih memegang jawatan Presiden Umno.

Tetapi kata Dr. Mahathir, beliau tidak berdendam, sebaliknya terus memberi peluang kepada Abdullah sehingga bukan sahaja kekal menjadi naib presiden, tetapi seterusnya menjadi timbalan presiden dan kini presiden.

Abdullah adalah antara pemimpin Umno yang dikaitkan dengan "team B" ketika kemelut Umno tahun 1987-1988 sehingga menyebabkan Umno diisytiharkan pertubuhan tidak sah.

Dr, Mahathir pada 19 Mei lalu mengisytiharkan keluar dari Umno di Alor Star bersama isterinya, Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah Mohd. Ali.

Penyokong-penyokong mula berkumpul di kawasan berdekatan lapangan terbang berkenaan seawal 4 petang.


Selain penyokong tempatan, kira-kira 130 penyokong dari Jerlun turut hadir menaiki tiga buah bas persiaran.

Mereka yang mendakwa pemimpin 125 cawangan Umno di Bahagian Jerlun berkata mereka bertolak awal pagi ini untuk menyambut kepulangan Dr. Mahathir.

"Semua kami orang Mukhriz (Ahli Parlimen Jerlun Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir). Kami mai nak bagi sokongan pada Dr. Mahathir," kata Ketua Umno cawangan Sungai Korok Bawah, Ishak Abdullah.

Menurutnya, semua mereka hadir secara sukarela dan terpaksa mengeluarkan duit sendiri untuk membayar tambang bas dan mungkin untuk menyewa hotel pada malam nanti.

"Tapi kami tak kesah kerana sekurang-kurangnya akan dapat makan malam dengan Dr. Mahathir nanti, dan mungkin juga bersarapan dengan Mukhriz," tambahnya.

Rakannya, Ketua Umno Cawangan Manggol Bongor juga mendakwa hampir semua daripada 156 cawangan Umno bahagian itu menyokong Mukhriz dan Dr. Mahathir, walaupun ketua bahagian itu, Datuk Abdul Rahman Ariffin telah mengeluarkan kenyataan berlainan.

Semalam, Abdul Rahman dilaporkan berkata majoriti pemimpin bahagian itu menyokong kepimpinan Abdullah.

"Hampir semua kami berada di sini. Dia (Abdul Rahman) pun datang, tapi bukan di sini untuk sambut Dr Mahathir, tetapi dia round-round," katanya.

Ketua Cawagan Telaga Tongkah, Abu Seman Abas pula berkata, walaupun menyokong perjuangan Dr Mahathir, mereka tidak akan meninggalkan Umno kerana sedar sukar membuat perubahan jika berada di luar Umno.

Tun Bersuara


Muda Mohd Noor , Malaysiakini.com membuat laporan berikut:

'Belum mati, sudah tidak dikenang'

Kira-kira 300 penyokong Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad menyambut kepulangan beliau dari Jepun di lapangan terbang Subang petang tadi.

Kumpulan penyokong itu termasuklah 125 orang ketua dan setiausaha cawangan Umno dari parlimen Jerlun yang kini diwakili oleh anaknya, Datuk Mukhriz. Turut serta, ahli parlimen Pasir Mas, Datuk Ibrahim Ali.

Mereka datang menaiki tiga buah bas sekolah dan bertolak kira-kira jam 9.30 pagi tadi dari pekan Jerlun.

Mereka turut membawa kain rentang yang berbunyi "Tun Mahathir kita tetap bersamamu", "Selamat pulang pejuang bangsaku" dan "Berani berjuang untuk negara, agama dan bangsa".

Beliau pulang dari Tokyo selepas menghadiri persidangan ekonomi Nikkei.

Dr Mahathir berucap selama lima minit kepada para penyokongnya dari dalam kereta yang dinaikinya.

Dalam ucapannya, selepas menimbulkan kegemparan apabila meninggalkan Umno pada 19 Mei lalu, mendakwa perdana menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi "takut kepada Singapura".

Mantan perdana menteri dipercayai merujuk keputusan Mahkamah Keadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) yang memutuskan Pulau Batu Puteh milik kerajaan Singapura.

Katanya, Abdullah lebih takut kepada republik tersebut daripada ahli-ahli Umno sendiri.

"Apalah nak jadi dengan pemimpin macam ni," katanya, disambut dengan laungan "hidup Tun".

Dr Mahathir juga mendakwa Abdullah seorang yang tidak mengenang budi dan tidak mengikut pepatah Melayu "hutang emas boleh dibayar, hutang budi dibawa mati".

"(Saya) ini tak mati lagi, sudah tidak dikenang.

"Sepatutnya saya tidak beri Abdullah masuk Umno (baru) tetapi saya bagi dia masuk balik," katanya, merujuk penyertaan kembali ahli parlimen Kepala Batas selepas Umno diharamkan pada 1988.

Dr Mahathir berkata, Umno sekarang berjuang bukan untuk ahli, sebaliknya untuk mengekalkan Abdullah.

"Kononnya ahli yang tidak setia kepada Abdullah, tidak setia kepada parti. Dia lupa semasa saya menjadi perdana menteri, dia tidak setia kepada saya.

"(Tetapi) saya membuat (Abdullah) supaya dia tidak kelihatan tidak setia. Dia bertanding naib presiden, timbalan presiden dan seterusnya presiden," kata mantan presiden Umno lagi.

Bagaimanapun, tambah Dr Mahathir, beliau tidak marah kepada bekas timbalannya dan tindakannya meninggalkan Umno bukanlah kerana tekanan.

Sebaliknya, Abdullah tidak lagi mempertahankan Umno, Melayu dan negara.

Mengulas sambutan terhadapnya hari ini, Dr Mahathir berkata, tiada perbezaannya semasa beliau dalam Umno dengan sekarang.

"Kalau saya tidak silap, dulu semasa saya dalam Umno sambutan macam ini juga.

"Sebab itu tidak ada beza saya jadi ahli Umno atau tidak ahli Umno," katanya lagi.

Malam tadi blog Tun mengeluarkan posting terbarunya, Pemimpin Pemusnah. Menurut Tun, Abdullah kini disokong oleh pemimpin pembangkang keraa ia membawa agenda parti lawan.

Karpal Singh yang berseturu dengan UMNO kini begitu bersungguh menyokong Abdullah agar dikekalkan sebagai Perdana Menteri. Anwar Ibrahim sendiri menyata secara terbuka kepada The Straits Times (Singapura), mengekalkan Abdullah adalah baik untuknya kerana dia lemah.

Maka, demikian sokongan dan kesetiaan yang diberi oleh penyokong dan pembodek Abdullah hanya akan mengakibatkan UMNO menjadi lemah dan seterusnya tewas di PRU 13 kelak.

Blog Tun dijangka akan mencecah satu juta dalam sedikit masa lagi. Suatau pencapaian blog yang sangat mengkagumkan dalam masa yang sangat cepat. Tun mula berblog pada Mei 1hb, 2008.

Tun Akan Terus Bersuara


Dr Mahathir akan berucap lagi pada hari Sabtu ini seperti SMS berikut:

Amanat "Suntikan Semangat Satria" oleh negarawan ulong Tun Dr Maahthir pada Mei 31hb, 2008 pukul 9 pagi di Crystal Crown Hotel, Petaling Jaya. Sila daftar nama & nombor talipon ke hidup.melayu@gmail.com. Kelab Cinta & Amanah Melayu (K.E.C.A.M.)

Turut sama berucap adalah Yang Berbahagia Dato Abdul Kadir Jasin, Mantan Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan The New Straits Times dan Yang Berbahagia Dato Sazmi Meah, Mantan Ahli Parlimen Machang, Kelantan.

Blog Zon 12, UMNO Bahagian Petaling Jaya Selatan, memetik kenyataan Dato Shahrir bahawa NGO perlu ganti UMNO yang takut.

Adakah jurublog ini memperli pemegang jawatan dan ahli-ahli UMNO Bahagian Petaling Jaya Selatan yang takut untuk menjadi penganjur?

Ini sebab acara ini sepatutnya dianjurkan oleh sebuah Cawangan dari UMNO Bahagian Petaling Jaya Selatan tetapi "takut" untuk menganjurkan setelah Dr Mahathir keluar parti.

Kalau takut anjur, sokong acara ini dan jangan lakukan sabotaj. Husin Lempoyang melaporkan Pak Lah begitu menggelabah bila mendengar ada cawangan yang akan ditutup di sini.




Lain-lain gambar boleh diperolehi dari blog Jinggo Fotopage.

Sticky: Kepulangan Dr Mahathir Dari Tokyo

Masih ingatkah kita imej sambutan menyambut kepulangan beliau dari Eropah pada Julai 22hb, 2006? (Sila lihat di Jinggo Fotopage.)

Yang Amat Berbahagia Tun Dr Mahathir dan Tun Dr Siti Hasmah akan kembali ke tanahir dari Tokyo pada petang Selasa Mei 27hb 2008 di Terminal Persendirian Petronas di Lapangan Terbang Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz, Subang. Kapalterbang Tun dijangka mendarat 5:30 petang.

Kami mengajak rakyat Malaysia memberi ribuan sambutan kepada negarawan kita sebagai menandakan kasih sayang kepada Tun. Kita mula berkumpul dari pukul 4:30 petang.

Walaupun agak susah untuk ramai turun dihari dan waktu kerja, kehadhiran anda yang dapat hadhir adalah sokongan dan rangsangan kepada perjuangan beliau untuk menyelamatkan kedaulatan negara dan mengelakkan kehancuran dari pentadbiran Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Dr Mahathir: Asia should liberate Itself from Western hegemony

SPEECH BY
TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
AT THE JAPAN FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS’ CLUB
IN TOKYO, JAPAN
ON FRIDAY, 23 MAY 2008
——————

1. I would like to thank you for this invitation to speak on the role of Malaysia and Asia on international affairs involving politics, economic and the environment.

2. By itself I do not think Malaysia can do much. But Asia is perhaps more able to contribute to these fields.

3. Asia is not homogenous like Europe. The people of Asia range from dark-skinned people to brown skinned to yellow and to white Caucasians. It is not possible for all these different people inhabiting different parts of Asia to collaborate in voicing identical views on anything. It is not possible at this point in time to think of an Asian Union with the same clout as the European Union.

4. Obviously Asia’s contribution would differ greatly between the ethnic and the regional groupings. This will render Asia less able to influence international affairs.

5. However certain parts and certain countries of Asia, particularly those in the East and India have gained a level of development, which would make their voices heard and respected by the rest of the world. They would therefore be able to play a role in international affairs.

6. Unfortunately they are not doing so. They are very reticent and unwilling to take a prominent role. This is because Asians have not got over their having been dominated in the past by the West.

7. Because of this Asia is always trying to understand and accommodate Western ideas and creeds. Asia has tried to adopt European ideologies, European systems of Government, European perceptions of things and values, European regimes for trade and finance etc. etc.

8. There has never been an Asian initiative for the world in any field. When globalisation was promoted by the West, Asians merely try to adjust to a new concept of international relations, particularly in trade, commerce and finance. Asians failed to recognise the inevitability of a New World Order resulting from the advances in speed of travel and instant communication and so to propose new regimes for the world.

9. If Asia wants to play a role in international affairs it must first liberate its minds from Western mental hegemony. This must be through deliberate effort. Asians can fall back on their greatness in the past and learn how to reassert themselves. After all Asians discovered Europe before the Europeans discovered Asia. Spain, the Mediterranean lands and Eastern Europe were ruled for centuries by Asians. So Asian involvement in international affairs is not new.

10. Asian countries have shown that when they have the political will they can excel in all the activities once dominated by the Europeans. Asian countries have now become developed, have been able to set up effective governments and have replaced the European countries in the production of all kinds of goods and services.

11. Many have now developed inventive skills and introduced new products to the world.

12. But Asians have shied away from formulating new ideas and ideologies, new systems and new trading and financial regimes for the world. Yet I am quite sure that if Asians put their minds to it they can offer better solutions to international problems.

13. There is no doubt that the international trade and financial regime as formulated by the west have now been shown to be disastrous for the world. The US Dollar is no longer stable for use as the benchmark for other currencies. Trading in currencies have now undermined the value of the currencies of the world including the United States. Free trade has resulted in many poor countries becoming unable to export their products and earn foreign exchange. Mergers and acquisitions by giant corporations have created monsters that have killed the small man and created serious social and economic problems for the many countries.

14. While all these disasters are happening Asian countries have either been bystanders or they have tried to struggle for survival. They have not proposed anything original or shown any initiative to overcome these problems. Yet they are in a position to do something not just to mitigate the effect of these Western conceived systems and regimes but to propose entirely new ideas and proposals that can replace the old regimes and usher in a new and fairer World Order.

15. Asians can propose fair trade instead of free trade; the replacement of the US Dollar by a new trading currency, the stoppage of currency trading, replacing it with a new Bretton Woods kind of agreement that can restore stability in the valuation of currencies, imposing limits on mergers and acquisitions and the formulation of an international anti-trust laws etc. etc.

16. I would like to mention a particular effort initiated by Malaysia. The world still accepts that one way of solving conflicts between nations is to kill people and see who can kill the most. This is called war but war is about killing people.

17. In human society killing is a serious crime meriting the most severe punishment. Yet killing thousands of people in a war is not considered a crime. This is absurd. You must not kill one person but you can kill hundreds of thousands.

18. Malaysia is trying to make killing people in war as much a crime as murder in any human society. This is to be a total change in human values. Whoever initiates wars must be condemned as criminal killers and must be punished by the international community.

19. Asia can back this effort by Malaysia. This can be a major initiative by Asia. If Asia succeeds in stopping the killings, in making war a crime, it will mark a powerful contribution of Asia to human civilisation. It will mean that the human race has become truly civilised.

The Pulau Batu Puteh Case: A Strategic Disaster for Malaysia

Matthias Chang undertook a research on the Pulau Batu Puteh case that was announced judgement Friday at the ICJ and highlighted these few startling revelations.

The Malaysian Government erred in its defense by taking a poorly assembled legal team, research component and presented a weak legal argument. While he is not the first and only to suspect of a high level ineternational hanky panky, he feels there were some serious "Zionist-ic" imperialist conspiring to see us lose.

He lambasted:

Singapore got the Mansion Malaysia got some rocks which cannot be used to put up even a Kampong hut, yet Rais Yatim says, "We won half and Singapore won half. So I say it’s a win-win situation …”

This picture paints a thousand words and the picture of Pulau Batu Putih, Middle Rock and the South Ledge at the front of The Star on May 24th says it all

His argument as follows:

Summary of Criticism

1) The Legal Team

I am a lawyer and had studied International Law for my Bar Exams in 1975 under the distinguished Professor Ian Brownlie C.B.E. Q.C. member of the English Bar, Chairman of the UN International Law Commission, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford, member of the Institut de droit international, Distinguished Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford.

Ian Brownlie is the “leader” of the foreign team advising the Singapore government. A brilliant choice!

(a) Foreign Component

The foreign component of the legal team of Malaysia and Singapore are internationally renowned experts in international law and I have no doubts that they discharged their responsibilities admirably.

But tactically, the Singapore “foreign component” had a critical advantage in that Ian Brownlie is the Chairman of the UN International Law Commission, and Mr. Alain Pellet is a member and former Chairman of the UN International Law Commission. And Ian Brownlie is not just a brilliant Lawyer (Q.C.), he is also a lawyer who has a profound grasp of geo-political issues.

To dispel any misperceptions and misunderstanding, I am not suggesting that they can influence the ICJ judges, but having served in such a critical position, Ian Brownlie and Alain Pellet have the inside track on the current thinking and or the approach of the ICJ in such disputes. After all, the UN International Law Commission sets the direction and the development of international law. I am therefore not surprised that Singapore went the extra mile to secure their services – a brilliant strategic appointment.

This dispute is not a mere dispute of ownership and sovereignty over some patches of rocks etc. but a strategic battle for control of territorial waters and sea lanes.


(b) Local Component

Both countries for obvious reasons had Ministers to provide the political imput and the critical linkage to their respective Prime Ministers. But, it cannot be said of Abdullah Badawi, our Prime Minister that at all material times, he was “hands-on” in this strategic battle with Singapore – especially when he had conceded so many issues to Singapore (the bridge, airspace, the Iskandar project etc.).

Singapore had a battle-ready Commander-in-Chief, whereas Malaysia’s leader was sleeping and out of touch.

Once again, I must praise Singapore for their brilliant tactical move in having the Chief Justice Mr. Chan Sek Keong as part of the legal team. It reflects the seriousness and total commitment of Singapore to win this case at all costs!

Why was having the Chief Justice as part of the legal team another brilliant strategic appointment?

Simple!

A good advocate does not necessarily make a good judge. But a judge knows the inside workings of the judiciary and how consensus is established amongst judges in arriving at a decision. Therefore, in submitting on behalf of Singapore, the Chief Justice would know how to play to the strength and weaknesses of judges and would be able to offer critical advice to the rest of the team.

The Judges of the International Court of Justice must have been impressed by the presence of the Chief Justice. I stand to be corrected, but this could be the first case in which a Chief Justice appeared before the Court. Even if I am wrong on this score, it can be said without fear of contradiction that it would be very rare for a Chief Justice to advance a case for his country.

My US$ Trillion dollar question is – Where was our Chief Justice when it was apparent that Singapore would be using all their “heavy” weapons?

Sad to say, our Judges, including the Chief Justice were all too busy fighting among themselves for the coveted top three jobs in the judiciary to be bothered about this mundane affair. It has no significance to them. I am not surprised that they took the attitude, “this has nothing to do with the judiciary, we judges hear cases, we do not partake in advocacy – even if the country’s strategic interests are at stake.”

We may dislike Singapore and disparage their system of administration, but there is one thing we must admit and learn – when they go to battle, any battle, anyone from the highest to the lowest can be and must be recruited if it serves to ensure victory. Should we be surprised that we keep on losing to Singapore?

The independence of the Malaysian Judiciary is meaningless, if at such critical juncture it is not able to play any role at all. Leadership is sorely lacking!

The Malaysian Bar Council is likewise irrelevant. It is so arrogant and conceited that it cannot see beyond its ugly nose. Like the judiciary, it is a den of vipers and its primary aim (as reflected by the conduct of past and present Chairman) is to promote it’s preferred slate of judicial candidates for higher office.


(c) The Research Component

If the research component is the same as the one that was assembled to do battle with Singapore on the Water Dispute, then I am not at all surprised that we lost this crucial battle to Singapore.

In both cases, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad was the point man.

The team that advised the then Prime Minister (which is almost the same team as the present one) took the view that Malaysia had a weak case. The Prime Minister was so disappointed in their collective attitude that he instructed me to embark on an independent research and to ensure that no stones were left unturned.

Working close to 18 hours a day for a week, I was able to compiled 14 volumes of critical documents (approximately 1,500 pages) and assembled a team of senior practicing lawyers.

The critical document (and our nuclear weapon) was the letter written by none other than Mr. Lee Kuan Yew that no documents, notes, letters, memos etc. exchanged between Malaysia and Singapore will be binding as they were written on a “without prejudice” basis, and that unless and until a formal agreement has been signed by the respective Prime Ministers, nothing is deemed agreed!

When this crucial letter was brought to the attention of the said legal team (which they were not aware) they sheepishly conceded that Singapore had no case against Malaysia!

I do not know whether the team has learnt a lesson from that experience and that for this case, a more thorough effort was mounted. I certainly hope so. But I have my doubts, as Tan Sri Kadir Mohamad is still the point man. In fact, he was appointed by Abdullah Badawi as the “Adviser” and on my retirement as Political Secretary to the then Prime Minister, he moved in and occupied my then office.

2) The Legal Arguments

a) Introduction

For the purposes of this article which is written for the benefit of the public, I do not intend to provide an exhaustive analysis of the judgment of the International Court of Justice. But, I would like to highlight some salient points which will expose the perverse conclusions of the said court that “sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh passed to Singapore” as a result of events in the last eighty (80) years.

From the submissions of the respective parties and the judgment of the Court, it is clear that Malaysia and Singapore adopted the common strategy of having all or nothing in determining whether it has sovereignty over:

i ) Pedra Branca /Pulau Batu Puteh
ii ) Middle Rocks
iii) South Ledge

as they are “geographically linked”.

Pulau Batu Puteh is a granite island measuring 137 m long, with an average width of 60 m and covering an area of about 8,560 sq m at low tide. It is situated at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore, at the point where the latter open up into the South China Sea. Pulau Batu Puteh is located at 1º 19’ 48” N and 104º 24’ 27” E. It lies approximately 24 nautical miles to the east of Singapore, 7.7 nautical miles to the south of the Malaysian state of Johor and 7.6 nautical miles to the north of the Indonesian island of Bintan. On the island stands Horsburgh Lighthouse which was erected in the middle of the 19th century.

Middle Rocks and South Ledge are the two maritime features closest to Pulau Batu Puteh. Middle Rock is located 0.6 nautical miles to the south and consists of two clusters of small rocks about 250 m apart that are permanently above water and stand 0.6 to 1.2 m high. South Ledge, at 2.2 nautical miles to the south-south-west of Palau Batu Puteh is a rock formation only visible at low tide.

I trust that you will now agree that Singapore was given “the mansion, while Malaysia was given some rocks which stand only 0.6 to 1.w2 m high”! In short, Malaysia was given crumbs to save face! But our current Foreign Minister says that it is a win-win situation.

How stupid and ridiculous can one get? Freaking a#*$ole!

b) Applying Imperialist’s Logic

i) Ownership by Sultanate of Johor

After reviewing the history of the Johor Sultanate and the Dutch and British rivalry for control of South East Asia and the insidious role of the East India Company as an instrument for colonial conquest and occupation, the Court concluded:

“The territorial domain of the sultanate of Johor covered in principle all the islands and islets within the Straits of Singapore, including the island of Pulau Batu Puteh. It finds that this possession of the islands by the Sultanate was never challenged by any other power in the region and can in all circumstances be seen as satisfying the condition of ‘continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty. The Court thus concludes that the Sultanate of Johor had original title to Pulau Batu Puteh.”

The Court then reviewed the Imperialist Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 wherein the two colonial powers divided South-East Asia into two separate spheres of influence. The argument by Singapore that by this time the islands in the Straits of Singapore (including Pulau Batu Puteh) were terrae nullius and therefore subject to appropriation through “lawful occupation” was rejected by the Court.

The Court concluded that notwithstanding the aforesaid Treaty:

“that as of the time when the British started their preparations for the construction of the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh in 1844, this island was under the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor.”

ii) The 21st September 1953 Letter

On 12th June 1953, the Colonial Secretary of Singapore wrote to the British Adviser to the Sultan of Johor on the status of the island. We know that at the material time, British Advisers had tremendous influence.

Why was there such an enquiry when it was very clear that the Sultan had ownership and sovereignty over the island at all material times? The British using this subterfuge must have been preparing the ground for a letter to be issued disclaiming sovereignty over the island.


In a letter dated 21st September 1953, the Acting State Secretary replied that “the Johore Government did not claim ownership of Pedra Branca.”

Surely, if the Sultan was indeed disclaiming ownership and sovereignty to the island, any reference would be that of Pulau Batu Puteh as the island was known as such to the Sultanate. The fact that the letter used the Portuguese name of Pedra Branca is evidence that the British contrived to issue this letter.

The letter did not say that it was the Sultan that was disclaiming sovereignty. It was the Johor government, which was under British control. Thus we had a situation whereby a British administration in Singapore was writing to another British administration in Johor as to the status of an island belonging to the Sultan and by a stroke of a pen, hijacked the island for their own strategic use.

The Court, applying Imperialist logic dismisses Malaysia’s contention that “the Acting State Secretary was definitely not authorized and did not have the legal capacity to write the 1953 letter, or to renounce, disclaim, or confirm title of any part of the territories of Johor.”

The Court applying bizarre logic then concluded:

“In the light of Johor’s reply, the authorities in Singapore had no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom had sovereignty over the island.”

This is perverse Imperialist logic! Why should the Sultan for no rhyme or reason and out of the blues disclaim or renounce sovereignty over the island? This the Court never explained.

It is abundantly clear that the ICJ used this letter as the main basis (giving its historical context) for their majority decision that sovereignty passed to Singapore.

The other secondary reasons (issue of maps) relied on by the Court which of itself are never ever sufficient and or conclusive to support a claim for sovereignty as they can refuted by other countervailing documents.

I am fortified in my view as one of the judges, though agreeing with the majority opinion that Singapore has sovereignty over the island observed that the Court failed to appreciate impact and consequences that at the material time when the letter of 1953 was issued, the Sultan of Johor was under the “colonial control” of the British Colonial administration. I quote:

“While relations between sovereign colonial Powers fell within the ambit of international law, it is difficult to argue that dealings between the United kingdom and the Sultanate of Johor were based on relations between sovereign, equal subjects of international law.

Thus, the sovereignty acknowledged to indigenous authorities was inoperative vis-à-vis colonial Powers, the authorities’ sole obligation being to submit to the will of the powers. Under these circumstances, the Sultan of Johor could not broach the slightest opposition to a decision by the British.”

Judge Parra-Aranguren was more devastating in his dissenting opinion and considered that “the findings made by the Court in the judgment demonstrate that judicial reason can always be found to support any conclusion.”

This is indeed a grievous indictment as to the integrity of the judgment and the judges that formed the majority opinion. I believe that this may be the first time that a fellow judge has questioned in such a dramatic way the integrity of the judgment of his fellow judges.

I wonder whether the Malaysian Bar and its Chairman, Ambiga has the courage of its convictions to expose this perverse judgment. In his dissenting judgment, Justice Parra-Aranguren supported my contention that the Court applied imperialist logic with regard to the effect and implications of the 21st September 1953 letter.

Additionally, the said judge exposed the fact that the conclusions offered by the majority opinion contradicts and are in conflict with their own findings of fact. For example, the bulk of activities of alleged “Singapore control” over the island was post 1953 and that both parties had agreed and the Court found that 1980 was the critical date for the purposes of the dispute as to sovereignty over the island.

Therefore, Singapore was only “actively involved” in the island for about 20 odd years. Yet, in an earlier decision in 2002, the Court handed down a judgment that a period of 20 years of activity is “far too short” a period to establish sovereignty [case: Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, ICJ Reports 2002, page 352]. Such activities cannot in law undermine historical title, which title was acknowledged as having being with the Sultan of Johor.

There is the added confusion in the said judgment [para 222] in that the Court expressly acknowledges that “ownership is in principle distinct from sovereignty.”

This is where I believe the Malaysian team screwed up big time. The judge observed that at all material times, the Sultanate of Johor used the term “ownership” and not “sovereignty”.

The judge also observed that there have been a few instances where in international litigation, “ownership” over territory has sometimes been used as “equivalent to sovereignty”. Be that as it may, the fact remains, that “ownership” and “sovereignty” are two distinct and separate concepts!

Conclusions

This article written for the public cannot encompass the entire legal arguments in support of my contention that the judgment of the ICJ is perverse.

There are urgent lessons to be learnt from this case. But I am not hopeful that Malaysia will more vigilant in protecting itself from predator states like Singapore from hijacking our lands.

This case seems to rest on the same principles in which Israel was founded. The myth and propaganda [specifically by Golda Meir] for the creation of Israel in Palestine was that Palestine was a land without any people, and that the Jews were people without a land.

Therefore, it was right and proper to take the land away from the Palestinians.

Singapore do not have enough land for its people. It has attempted to reclaim land even on the island of Pulau Batu Puteh, besides the use of the strategic lighthouse. Singapore claims that Johor has no sovereignty over the island. Therefore, the island belongs to Singapore.

This is Zionist fascist logic.

Matthias Chang
24th May 2008
Kuala Lumpur

Tidak Tuduh Pak Lah Lepaskan Pulau Batu Putih ...

...Tetapi kenapa ada Menteri cuba salahkan Dr Mahathir?

Hari ini, jurublog ini mendengar sendiri seorang Menteri dalam bersahaja mahu mengalihkan salah kehilangan Pulau Batu Puteh mengikut keputusan di International Court of Justice (ICJ) kepada Tun Dr Mahathir. Katanya, "Isu ini pun semasa zamannya."

Ini yang tidak sedap. Padahal tiada sesiapa yang tuduh Pak Lah pun. Adakah zamannya tidak membuat keputusan mengikut consensus Cabinet dan Majlis Tertinggi UMNO? Tunggul atau bodohkah yang main setuju?

Mungkin ada yang kecewa asyik berturut-turut kita dimainkan Singapura - pembatalan Jambatan Bengkok, penjualan saham Telekom, pembelian anak syarikat Singapore Telekom dengan mahal, penjualan saham-saham strategik kepada Temasik, kawasan tadah air PUB, dan lain-lain. Ditambah lagi dengan isu WPI yang rata-rata dilihat orang Johor sebagai menjual tanah untuk membolehkan Singapura membesarkan pendudok.

Jika tidak disebabkan ketidak persetujuan kepada WPI, tidaklah sampai lebih 300,000 rakyat Johor rosakan undi. Mereka tidak mahu beri undi pada UMNO tetapi tidak sanggup beri pada pembangkang.

Baiklah.

Kalau itu permainan balaci-balaci Pak Lah, maka jurublog ini pun bentangkan beberapa persoalan secara teks dan visual. Kita bahas stail Singapura, bahas berfakta. Cuba jawab pula.

Kita sedari kata-kata Pak Lah dalam laporan berjodol "PM minta rakyat terima keputusan ICJ" di Utusan Malaysia hari ini seperti berikut:

Menjawab satu soalan yang mengaitkan keputusan tersebut dengan kepimpinan beliau, Abdullah berkata, beliau pasti selepas ini ada pihak akan mempertikaikan kewibawaannya.

“Ini perkara biasa. Dengan keputusan mahkamah itu, nanti ada macam-macamlah. Orang yang tidak suka kita akan marah kita.

Kronologi Isu Pulau Batu Putih

Sekarang kita tengok dahulu kronologi isu Batu Putih dalam gambarajah dari The Star Online di bawah ini:


Merujuk kepada gambarajah yang boleh ditekan untuk dilihat dengan besar, siapa pula Perdana Menteri semasa tahun 1979 dan 1980 ketika perkara ini mula menjadi perbalahan?

Sepanjang 1989 hingga 2003 yang mana kedua-kedua Malaysia dan Singapura baru mengkaji dan bersetuju untuk mencari penyelesaian melalui ICJ arbitration, siapa pula Perdana Menteri?

Bila sudah masuk ICJ, menjadi tanggungjawab untuk menguruskan kes dalam menyediakan fakta, perbahasan, menyediakan dokumen dan bukti, dan lain-lain. Perkara ini berlaku dari tahun Mar 2004 hingga keputusan. Tidak payahlah jurublog mengulang soalan yang mana pembaca boleh agak.

Satu Batu dan Dua Batu Kelikir

Sedih melihat tanah kita yang jelas ditepi pantai kita itu jatuh kepada negara asing?


Pulau Batu Putih dan Middle Rock boleh kelihatan seperti gambar berikut dari sumber Singapura.

Dengan lebih dekat, South Ledge yang terlindung dalam gambar di atas adalah sedemikian seperti di gambar bawah:


Macam Mana Boleh Kalah Pak Lah?

Mengikut keputusan penghakiman ICJ, keputusan 12-4 memberi Pulau Batu Puteh atau Pedra Banca kepada Singapura. Manakala, keputusan 15-1 memberikan Middle Rock kepada Singapura. South Ledge masih belum ditetapkan lagi. Kenyataan akhbar ICJ sepenuhnya boleh diperolehi di sini.

Mengikut Malaysia Insider, ICJ tidak mempersoalkan kedaulatan Johor ke atas Pulau ini sebelum 1953.

ICJ melihat surat kerajaan Johor yang ditulis oleh Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri yang memperakui tidak menuntut pulau ini. Sepanjang tahun 1962-1975, beberapa peta yang dikeluarkan kerajaan tidak meletakkan pulau ini di bawah jajahan Johor.

Siapa Menteri Besar Johor tahun 1953? Siapa Perdana Menteri sepanjang 1962-75?

Sekarang mahu ditanya, adakah pasukan pembela kita telah melakukan "lobi"? Perjalanan ICJ memerlukan taktik "lobi".

Mungkin kita tidak suka "lobi" sejak keluar tuduhan VK Lingam mengatur lobi dan Vincent Tan dan Tengku Adnan melakukan lobi. Adakah diplomat kita pun turut mengikut permainan persepsi murah yang dilakukan oleh ahli politik PKR dan fraksi Pak lah dalam UMNO? "Lobi" di sini bermaksud penerangan!

Maklumat yang saya perolehi dari seorang bekas pelajar Cambridge yang mana pernah menuntut dari salah seorang pakar-pakar yang telah digajikan dan pensyarahnya memberitahunya, kita tidak melakukan "lobi"?

Mungkin terlalu banyak pasir masuk dalam otak Menteri Luar Negara kita semasa itukah?

Dalam laporan Utusan itu, Pak lah berkata berikut:

“Tetapi saya ingin jelaskan bahawa pasukan yang membawa kes ini ke ICJ adalah pasukan yang sama semasa kita menang dalam kes Pulau Sipadan dan Ligitan dulu,” ujarnya.

Sehubungan itu, beliau merakamkan penghargaan kepada semua pakar dan pegawai Malaysia yang terlibat membuat persediaan membawa kes itu ke ICJ.

Betulkah demikian?

Betulkah tiada dokumen sepanjang tahun 1953 ke tahun 1872 yang menafikan surat yang dikatakan melepaskan tanggngjawab terhadap pulau itu?

Ini satu lagi.

Siapa yang bahalol mengunakan gambar Pulau Batu Puteh yang diambil dari blog seperti berikut sebagai bukti?


Gambar sebenar yang dibentangkan Singapura adalah berikut.


Ini betul memalukan. YB Jeff Ooi pernah menuliskan kesilapan besar yang kita lakukan pada bulan November tahun lepas di sini.

Buat Menteri tersebut, saya bertanya, siapa Perdana Menteri semasa perkara ini berlaku?

Siapa pula Perdana Menteri yang merancang dan melancarkan dengan bersungoh-sunggoh WPI yang mungkin akan dituntut oleh Singapura sebagai jajahan mereka pada tahum Misi Nasional 2057?

Buah yang Rendang

Sementara itu, apa jadi kata-kata hendak memetik buah-buah yang rendang dahulu?

Kes ini masih tidak habis-habis lagi. Batu kelikir bernama South Ledge siapa punya? Malaysia Insider melaporkan Gani Osman berkata masih ada pertindihan tuntutan lagi?

Baguslah dudok sama-sama dengan Singapura berbincang dalam Jawatankuasa Teknikal Bersama. Biasanya selesaikah? Main golf banyak-banyak, makan nasi ulam dan durian sedap-sedap.

Kalau Pak Lah, Shabery Chik dan Tingkat 4 mahu selesaikan senang saja, salahkan Dr Mahathir saja.

Tetapi kalau takut saluran 3 dan 4 marah, salahkan DAP atau PKR pula. Asal bukan silap Pak Lah, kerana yang baik darinya, yang salah dari kita dan orang lain.

UMNO and It's Misunderstood Sense of Loyalty

Mahathir in dialogue with Kazuo Ogoura, president of the Japan Foundation, at the 14th International Conference on “The Future of Asia” in Tokyo. — Picture from AP

Dr Mahathir has yet to let up in his attack on Abdullah. He gave one back to Musa and Shahrir. He responded to the spin against him as wroking for Anwar Ibrahim's favour. Another point against him is to requote his words to be loyal to the party.

Whatever it is, despite the repeated voice of "support" for his leadership, Abdullah is already on menggelabah mode. Although there are few at the grassroot feeling restless, they agree with Tun. He has expressed the frustration at the grassroot with the leadership of Abdullah. However, Tun need to convince the people that he is not out to destroy UMNO. Much spinning and oversimplification of history is happening.

With the loss of Pulau Batu Putih and the poorly timed response to be conciliatory with Singapore by Abdullah, do not expect his rating to go further up. It will just enhance the public fear that given time Johor will lose Iskandar (or used to be WPI or SJER but not yet Khairy Malaysia) to Singaporean.

Already, the Tingkat 4 are restless with the coverage given to Tun. Words are circulating that Kamal Khalid is back to his old self - making threatening calls to news paper editors. Wong Choon Wah may soon decay on his press freedom stance.

Kamal is said to even requesting all articles on Tun must get his prior approval. Ah ... rumours, perhaps he is merely seeking a head start with a his response. But will Shabery allow a turnaround from his liberal press and blog friendly policy? Will he risk his boss's future?

Making UMNO Irrelevant?

In yesterday's The Star, they reported:

TOKYO: Umno is preparing its own demise and that of Barisan Nasional if it continues to have Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at the helm, former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said Thursday.

He also said that his son Datuk Mukhriz, who decided against following his move to quit Umno, might face “difficulties” staying on should Abdullah continue to be the president.

“Yes, Umno can consider me irrelevant. It is their funeral and not mine. Today the Barisan has been destabilised by Abdullah not being able to lead it to victory in the general election.

“Barisan, in some cases, has become irrelevant. Gerakan has become irrelevant, MIC could not win. All this was due to him. He not only destabilised Umno, he destabilised component parties and he destabilised Barisan,” Dr Mahathir told The Star Thursday in an interview here.

Dr Mahathir, who is here for a dialogue session at the Nikkei conference, said he predicted Barisan would be finished in the next elections if Abdullah continued to serve as Prime Minister.

Better Alternative Than Of Anwar

Further in the report, he explained his call for BN to jump Independent.

Asked if his move would provide PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to take over the Government, Dr Mahathir said:

“I am offering an alternative which is less dangerous for Barisan. Instead of jumping to another party, I am telling them to form your own group which will be the determining force in Parliament.”

He added that if Abdullah did not go, he would be in the minority because the other had already left and he would have to give up his post as Prime Minister.

“If in that case Anwar wants to come in, this group will give support to Barisan and Barisan with a new leader can still go on to become the Government,” he said.

There are many who now believes that Tun saved UMNO indirectly by his resignation and at the same time spoiling Anwar's jump ship threat. The multithreat to UMNO made UMNO to encircle its bandwagon and limit the squable within UMNO.

Misguided Understanding of Loyalty

Tun has mentioned this many times in his speech to call for loyalty to the party, its cause and struggle. But not be feudalistic to be loyal to a person or as Tun's new pun, DYMM Sultan Abdullah Shah.

Rafidah still didn't get it, did she? She is spinning an answer merely to discredit. She forgot she lost her Ministerial post to a "lesbian" or she is just waiting time to return some favours?

The Star report further reported:

Earlier, at a press conference with the Malaysian media, Dr Mahathir was asked why he was being disloyal to Umno.

“If we are against the president, it does not mean we are against the party. We are misinterpreting things.

“If we look back at history, Tun Razak did not agree with Dato Onn Jaafar to open up Umno to other races. To Tun Razak, his disagreement did not mean he was being disloyal to Umno.

“The same goes when in 1969, the Alliance did not perform well in the elections and many criticised Tunku Abdul Rahman. Razak was clearly sympathetic towards his critics, including me.”

He also said that when Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Tun Musa Hitam and Abdullah challenged him when he was Umno president in 1987, he never accused them of being disloyal.

Asked if he was willing to meet Umno deputy president Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Dr Mahathir only had one question to ask Najib.

“I want to ask him whether he is loyal to the party or president? I just want to remind him of the Onn and Tunku cases where his father was clearly disloyal to the party leader.

“If Najib wants to say those who are not loyal to the president is also against the party, I want to remind Najib of what his father did back then,” he said.

Watching His Back


The day Tun announced his resignation on Wesak Day holiday, Abdullah had a session with all Branch Head in Selangor. Tun's resignation was obviously discussed with few planted names from the floor like Azman Salleh was lambasting Tun.

Abdullah was too defensive and insecure that in the opening of his speech, he accuse the other side of sabotaging the event.

Omigod, with the Mr Sabotageur and the man with the two Muhammad on his side, how could other side sabotage. He still thinks it is a coordinated affair and not the genuinely disgruntled grassroot.

There was only 1,300 out of 3,000 that is expectd to turn up. even thsoe that stayed were restless since late noon becasue Abdullah did not turn up.

With UMNO and BN MPs having to keep recitig pledge of support, it is making Abdullah look insecure and unsteady.

Ezam's return is good timing and good extra ammunition. It helps the hypothesis that him and Khairy being in the same bed with UMNO's Numero Uno enemy, Anwar Ibrahim being true.

Still pledging support and undivided loyalty, UMNO? Or till the time is right?

Salehuddin PKR should answer these You Tube videos

Salehuddin Hashim, Secretary General of PKR denied all of Mukhriz's allegations of Anwar Ibrahim in Parliament.

In Malaysiakini.com report dated May 17th, 2008, he gave his answers on all the three allegation except on Anwar's role in the Foundation for the Future (FFF).

He acknowledged US funding of FFF. This just proves Anwar's role to interfere in the affair of Muslim countries by becoming the conduit for American funding to special interest groups.

Now it would be interesting how Arthur Delittle trained lawyer Salehuddin would answer to these 6-series video of Anwar's long standing American association and now with the pro-Zionist and hawkish Neo-con.

His Reply

"If Mukhriz can prove that the Jerusalem Post was the only newspaper in the entire world to speculate that Anwar may well be the next prime minister, then perhaps his accusations may actually hold some water," his reply to Mukhriz's allusion of Jurusalem Post's article on Anwar Ibrahim being the next Prime Minister. He added an additional twist of BN's control of the press for further substantite his diversion.

He doesn't get it, does he? Why is the Israeli so full of praises and optimism for Anwar the once firebrand Islamist?

On Anwar's close relationship with Paul Wolfowitz, he said “By not burning bridges only speaks of his statesmanship, as clearly, blindly severing ties would not have helped to stop the war or contribute towards any hope for peace in the future.”

The war does not stop and Iraqi and Afghans died by the millions from Wolfowitz's bloody hands. They did not heed Anwar's so-called disagreement. With millions of our brother Muslim dead at this muderer, it is unthinkable for Anwar to remain as friends.

Salehuddin did acknowledge Anwar role in Foundation for the Future and receipt of money from US. Well, he must be thinking teh US State Department as a noble institution for a noble Government. Plain stupid!

While he attempts to deflect attention by accusing Mukhriz as deflecting attention, Salehuddin raised another age old issue of Dr Mahathir paying American zionist lobbyist Jack Ambramoff for a meeting with George Bush.

As Dr Mahathir said in his blog posting Lobby, is it a crime to lobby? With Anwar being supported by Al Gore, for the sake of country, is it not right to meet the new President? No millions of Iraqi and Afghan died!

Answer This!

Now watch these series of video and lets wait for his answer, if he actually read this blog.













Hashim Gera's Son

Ah .. Salehuddin, son of the infamous Hashim Gera from Grik, the Mohd Asri's era PAS member for ronggeng dancing.

He got his first business break from Dr Mahathir to turnaround Kedah SEDC's Kedah Marble where he bult himself on. Then he was singing praises of the old man. Later he made further killing by doing a backdoor listing into Advance Synergy by mere asset valuation with manipulated income.

He never did turnaround Kedah Marble. What happened to Kedah Marble now?

Salehuddin moved on to became a corporate wheeler dealer. One of his high profile deal was to buy over Hercules, Texas-based barge company for the oil and gas industry for fellow old boys Tan Sri Halim Saad's Crest Petroleum.

He is now in Anwar's stable of frustrated corporate boys like Khalid Ibrahim, Khalid Ahmad, mee seller Mohd Nor Mutalib, Nazri, Din Merican, etc. At least, Salehuddin's arch enemy in PNB, Khalid Ibrahim got over his stutter to be MB of Selangor.

A proud Malay College Old Boys who loudly claims his strong nationalistic and socialistic belief and Malay identity. Hmmm ... now Sec Gen of PKR? Do you need ketchup or chutney to eat your shoe with?

A Lawyer's Opinion on Zaid Ibrahim and His Actions II

In this second part of his critical view on Zaid Ibrahim, successful and locally trained Loyar Korporat disagree with his plan to remove the Certificate of Legal Practise requirement.

By Loyar Korporat

The Government introduced the Certificate of Legal Practise or CLP as it is commonly called from the early eighties. The CLP was an alternative and a means to allow Malaysian students who had completed and obtained their LLB but failed to gain entry into the respective Inns of Court or were not in a financial or economic position.

The operative word being “failed”, to gain entry into the respective Inns of Court. The failure of these Malaysians in obtaining entry into the Inns of Court could be partly attributed to the results of these Malaysians which basically did not meet the entry requirements of the respective Inns of Court.

From my understanding, the Law degrees awarded by the English and Welsh Universities require three (3) years undergraduate studies and upon completion, the graduate is conferred the degree.

The English legal system makes a distinction between a Barristor and a Solicitor. The year spent at the Inns of Court would entail the study and understanding of the various procedural laws.

In Malaysia, we have a fused profession meaning that here in Malaysia the lawyer is admitted to the rolls as an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court and not a Barristor or a solicitor as in the United Kingdom.

The local public universities including the National University of Singapore which conduct the LLB courses require that all its law undergraduate students complete four (4) of studies. Normally, the fourth year is mainly for the various procedural laws.

It is beyond comprehension that the law graduates of the British or Austrialian universities, and who have not gained entry into the Inns of Court or who have not studied the various procedural laws, not be required to undertake the CLP.

Any proposal to do away with the CLP must take into consideration the aspect of any law undergraduate having completed the required various procedural laws.

The capability of the foreign law graduates is not being questioned here but why should these individuals be exempted from the study and understanding of the various procedural laws.

Furthermore, the question for the Bar Council (both past and present) and Government authorities is: Why these issues have not been addressed and explained to the general public?

It is convenient for the various parties, for whatever purposes and with whatever vested interests, to side step and sweep these issues under the carpet.

The first part of this series is available here.

Note: In the opinion of this blogger, this is exemplary of Zaid's myopic view of the bigger picture. Sadly, as someone who benefited from the education at ITM, he has lost any sense of Malayness. He fail to see the tersirat in any that is tersurat. Shouldn't someone that has excelled in law be able to see the spirit and text? That happens only when one has lost ones soul.

This blogger recalled well the hue and cry from the Bar Council when Tun Sheikh Ahmad Fairuz, for the second time, spoke of the need of a Malaysian Common Law last year. There was a well coordinated and consensual attempt to ridicule his view, which is essentially developing the Malaysian Common Law to incorporate Malaysian values which is essentially the heritage of Islamic values and other common and universal values found in all religion of Malaysia.

The commonly cited reasons by Bar Council members was the British tradition of the Malaysian legal practise and their foreign qualification. So much for developing a Malaysian identity (jati diri) and the often used sloganeering of Bangsa Malaysia by Bar Council activists who are generally believers in multi-culturalism, multipluralism and multi-religion.

In the private opinion of locally trained Loyar Korporat, our legal system has elements are already infused with While they believed that Tun Salleh Abas had been unfairly treated and had defended him, the irony of their allergy to anything Islamic is that few charges on Tun Salleh Abas, which had led to his dismissal by the YDP Agong, was that he had similar view with Tun Sheikh Ahmad Fairuz in advocating for the incorporation of Islamic legal system.

Strangely, while other professional bodie stry hard to exert a local standard and soem level of exclusivity, the local Bar Council is happy being non Malaysian and adopting other standards. These lawyers are not worth calling themselves Malysian and fighter of justice (which I seriously doubts lawyers do but pandering to teh needs of clients).

They are colonised minds ever willing to remain colonised!