Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The democratic hoax of Bersih 2.0 (Part 2)

If we had exposed the democratic hoax behind Bersih 2007 yesterday here, which is really to revert to ancient feudal system of Government from the present system of Constitutional Monarchy, the second Part is to expose the hoax behind Bersih 2.0's claim of seeking electoral reform.

This blogger could have taken other angles to proof Bersih 2.0 have no democratic intention but decided to lay the facts that their demand for electoral reform were fake.

For one, we could have highlight Dato Ambiga's acknowledgement Bersih 2.0 received money from CIA organisation, National Democratic Initiative to debunk her claim of championing democrasy through electoral reforms. Words are an NDI operative was caught in Johor together with the Parti Sosialis Malaysia activists.

In these You Tube here and here, Phil Agee, a former CIA agents revealed an old CIA trick using MAFREL-like organisation seeking electoral reform but was merely intended to plant their people in Government.

This blogger can focus on highlighting that only 2 or 3 of the 14 organising members of Bersih 2.0 are not politicians to prove that Bersih 2.0 is partisan politics motivated.

It is not difficult to prove that almost all the personalities and organisation linked to Bersih 2.0 have mentioned publicly in political rallies of re-creating ala Egypt's Tahrir Square revolution to bring down Government. They have got the structure, foreign connection and funding to do it.

But no, we will just focus on debunking their claims of seeking electoral reforms.

Ambiga told the crowd at the rally that Bersih 2.0 had met the Election Commission already and refuse to accept EC's offer to continue talking. She said to the effect that the buck stops here.

She claimed the Sarawak Election was so tainted that they must act with a major rally.

The truth is she lied.

If the Sarawak election was tainted and dirty, why was there only two protests. One in Senadin and second in Pelagus.

Syed Akbar Ali discussed and explained the Senadin incident in his Part 2 on Bersih here. Read also his Part 1 here.

The Pelagus complain was by Barisan Nasional. They accused the victor, independent candidate George Lagong of money politics. It is no secret that George was financed by Anwar Ibrahim's supporter and long time financier, Dato Sng Chee Hwa but the claim had no proofs.

On Ambiga's claim that they had enough discussion with EC, how many times did they meet?


Bersih 2.0 or they claim themselves as Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, did meet with the EC Chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Mohd Yusof on November 9th, 2010.

In that meeting, the Bersih people raised some 17 issues and submitted it in a memorandum. See below:

In that long meeting, in which EC even served lunch, they went over thoroughly the problems, issues, and arguments on all the 17 requests of Bersih 2.0. The exchanges were healthy and honest.

One major weakness of Bersih 2.0 was that they themselves weren't conversant and up-to-date with development in electoral law and rules, and also they didn't substantiate their claims with evidence and proofs. In cases they had evidences and proves, they did not understand the procedures involved to substantiate their conclusion.

Basically, they didn't do they homework and all their requests were embarassingly shot down. But being a diplomatic, patient and open person, Aziz did not shame them. They left with the agreement to meet again and discuss again.

Since Tan Sri Aziz took over as Chairman, by God's will, many of our elected representatives were dying and the country was having by-elections after by-elections.

Sometime in March this year, some blogs were beginning to talk of Mat Sabu leading another bersih-like rally. It was sometime in April in the midst of EC's busy schedule with Kerdau and Merlimau, Tenang and Sarawak state elections that Bersih approach EC for another meeting.

Tan Sri Aziz did not refuse them but merely seeking a more appropriate time. EC have respected Bersih 2.0 as serious people and would rather give them the proper attention. It is only fair he request from them a time later.

Unfortunately, that fair request was used as an excuse that EC had refuse to talk to them. Ambiga manipulated it to push away EC's offer to continue discussion.

But this should be interesting.

When Bersih 2.0 announced their demands in the memo they intend to give to Agong, only 5 of the original demand remains. That means either the 12 other requests have been shelved or they realised it is not justified.

The eight requests are below:

The list were:
1. Clean the electoral roll
2. Reform postal ballot
3. Use of indelible ink
4. Minimum 21 days campaign Period
5. Free and fair access to media
6. Strengthen public institutions
7. Stop corruption
8. Stop dirty politics
Only 1 to 5 remains from the original list. The demands 5 to 8 had ridiculously nothing to do with the power of the EC.

In fact, who took dirty politics to new heights of accusing the Prime Minister and hisweife of murder, fabricated a doctor's notes from Pusrawi in the case of Saiful Bahri, and many more?

We are not saying out electoral system is perfect and without flaws. There is room for improvement and there have been many changes made through the years. But are the demands made that important and significant to warrant for disturbing peace.

Let's discuss the issues related to item 1 to item 4.

On the frst request to clean and up-date the electoral roll, that is a continuing administrative process. Off course, it has its limitation and problems. What matters most is that no one not on the electoral rolls is voting.

No one can vote unless their names is on the electoral rolls and they brought along a valid IC with them.

The Bersih 2.0 people demanded that phantom voters be wiped out. This is an administrative problem arising before the changes on July 2002. Anyone can register and put in any address they want to. Only after that date do the rule require that voting address is in accordance to the IC.

As for those like Azmin Ali, whose address seems to have five non family member, which include 5 Chinese, EC is not empowered to remove those names out unless they correct the mistake themselves.

Another point as part of their request on electoral roll is for automatic registration. That requires database of addresses of everyone at the National Registeration Department is updated. That is not the case.

Furthermore, there is no law to impose on anyone to register to be voters.

Bersih 2.0 demanded a reform of postal votes to allow for anyone locally and abroad to vote via posts. The Constuition defines those living abroad as absentees voters and the electoral rules that other than those stipulated; namely police and spouse, army, and election workers, absentees voters do not qualify for postal vote.

As far as the procedures and presence of party agents, it has been changed to be more transparent. So why the beef?

To meet their request, it means going through the process of changing the electoral rules. If the opposition feel strongly for electoral reform, why was there no private bill from any opposition members of Parliament on electoral rule since March 2008?

Bersih 2.0 demanded use of indelible ink to avoid duplication. Although there were plans to introduce it for the 2008 GE, but it was held back.

The reason cited then was security but in essence the Constitution only mentioned those of unsound mind, criminals, underage and non citizen can be disallowed to vote. Introducing use of indelible ink would only invites lawsuits!

Indelible inks used to and are still in use in such third world country such as Africa, India, and Indonesia. India has changed to biometrics, and our immigration have begin to use biometric, thus shouldn't we be looking at biometrics?

Bersih 2.0 demanded a minimum 21 days campaign period. In 2008, campaign period was 14 days. That was too long, costly and tiring.

The constitution only require more than 7 days.

EC considers all factors such as political climate, security and public order including getting consensus of all political parties. The periods most acceptable to all parties were 7-9 days.

How would Bersih 2.0 know it is not aceptable? There are, after all, only "NGOs."

Nevertheless, EC have the discretion to lengthened the campaign period. That is not a problem. But does it warrant a large demonstration with hundreds of thousands mobilise.

You see the electoral demands of Bersih 2.0 has no major significant. It is merely an excuse to their true intention to stir trouble and help Anwar Ibrahim out of his legal and sexual mess. If you wish to know who are the "troublemaker organisations" behind Bersih 2.0 making all these "stupid demands", see below:

The most rude act done by Bersih organisers and followers is their total disregard for palace protocols.

To submit anything to the Agong, one has to get an appointment for an audience. Then one come at the set time in the proper attire and learn the proper mannerism to address his Highness. The memorandum can then be presented and explained to him.

Bersih 2.0 can meet up with the Agong in accordance with the procedures. Why the need to bring in such large, loud and rowdy accompanying crowd to just hand in a memo over the fense when they can get to meet and hand in the memo themselves to the Agong?

In the first Bersih, the Agong was away and there is doubt that a memo sent in the most improper manner will be accepted by his Highness. Words are Agong will be away for Bersih 2.0.

Bersih's reason is only to create a scene to make Malaysia look bad in the international media or create wave of public disturbance or uproar to bring down the democratically elected Government.

And just like the first one, Bersih 2.0 and their electoral demands are but a democratic hoax.

Tomorrow we will show that Ambiga herself as a lawyer is neither a law abiding citizen nor respect democrasy.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

The democratic hoax of Bersih (Part 1)

Back on the day of Bersih 1.0 on November 10, 2007, this blog wrote a Malay pantun series entitled Dilemma November Sepuloh Haribulan. The pantun series was republished on Malaysia Today.

Raja Petra then had a sense of fairplay to publish the other side of a view. It is hardly the case today. He declared that MT is a propaganda machine with no intention to seek the truth and righteous ways.

Prior to the first Bersih in 2007, Raja Petra had approach this blogger and mooted the idea of peoples' rally to seek support. However, there was suspiciously something conniving and deceitful in the intention and manner the peoples' rally was organised. This blogger couldn't come to agree.

The pantun series encapsulate this blogger's argument against Raja Petra on that year's malam raya (the eve of hari raya) at our mutual friend's place, Kamal Amir in Taman Tun Dr Ismail. The essence of the disagreement was in these phrases:
Ribuan mahu bersuara berkata
Amalan demokrasi dikata agenda
Dalam perlembagaan hak tersedia
Aman dan damai sebaik cara

Tujuan dan cara mungkin berbeza
Fikiran dan sikap ku terbuka
Itu hak mu untuk bersuara
Tersurat dan tersirat mesti sama

Terbuka mendengar dan berbicara
Bagi ku jalanan bukan cara
Mahu berkumpul untuk apa?
Cara feudal silam erti tiada
To begin with, Bersih's stated and unstated objectives differ.

In the light of another Bersih 2.0, let me declare that Bersih 1.0 was a democratic hoax intended to deceit the public into thinking it was a worthy cause but had the intention to initiate public disorder with the hope to attain power through unconstitutional means.

If this blogger can't agree with Bersih 1.0, like hell will this blogger agree with Bersih 2.0 with it's clearly stated intention to replicate the Tahrir Square revolution of Egypt in Kuala Lumpur.

Be it for 2007 or 2011, the Bersih people are anarchist masquerading as democratic reformist. It was and still is about seizing power through undemocratic means.

The first Bersih was originally drummed up as Yellow March. The concept was mooted largely by former Semangat 46 activists aligned with Tengku Razaleigh, whom can be considered as royalist faction within UMNO. They claimed that Dr Mahathir had eroded the power of the monarchy during the constitutional crisises of the 1980s.

Raja Petra wrote at large about the constitutional power of the monarchy and the erosion of power arising from constitutional amendments. Until the Perak crisis came about, Raja Petra had given much publicity and accolades to the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah.

The logic behind their idea was that since it was impossible to remove Tun Abdullah Badawi from his Prime Minister seat through the normal democratic process through general elections or party elections, the only way possible was to revive the royal power or royal discretionary power.

It is as though by re-empowering the Agong or Sultan to the days of Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat, executive abuse and the concern of the time, i.e. infiltration of foreign interest in Government policies and GLCs, could be addressed.

That was the simple idea promoted which they thought would appeal to everyone. But the problem was it was too simplistic. It was also replaying the politics of the past whose train has left the station.

The idea of giving Sultans discretionary power, in which few Sultans are not sufficiently educated and experienced in administration, does not appeal to this blogger. Neither do feudalism like that read in old hikayat.

That is where Dr Mahathir appeal to this blogger. He is against feudalism.

Before slogans using the word rakyat became plenty, this blogger have long had the rakyat in his heart. This blogger do not envy the bourgeuise life.

This explains the line "Cara feudal silam erti tiada." It expressed this bloggers' disagreement to return to the feudel past described as meaningless tradition.

In our argument that malam raya, this blogger expressed without inhibition to Raja Petra who was a member of the Selangor royal family that the idea of feudalism and royal discretion is out-dated in the light of existing constitutional monarchy.

While acknowledging the sovereign status of the Sultan, this blogger vehemently disagree to any idea of giving re-empowering the Sultan beyond their present power. To set the point home, this blogger blamed the royal and ruling elite for several centuries of indiscretion that led to colonisation and the malaise of the Malays today.

In another set of pantun phrases, this blogger expressed below:
Apa yang disuarakan tidak diyakini
Tidak berapa jelas dan pasti
Jalanan Putrajaya menyorok intipati
Siasah dan agenda "keadilan" mengaburi

Kerana bukan suara rakyat hakiki
Ku tidak sama ikut menyertai
Hanya menghulur solidariti bereksperasi
Hak ku juga tidak menyetujui

Ku akui "Raja" yang ada lemah dan cuai
Masih boleh dikejut dan disedari
Struktur demokrasi masih bersemai
Titah dan perintah sudah tidak sesuai

Rasa hati sentiasa gundah
Mengenang masa depan bercelarah
Undang-undang dan aturan perlu gagah
Suasana anarki lebih susah
When the idea of a mass peoples' rally was mooted, there was supposed to be no politicians and no partisan elements. There was not supposed to have Anwar Ibrahim or Lim Kit Siang or Haji Hadi at the Istana gates.

That is the reason why some demonstrators were not wearing Bersih's T shirt but with writings Daulat Tuanku and on foreign infiltration. There are also those that wore white.

It was only near the November 10 date that Raja Petra and the "real" organiser of Bersih told us that PAS was rolled in to make up the numbers.

During the negotiation with Mat Sabu, PAS did not want it to be called Yellow March but will walk together but under a different banner of Bersih to call for electoral reform. That was how Bersih came about.

With the Yellow March people outnumbered, Bersih stole the show. Till today, that march was called Bersih demonstration and the Yellow March is forgoten. Raja Petra kept that information to himself. When asked during his T shirt delivery to the National Press Club, he still said there will be no politicians.

But this blogger knew that the agenda of peoples' march was hijacked and decided to stay out. This blogger knew of politicians waiting near the finish line at the gate. The plan for Anwar Ibrahim was a last minute thing. He was brought in on a big bike from Pertama Kompleks to hand the memorandum across the gate.

That could have been the very reason Raja Petra wrote "How politicians hijack revolutions?"

However, Malaysia Today's promotion of Bersih 2.0 does not indicate he is really bothered for lying because he wants Pakatan politicians to hijack any form of peoples' revolution. He thinks Pakatan is the people and will true to their words.

This blogger does not think so. That will be where we differ although we respect each other as friends.

In Bersih 1.0 or the Yellow March, the people were duped into supporting the idea that empowering a just and wise rulers as the solution to the malaise of the time. The people were duped to think that the army and police was on their side.

There were no such thing. Instead, the people were used by opposition politicians to build up sentiment against a Government, despite it's weakness, it was a democratically elected Government.

In Bersih 2.0, the people are being led to think that the electoral process is filled with fraud and it justify doing a massive demonstration. Again the people is being duped. The next part will show that their electoral claims are as much a hoax as the idea of re-empowering the rulers.

If election is an exercise in democrasy, the Bersih people and their so-called call for electoral reform have no such democratic intentions. It is an excercise to grab power through undemocratic process through public disorder.

As it is, Bersih is already reported in the blogs and media to be infiltrated with subversive elements such as communist ideology, CIA-backed institutions, and millitant sectarian Islam. If the power grab succeed, it will bring the country into chaos.

If the power grab failed, their Plan B is about creating a wave of public sentiment against the Government and/or instilling public defiance and provocation against the authorities. Legally speaking, the authorities does not equate with the ruling politicians but the system of Government and public institutions that carry out responsibilities empowered on them by the law or on certain specific matters, policies set by the Cabinet.

Bersih has all the ingredients to create problem of security and public disorder. This is not about democrasy but anarchy.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

MUSICAL INTERLUDE: On the road again

Not by Willie Nelson but by Canned Heat

Out of town for few days. Ada kerja ....

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Concluding what "the untold MAS story" did not tell

Since Wednesday, this blogger was out of town to give an unscheduled talk. Thus we couldn't post the final two part of the series. Apologise for the delay.

Malaysia Airlines Berhad reported a loss of RM267 million for the first quarter of 2011. There was an operating loss of RM242 as compared to RM310 million profit for 1st quarter 2010. The reason cited was the high oil prices and higher ringgit. Read The Malaysian Insiders here.

It is funny that the reason for the losses were reported in such manner. Back in 1998-2001, a sharp decline in ringgit had resulted in massive operating losses for MAS. The higher oil should have been profitable for the arbitrage placed by Idris Jala.

When MAS suffered the massive losses towards the end of Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli's tenure as Chairman, the Group undertook a massive financial restructuring exercise to do a massive "sell and leaseback exercise" called Wide Unbundling of Assets. From thereon, MAS did not have to be burdened with acquiring asset and leverage.

Domestic operations, which were a burden to MAS, were taken out and given to Air Asia and other MAS own dedicated domestic subsidiaries.

There is no major financial crisis like what happened in 1997/98. During those tumultous time, ringgit weakened from the high of 2.47 in the first quarter of 1997 to just short of "see you at 5" at a low of RM4.88 on January 7th 1998.

Why is MAS still making occasional quarterly losses?

After Tajuddin left, everyone wanted to blame him for the problems in MAS. The opposition backed attempt with some member of MAS management concocted an RM8 billion loss but still no proof is coming.

They tried to pin a conflict of interest issue on him for the losses from the Hahn Airport but it did not hold up at the International Court of Arbitration (ICC). Should Rosli Dahlan and Dr Wafi decided to not wait for MACC and Police and go for civil court, it will not likely to hold up.

MAS is not going to be stupid enough to pick on petty contracts to Edaran Digital

There was talk that Tajuddin had "sebat" money through an insurance broker, Cendanasari Insurance Broker Sdn Bhd and MAS could save millions by going direct to Lloyd's. Since when do Lloyd deals direct with end customers? They do not even deal direct with Insurance Companies.

Check the rates given by Cendanasari. Why didn't anyone mention that it is lower than market? Otherwise, Puan Marni would have alerted Puan Nik Nadeemah and asked Rosli Dahalan to make a case out of it. With competitive rates and no margin, how is Tajuddin to take make a cut out Cendanasari?

In our first posting on December 16th, 2010 here, Tajuddin's tenure at MAS ended with total losses before tax was RM750 million and total losses after tax was RM908 million. That is far cry from the alleged RM8 billion.

When sales of aircraft and spares, sales of foreign quoted shares for RM100.4 million for March 2000 and sales of properties for RM83.4 million and RM104.9 million for 2006 and 2007, respectively are accounted for, the following was MAS historical profit and loss:

Notice Tajuddin's total losses before tax was RM365 million and total losses after tax was less than RM500 million. And notice too that post-Tajuddin MAS was still making losses and still erratic in their performance despite being relieved of several burdens.

Johari Yusof, an MBA student at the Islamic International University made a turnaround thesis of MAS. It is available here.

He provided a good background of Tajuddin's turnaround plan. That way no one should be taken in by oversimplified comments that Tajuddin's outsourcing plans resulted in higher cost.

Johari did commented that Tajuddin was expanding too fast.

Everyone is an expert on the hindsight. The truth to the matter was no one could survive a drop in currency like what happened. See another chart below to understand how it affected MAS instantaneously:

Tajuddin was picking up in profitability if not for the unexpected currency attack by Anwar Ibrahim's political financier, George Soros. No one could have survived in such a market.

Why was post-Tajuddin's profitability still erratic despite stable ringgit, no asset to deal and no domestic route to bring down profitability? Why is MAS with subsidise fuel is still making losses as compared to other regional Airlines?

Puzzling isn't it.

Those are questions for MAS to ponder and do an introspective of themselves. Everyone in MAS need to be honest and truthful. Instead of that, MAS was only blaming others like Tajuddin.

MAS had identified Tengku Dato Seri Azmil Zaharuddin from Price Waterhouse London to lead. He was groomed at Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad, then understudy Dato Idris Jala, and finally took the mantle of MAS.

He was under no heavy pressurre from the media, mainstream or alternatives. But he still did not meet expectations. Far from making any stamp in the airline industry, Tengku Azmil is only known for bringing in royals from Terengganu to fill in high positions. Talk is he is about to leave soon.

Before that MAS staff got what they had always wanted i.e. someone from within to helm the airlines. He was Dato Fuaad Dahalan. Read market's expectation in this report here. He failed miserably and could be solely responsible for the 2005 massive loss.

That brought in the Butcher from Shell, Dato Idris Jala. It is also time to review the CEO great at making powerpoint presentation.
His textbook turnaround plan is available here.

He ended up making 141 MAS staff into instant half-a-millionaire.

Did he think properly and listen to those who understand airline? He was using novices and newbies to the industry as advisers. There were amaterish mistakes made.

MAS share price vis-a-vis Airasia is low. Could Airasia be a possible predator? Frankly, no. The reason in another posting.

Before we give our view in the next and final posting, read The Star's coverage of MAS last Saturday below:
Tough times for MAS
MAS: On a wing and prayer
Making the necessary changes to ensure sustainable profit
MAS needs the ‘wow’ factor again
Grappling with fuel costs

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Witnesses turned court room into legal comedy [Updated]

Perhaps Tan Sri Robert Phang will glee with vindication and claimed, "I told you so" after reading this posting. To this blogger, it does not really matter. The truth, or perhaps this version of the truth, has to be told and justice has to be served.

The case against former Menteri Besar of Selangor, Dato Seri Dr Mohamed Khir Toyo had all the ingredients and recipe for a great courtroom drama. Having been badly tarnished by Khairy sympathiser TV3, Khir Toyo assume the role of villain everyone loves to see go to the slammer.

There was the suspicion of collusion. Shamsuddin Haryoni, the seller is Director of construction company, Ditamas Sdn Bhd, and maybe Javanese. The public wants to believe he colluded with Khir Toyo to secure business from the state with the house as kickback.

The Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, had taken it upon himself to prosecute the case. He hope to prove to the public that he is fair to both sides. He prosecute both opposition or government leaders.

On the first day of the trial on Monday last week, there was a sudden turn of event. The prosecutor withdrew charges against Shamsuddin and made him prosecutor's witness. That should have strengthen an already strong prosecutor's case, sources claim.

To add color to the dull court room ambiance, there was the presence of a bomoh. He has dark skin, sit and walk by himself, and wears a full dark red head cap. His big eyes gives a piercing look. Some claimed it was Khir Toyo's.

Another source in the courtroom claimed it was Shamsuddin's to help him cool his nerve. There is probably three of them and at the request of AG.

When trial resume on Tuesday, Shamsuddin lost his nerve and reappeared for cross examination yesterday. Another prosecutor's witness, landscape designer and house renovator Nasir also bungled. The expected legal drama end up looking like a legal comedy.

Unless Gani can show there were abuse of power, corruption and collusion by Khir Toyo, it doesn't look like Gani will be able to pin Khir Toyo down for buying a house cheaper than seller's purchase price. So far, it does not look Khir Toyo did anything wrong.


During Khir Toyo's tenure as Selangor Menteri Besar, he was villified by the Kalimullah controlled mainstream media dedicated to run him down.

With the concurrence of then Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah, it serve the purpose to kill off a potential competitor to Khairy Jamaluddin pursuit to go for the UMNO Youth leadership.

Khairy was the first to make an issue out of Khir Toyo's house. He rented a helicopter to take aerial pictures of it and spread it on several pro-Khairy's blogs fronting as Anti-Khir Toyo and BN Raksaksa blogs.

Khairy's excessive campaign against Khir Toyo consequently came at the expense of UMNO losing the state in the 2008 general election. It did not stop there because Khir Toyo continue to suffer at Khairy's hands. [Read ABITW dated December 7th, 2010 here.]

After the party election, DAP Sekinchan state assemblymen, babi-faced Ng Swee Lim used Khairy's pictures to make it into a public issue. He dramatised it further to say Khir Toyo's house is worth RM24 million.

Ng is facing a lawsuit from Khir Toyo. Unless he produce a written firm offer of RM24 million to proof the existense of such a buyer, he will be paying up to Khir Toyo. If there is a firm offer, Khir Toyo should partake with his home. Both way, Ng stand to lose.

Should he refuse to pay a sen as he claimed, be ready to retire from politics.

Khir Toyo tried to explain and even showed documents in his blog to support his explanation. The public was taken in by Ng's claim and his explanation only made the public speculate further.

One suspicion was that there was collusion between him and contractor-seller, Shamsuddin.

Around the time, there was noises within UMNO for a major clean-up. MACC had to come in to investigate. The investigating papers ended up with AG. Under such immense political and public pressure, did AG abuse his power to make Khir Toyo the sacrificial lamb?

To detractors of Khir Toyo, they are only happy to quote the proverb: "Pandai-pandai tupai melompat, akhirnya jatuh ke tanah jua." (Even how capable are squirrels at jumping from branches to branches, they eventually ended up falling on the ground.)

Court room

One rumour circulating is that AG had hired Tan Hock Chuan, the lawyer that represented the Government of Malaysia in the Tan Boon Hock Inquest and fumbled it big time.

Tan is infamous in the legal community for his conniving out-of-court deals. He was instrumental in brokering the deal to get AG to drop the charge against Shamsuddin and turn him into prosecution's star witness.

They say unlike the truth, a lie cannot be told with consistency.

When brought in as witness, Shamsuddin failed several times to answer properly. He became nervous, couldn't answer questions and couldn't say things properly to be real.

On Tuesday, court had to be adjourned to afternoon. By noon, he was still nervous and couldn't answer questions. Come Wednesday, he still couldn't answer questions properly. Come Thursday, he was sick.

Shamsuddin forgot his script. He was obviously programmed to incriminate Khir Toyo. A simple question was asked by the defense lawyer: "What company do you have?"

He was answering in all sort of manner. And, he was blabbering about he has direct dealing with Khir Toyo. It became clear he could not answer questions he was not coached.

Yesterday he did another cheap lie when he claimed he was under pressure to sell the house, which he bought for RM6.5 million, to Khir Toyo at RM3.5 million for fear his projects with the state will be affected. More accurately Shamsuddin bought at RM5 million and spent on renovation for RM1.5 million to make it RM6.5 million.

But in the Facebook coverage, he said there was no pressure imposed on him by Khir Toyo.

The original owner who sold to Shamsuddin, Saiful Aznir Shahabuddin claimed that he met Khir only once when he tried to fish for RM7 million. Khir thought it was too expensive and left without a counter proposal.

But Shamsuddin claimed he met Saiful with Khir Toyo several time and bought the house because Khir Toyo wants it and he is MB. Before him, he claimed Khir Toyo had initially asked Datuk Sumadi Ismail (friend to Saiful's father) to buy on his behalf but could not do so due to other commitments.

The truth to the matter.

Shamsuddin bought the Italian designed house and demolished it. When Shamsuddin offered it to Khir Toyo, he was selling the land only because there was no house that can be valued for. He paid RM500,ooo and the balance RM3 million was with a bank loan.

Subsequently Khir Toyo spent on building the Bali style house at the cost of RM1.5 million.

The landscape designer and renovation contractor, Nasir Ismail claimed it cost RM6 million but he could not produce documents. Despite being showed a signed contract of RM1.5 million, he remains insistent that the renovation was RM6 million but could not provide proof.

Nasir also claim there was an "formality" agreement for show that renovation cost RM600,000 but did not have evidence to support his claim.

He had also failed to remember his company invoices despite dealing in millions. There was a point he forgot the people who worked under him for 4 years.

They were inconsistent in their statements. Shamsuddin was a nervous wreck and returned yesterday to finish his statement. He was obviously being coached and came noticeably with a written script.

Shamsuddin and house renovator, Nasir could only answer the prosecutor's questions but failed to answer the defense lawyer's.


In this day and age, no one can "tutup a mulut tempayan" (close a water storing earthenware).

Even though mainstream media are self-censoring to only present the prosecutor's points and pro-opposition portals are only out to nail either Dr Khir Toyo or any suspicion of conspiracy to save Khir Toyo, someone is bound to expose what happened in court.

In fact, a Facebook here had been dedicated to give a minute by minute coverage here., particularly the defense lawyer, Atimulan side of side of the story

The proceed of the case has brought out curiosity from bloggers. There have been many embarassing situation.

RBF raised about Nasir the third witness only answering questions by prosecutor and forget or unable to answer questions from Khir Toyo's lawyer.

The prosection's witness insist he received RM6 million for renovation. Then said he received 4-5 half a million cheque from Khir Toyo, which makes up RM2-2.5 million. Shamsuddin then claimed he paid RM1.5 million to Nasir.

For more details of the proceeding, read My KMU here and here.

Update: As of The Star's report on the case yesterday, the MSM are still slanting news against Khir Toyo and in favour of AG. See below:

Tuesday June 14, 2011 MYT 7:49:30 PM

Khir Toyo trial: Property valued at RM5.55mil, court told (Updated)


SHAH ALAM: The properties in Section 7 here bought by former Selangor Mentri Besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo for RM3.5mil four years ago has a market value of RM5.55mil, the High Court here heard Tuesday.

Henry Butcher Malaysia Sdn Bhd senior property valuer Long Tian Chek, 54, testified that he valued the property as at May 14,2007.

"I was instructed by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on July 31, 2009, to evaluate two plots of land as at 2007," he said during an examination-in-chief by deputy public prosecutor Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar.

He added that the land, owned by Dr Mohd Khir and his wife Zahrah Kechik, came with a two-storey detached house, a pool, gazebo and carporch.

Long said the market value for the land was RM2.35mil and the building was worth RM3.2mil, making the entire property stand at a handsome RM5.55mil.

Read on further here.

Noticeably absent are the information below:


This blogger had defended Gani in his ordeal against Robert Phang, Din Merican, Raja Petra, Dato Ramli Yusof and Rosli Dahalan. But this is a different case, thus has to be treated differently.

The judge allowed an application from the defense to impeach the two prosecution's witness. By the manner the two blurt out the statement without responsibility, they deserve to be impeach. It means all their statements in court. A decision is due.

This will only be an embarassment to Gani Patail. Even for a person publicly blemished like Khir Toyo, he deserve a fair trail.

This blogger like to be proven wrong, but by the way things are going, Khir Toyo is seen being fixed and made a sacrificial lamb. The blame cannot be put not on MACC because when it goes to court, it is AG's game. There is indication that they are feeling frustrated.

If Khir Toyo was fairly proven to be wrong, he deserve to be punished. But not using deceitful tactics and tricks.

That's no way to treat my fellow plebeian.

* Up-dated: 15/6/2011 10:30 AM

Sunday, June 12, 2011

What "the untold MAS story" did not tell? (Part 6)

The first part of the lyrics sings as:
And now, the end is near,
And so I face the final curtain.
My friends, I'll say it clear;
I'll state my case of which I'm certain.
Some readers too have been showing their impatience. But this blogger have to do it "My Way".

The points have to be laid out with clarity and detailed. The slandering group had a one year lead to in-grain into the public's mind that MAS lost RM8 billion under Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli.

They had the time to make all sorts of stories, to link this person and that person, cooking up wild allegations, disjointed events become one, and to smear the important institutions of Government; the Police, Attorney General office as part of judiciary system, and MACC.

No worry. For we have come to the final curtain. This "final curtain" of facts is the Award of the Geneva-based International Court of Arbitration between ACL and MAS.

After this, it is the juicy and revealing part and comments on the present day situation of MAS. We have an important angle on why MAS could not perform. It is not far from sight and within reach.

In the meanwhile, read Gunasegaran's article in The Star here on MAS. This blogger will be leading in that direction.

Hahn Cargo Airport

On 13/25 November 1999, ACL and MAS entered into a strategic agreement ("ACL Agreement") to migrate and maintain its hub for European cargo-handling operations of the carrier at a new handling facilities at an airport in Hahn.

MAS was in this blogger's radar back then. Hahn was understood then to be a former NATO military airbase located about 120 km from Frankfurt that was turned into a civilian airport known today as Frankfurt-Hahn Airport.

As the investors were made to understand back then in the late 90s, local authority of the district of Rhineland-Palatinate offered Tajuddin to run and operate the cargo facility.

This blogger could not recall exactly the terms offered but it was believed to be attractive with the German authorities willing to cough money to invest in the facility, giving exclusivity over a long period of time, MAS had first option, etc.

Back then, The Star wrote about this venture being along the concept of spine and spoke. Not a hub like Singapore, but spine and spoke of air transportation.

When one thinks of spine, think of the spine of a football team. This spine will be from Kuala Lumpur to Hahn-Frankfurt. A spoke is something that looks like bicycle wheels and could mean transportation of products emanating out from Hahn to the nearby area.

But then Tajuddin left MAS in February 2001. The ACL contract was canceled in July 2001. And the knives were out by vindictive MAS top management and repulsive new political master to go and pin something on him.

However, from then till today, no one including the conniving lawyer, Rosli Dahalan and his crooked cop connection could not pin anything on Tajuddin, except for the allegation of conflict of interest on the Hahn deal.

When the ACL Agreement was canceled, there was dispute between ACL and MAS.

ACL claimed MAS cannot cancel the contract and had canceled the contract due to an alliance built between MAS and KLM.

MAS claimed they could because there were misrepresentation. Hahn Airport deal turned out to be commercially not viable and there were allegation of collusion between Uwe Beck of ACL and Ralph Gotz of MAS to the detriment of MAS. The second issue being linked to allegation of conflict of interest by Tajuddin.


After a long legal struggle, both parties, ACL and MAS decided to go for arbitration. The place for arbitration for such type of commercial deals is the ICC in Geneva. The ICC arbitrate the case and looked at the issue from the perspective of both Swiss and Malaysian law.

Without sparing any cost, MAS presented their case and claimed of non-disclosure of interest by Tajuddin and the ACL Agreement was grossly unfair for MAS. No stone was left unturned and MAS's lawyers put up the strongest case.

Their allegations of Tajuddin's non disclosure, conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud to the ICC was thrown out.

MAS lost.

In addition, they made no objection or appeal and accepted the decision of ICC.

Rosli Dahlan was acting as counsel for MAS and headed the team of lawyers.

But despite losing the case, he and MAS's General Counsel and now EVP, Dr Wafi Nazrin Tan Sri Abdul Hamid are still pursuing the same issue after spending millions for ICC Arbitration and accepting the award decision.

The reason being that the Tribunal express the opinion that "Ralph Gotz, Tajuddin, Wan Aishah and Wan Malek each had potential conflict of interests towards MAS."

They refuse to accept the case for conflict of interest and related offenses were weak. The Board members of MAS were dumb and negligent.

Fair Agreement

MAS could not show that the Agreement was as described in the award document, "inherently disadvatageous."

Firstly, the decision were as described in the award document, "taken and endorsed by the MAS board as a collective decision and not as an individual initiative which would have been imposed on the board."

Secondly, MAS' General Counsel, Baharom Yatim, testfied that he as described in the award document, "was in the position of negotiating as an independent party"

Most importantly, an analysis of the terms on ten year term, allocation of risks between the parties, ground-handling fees, renegotiation and adaptation clauses, delay to commence on the part of MAS, and viability of Hahn airport, the Tribunal did not find the ACL Agreement as unfair and ACL conduct of business as fair to MAS.

Conflict of Interest

On the conflict of interest issue, none among the uninterested members of the board and senior managers at the Tiara Board meeting of August 2000 made any objections or raised any questions in this respect.

In a MAS board meeting in November 2000, Tajuddin, Wan Aishah and Wan Malek mentioned of their interest in Naluri Berhad.

Both MAS and Tiara board were informed of the existense of the ACL Agreement. The board was told of Naluri was ACL's majority shareholder. Tajuddin, Wan Malek, and Wan Aishah declared their interest in Naluri.

The Tribunal decided that the disclosure by Tajuddin, Wan Aishah, Wan Malek, and Ralph Gotz were as described in the award document, "sufficient to put MAS's Board on notice of the four's interest in the ACL Agreement".

MAS did ratify the Agreement.

If the agreement could not be voided, it means there were sufficient notice of interest. For Rosli and MAS to make a case against Tajuddin based on the technicality of law, it just show how low these people were.

In spirit, Tajuddin had made his necessary disclosure. Are these people dumb not to know who Naluri is?

This is but an ungentlemenly conduct and an act suspiciously filled with vengence and vendetta.

ICC had dismissed all of MAS's counterclaim and clear Tajuddin of any wrongdoing. Their insistence on pursuing Tajuddin and their conduct to slander Tajuddin when the authorities refuse to heed them only shows their bad intention.

This blogger wonder.

With the case being arguably crystal clear, why was it that the Board of Directors of MAS, Board of Directors of Khazanah and Minister in charge not appreciate there is no more case? Did Rosli Dahalan and Dr Wafi Nazrin honestly gave them the true picture?

Another person left out and that is the adviser of MAS, the former Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Be sure to brief him when he is awake.

The RM8 billion loss?

The slandering group started the charade by accusing Tajuddin of losing RM8 billion at MAS. Till today, no one could prove it.

The historical audited profit and loss account does not show.

Donplaypuk, an akauntan pencen commented the said RM8 billion involves the asset loss for the Wide Asset Unbundling. But that's only RM5 billion!

Everytime you remove RM5 billion from the asset side, you remove RM5 billion from the liabilities side.

Some claimed there was manipulation in depreciation policy. OK so?

Say asset is RM5 billion and depreciation policy changed from 10 to 20 years. That is still only RM250 million a year and RM2.5 billion for 10 years for easy calculation of Tajuddin's tenure. That is still short of RM5.5 billion.

Some claimed the loss of RM8 billion was from Government buying back MAS's shares from Tajuddin. Is the shares worth zero?

Did they take into account that Tajuddin bought MAS' s shares from Bank Negara Malaysia, because of Tan Sri Nor Yakcop big time fumble in foreign exchange market, at RM8 per share when the shares were traded at around RM4 per share?

This is a deviation from the subject. The accusation is MAS accumulated losses in the tune of RM8 billion during the time of Tajuddin.

Dato Ramli Yusoff wrot ethat in his letter to the former Prime Minister who is now MAS adviser.

The slandering groups were asking, shouting and demanding every other institution to investigate this and that on Tajuddin. However, having MAS as client to one of them, with all the information in the company's books and computers, they could not present anything to prove this important allegations.

Salahuddin Ayub was first to make it an issue. He claims he was well informed by a source.

He better learn up accounting and business finance, because the time will come where he will have to answer for it or prove it. Unless an apology coming from Salahuddin and Harakah, Tajuddin should sue their pants out.

The rest should get ready too.

Thursday, June 09, 2011

What "the untold MAS story" did not tell? (Part 5)

There were several sets of documents revealed by Malaysia Today and all sets did not show any offense that could significantly explained the alleged RM8 billion loss during Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli's tenure.

Using the last document revealed by Malaysia Today, which is the memo of Shaari Sulaiman, Managing Director of MAS Kargo to MACC, dated May 20th 2009, there was a tad of acknowledgement that nothing could be pinned on MAS former Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli.

Imagine ... Tajuddin had left since February 2001, but this is MAS bitching about the police and AG with the new MACC outfit for not prosecuting him.

Think again, after 10 years Tajuddin left MAS, they are only left to playing cheap propaganda using portal and blog to accuse of Tajuddin of some mumbo jumbo IT supplies contract to Edaran.

They had all the time to find fault with Tajuddin but the best they could was to pin an allegation of conflict of interest for the Agreement between Advanced Cargo Logistics Gmbh and MAS involving the Hahn Cargo Airport near Franfurt in 1999.

Read another piece below from Shaari's memo below:

Note the blame game.

Putting aside the minute profitability contract to Edaran, all the documents revealed by Malaysia Today only spoke of this offense of conflict of interest in the ACL and MAS deal.

Let's reproduce Shaari's allegations on the so-called conflict of interest involving Tajuddin below:

All the documents only focus on the same conflict of interest issue.

The earliest document was Dr Don's police report dated Januari 4th, 2002. Dr Don or Dr Mohamadon bin Abdullah was then the Senior General Manager Corporate Services.

Dr Don is one of those character in an office that is at odd with everyone for being insensitive. He was said to have not gone well with Tajuddin. For as a Malay Muslim, he had a rather liberal lifestyle.

Could he just being vindictive when he claimed there was a concealment of facts in the Hahn Cargo Airport deal?

ACA investigated but exonerated Tajuddin in 2003.

Then there was a letter from Dato Ong Jyh Jong dated May 5th, 2005. Dato Ong was the Senior General Manager, Cargo. He is a quiet and non-controversial character. Still water runs deep.

His report was more specific as to claim that ACL was controlled by Tajuddin and it is a conflict of interest for Tajuddin to be in a deal with MAS.

Off course, there was Ramli Yusoff's letter to the PM dated March 26th, 2007. See here.

ICC result on April 4th, 2007 exonerated ACL and Tajuddin. MAS accepted the arbitration and did not appeal.

Suddenly, it was Shaari Sulaiman's memo to SPRM. His memo can be obtained here.

Shaari is the Managing Director of MASkargo Sdn Bhd and son of Dato Sulaiman Sujak, a member of the board of Director at the times of Tajuddin's Chairmanship. Much has been said of the cold body language of Sulaiman in the presence of Tajuddin.

The allegations of TR having interest in ACL was that he had interest via Dannur. Malaysia Today revealed an organisation chart dated May 2003 based on the facts alleged by MAS as below:

Tajuddin had denied any interest in ACL or Dannur. Their alleged chart raised several questions.

If Dannur was allegedly the largest shareholder of ACL as at May 2003, did they realised that Tajuddin left MAS on February 14 2001?

If Tajuddin was connected to Dannur, as alleged in which he denied, how did he owe a fiduciary duty to MAS to reveal shares he acquired in 2003?

MAS claim of non disclosure of interest in the agreement involving ACL and MAS that resulted in major loss for MAS.

One of the party in ACL is Naluri Berhad via Naluri International Ltd, which Tajuddin had 47.41% stake and all necessary disclosure were made to the public.

What's the issue then?

Even without Tajuddin mentioning, the Directors of public listed company such as MAS cannot make that excuse of not knowing Tajuddin had interest in Naluri and in turn Naluri had interest in MAS and ACL.

ICC also cleared Tajuddin of any allegations of conflict of interest. If there was any issue in relation to Directors' fiduciary duties, it was the Directors that failed to do their fiduciary duties.

Why are some of them still around?

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

What "the untold MAS story" did not tell? (Part 4)

Robert Phang is back in the news, it is time to resume "the untold MAS story" again.

It is time to get factual and legal.

It is time to write beyond their big drama against Tajuddin but the only issue is only on Hahn airport. Be aware that Tajuddin was exonerated by police in 2003 and the judgement of the ICC in 2007 favoured him.

"The untold MAS story" involving Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli started with a December 16, 2010 posting here entitled "MAS corruption investigation lose objectivity to political spinning" to express our curiosity.

It picked quite a few comments and we felt we need to explain on a December 27, 2010 posting here entitled "Why the chase for the ghost of the past?" to explain our interest to pursue this issue.

In the first place, why should we explain? It's our blog and we determine what we write and what comment deemed as not hostile and rude unworthy of release.

But then again, why not?

If we previously usually go for alleged crooks, this time we investigated to uncover that someone so badly potrait as crook is not the actual a crook. Instead, it turns out those going after him are the crooks.

Another Rehash

In January, Tan Sri Robert Phang became an issue. He was getting overboard, overdoing things and plain obnoxious. We just could not stand such hypocrasy.

We had some relief after the by-elections of Galas, Batu Sapi, and later Tenang to get down to write the first three of the "Untold MAS Story" series in February. That was also a great month because Robert Phang quit MACC and was replaced by blogger Syed Akbar Ali.

However, we had left the series hanging due to the busy months of March and April. There were the dual by-elections of Kerdau and Merlimau, Sarawak state elections, and Anwar's sex expose taking the limelight.

Something important to remember is the game set-up by the other side.

Despite Din Merican repeated denial, we stand by our believe that this is all orchestrated by MAS lawyer, Singaporean Rosli Dahalan with Malaysia Today and DJ blogger as mouthpiece.

Salahuddin Ayub and Tan Sri Robert Phang were the loudspeakers albeit poor quality made in Jinjang ones.

However, we have to correct a teeny weeny factual mistake.

Back when we wrote the first 3 of this series, we mentioned Dato Ramli Yusoff as the Sabah Deepthroat, the writer in Malaysia Today.

No .. it is not him.

In fact, Sabah Deepthroat is in Kuala Lumpur to sort some legal issues with Minister Dato Rais Yatim.

Rais filed a lawsuit against him but he wants the usual process of exchanging affidavits back and forth. Sabah Deepthroat, who is defending himself although he is not a lawyer, is uninterested. He wants a trial and better if there is full blown media coverage. He wants to teach Rais a lesson.

If anything, Ramli Yusof is one of those crooked cop that Sabah Deepthroat wants to go after.

In the first serie, we linked the allegation against Tajuddin to Robert Phang's loud mouth antics and the background "story behind the story" of Rosli Dahalan and Dato Ramli Yusoff.

Ramli's strange letter to Tun Dol dated March 26th, 2007 was discussed. [Read here.]

More of the wayang and strange occurances in the letter was discussed in the second serie. [Read here.]

In the third serie, we exposed the hidden hands of Rosli Dahalan. All this charade points to his attempt to take another bite of the MAS cherry.

Despite all points to no case by the Attorney General and ICC had awarded judgement in favour of Tajuddin, Rosli is insistence on repeating the conflict of interest allegations against Tajuddin and getting MAS's general counsel and officers to corroborate a tired ole story. [Read here.]

Ramli and Rosli's Flawed Assumption

Before we go to the lengthy content of the ICC Award, there are few fundamental flaws to be highlighted.

It is with respect to the letter from Director of CCID, Dato Ramli Yusof to Tun Dol dated March 26, 2007.

Another is a set of chart released by Raja Petra in July 2009.

Let's refer to a portion at the end of his letter first as below:

Ramli claimed that Tajuddin was an officer of a public body from affidavits allegedly of Tajuddin claiming himself as a nominee of Government. By that claim, Ramli is of the view that Tajuddin is subjected to Section 15 (2) of the then Anti Corruption Act.

For the benefit of those unaccustomed to corruption prevention law in Malaysia, one has to be in a position of authority to be charged for certain corruption offenses. In simple language, public body is only government because only government has authority and not companies or cooperatives.

That's part of the reason it is not easy to pin the Cooperative Chairman in the PKFZ scandal.

The fact, as told to from some legal source, is MAS and Government have both denied of such arrangements in their affidavits in one legal suit.

MAS denied it is a "public body" or an authority. This goes back to some affidavits exchanged between Tajuddin and Government and MAS in 2006 in the "counter" lawsuit by Tajuddin against Government and MAS.

Ramli had used the fact from Tajuddin's affidavits but did not refer to the affidavits by Government and MAS where they denied. That's dishonest!

He used the words of the person he wish to charge as corrupt but not the words of the Government he represent. This is consistent with his bad image as a corrupt cop that is making money from links with the underworld. Ramli was a dishonest cop with malicious intent.

In this matter, his accomplice, Rosli Dahalan whose hands had been eloborated in the third series, was equally dishonest.

As a lawyer for MAS and allegedly the author of Ramli's letter to Tun Dol, he knew of the denial affidavit by Government and MAS but still used the angle Tajuddin was an officer of a public body.

It is fair that lawyers are being described in such awful manner sometimes. See here.

Where's the Big Swindle?

All the much talk of Tajuddin swindling money by the billions and causing MAS losses of RM8 billion, yet they are only trying to pin him on a conflict of interest issue involving the Hahn airport deal.

It is not even his private company but a subsidiary of a public listed company.

Is this a joke?

See the final portion of the letter below:

We will be talking a lot about the so-called conflict of interest in the Hahn airport deal from the chart in Malaysia Today and ICC Award.

The chart in Malaysia Today was reproduced by the smart so-called intellectual Professori Din Merican. It will show how foolish he was!

It is a big time fumble ...

Ramli Yusof, as many are made to believe, conclude the letter to say that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Tajuddin.

But did many of us, particularly the idiot Robert Phang, asked the question which AG would have asked: Is there sufficient evidence to win the case?

Don't listen to Rosli Dahalan or any lawyers. He and most of them just wants to churn fees. If only we know whether Rosli Dahalan shares his fees and with whom.

Ask yourself whether the Government can win against Tajuddin if the case is brought to court. It will only achieve the opposition wish to play up the perception game against the various institutions of Government.

My Say