Researchers Find 25 Countries Using Surveillance Software

March 15, 2013

Researchers Find 25 Countries including Malaysia Using Surveillance Software

by Nicole Perloth (03-13-13) @http://www.nytimes.com

Last May, two security researchers volunteered to look at a few suspicious e-mails sent to some Bahraini activists. Almost one year later, the two have uncovered evidence that some 25 governments, many with questionable records on human rights, may be using off-the-shelf surveillance software to spy on their own citizens.

Morgan Marquis-Boire (left), a security researcher at Citizen Lab, at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs, and Bill Marczak, a computer science doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley, found that the e-mails contained surveillance software that could grab images off computer screens, record Skype chats, turn on cameras and microphones and log keystrokes. The word “FinSpy” appeared in the spyware code. FinSpy is spyware sold by the Gamma Group, a British company that says it sells monitoring software to governments solely for criminal investigations.

Now, one year later, Mr. Marquis-Boire and Mr. Marczak have found evidence that FinSpy is being run off servers in 25 countries, including Ethiopia and Serbia, without oversight.

Until Mr. Marquis-Boire and Mr. Marczak stumbled upon FinSpy last May, security researchers had tried, unsuccessfully, for a year to track it down. FinSpy gained notoriety in March 2011 after protesters raided Egypt’s state security headquarters and discovered a document that appeared to be a proposal by the Gamma Group to sell FinSpy to the government of President Hosni Mubarak .

Martin J. Muench, a Gamma Group managing director, has said his company does not disclose its customers but that Gamma Group sold its technology to governments only to monitor criminals. He said that it was most frequently used “against pedophiles, terrorists, organized crime, kidnapping and human trafficking.”

But evidence suggests the software is being sold to governments where the potential for abuse is high. “If you look at the list of countries that Gamma is selling to, many do not have a robust rule of law,” Mr. Marquis-Boire said. “Rather than catching kidnappers and drug dealers, it looks more likely that it is being used for politically motivated surveillance.”

As of last year, Mr. Marquis-Boire and Mr. Marczak (right), with other researchers at Rapid7, CrowdStrike and others, had found command-and-control servers running the spyware in just over a dozen countries. They have since scanned the entire Internet for FinSpy.

The Munk School is publishing their updated findings on Wednesday. The list of countries with servers running FinSpy is now Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Britain, Brunei, Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Qatar, Serbia, Singapore, Turkmenistan, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and Vietnam.

In Ethiopia, FinSpy was disguised in e-mails that were specifically aimed at political dissidents. The e-mails lured targets to click on pictures of members of Ginbot 7, an Ethiopian opposition group. When they clicked on the pictures, FinSpy downloaded to their machines and their computers began communicating with a local server in Ethiopia.

“This continues the theme of FinSpy deployments with strong indications of politically motivated targeting,” the researchers wrote in their report.

A Turkmenistan server running the software belonged to a range of I.P. addresses specifically assigned to the ministry of communications. Turkmenistan is the first clear-cut case of a government running the spyware off its own computer system. Human Rights Watch has called Turkmenistan one of the world’s “most repressive countries” and warned that dissidents faced “constant threat of government reprisal.”

In Vietnam, the researchers found evidence that FinSpy was running on Android-powered phones. They found one Android phone infected with FinSpy that was sending text messages back to a Vietnamese telephone number. That finding was particularly troubling, researchers say, given recent clampdowns by the nation’s government. Last year, Vietnam introduced censorship laws that prohibit bloggers from speaking out against the country’s ruling Communist party. According to Human Rights Watch, at least 40 people had since been convicted and sentenced to prison terms. Many are now serving terms ranging from three to 13 years.

The sale of surveillance technology is still largely unregulated, but Mr. Marquis-Boire and Mr. Marczak’s findings have prompted greater scrutiny. Responding to their findings last fall, Germany’s foreign minister Guido Westerwelle called for an Europe-­wide ban on the export of surveillance technology to repressive regimes. And last month, Privacy International and other groups filed complaints with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development against Gamma Group and Trovicor GmbH, a German company that also sells surveillance software.

“I don’t think you can put technology back in the bottle,” said Mr. Marquis-Boire. “I understand why police would want to use this type of technology, but I’m just not for commercial companies selling them to nondemocratic regimes with questionable human rights records.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/researchers-find-25-countries-using-surveillance-software/

RCI or White Paper on Lahad Datu Incursion?

March 14, 2013

by Bernama@http://www.malaysiakini.com

The Government does not dismiss the possibility of setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) or opening a white paper to investigate claims that third parties are behind the terrorist intrusion in Lahad Datu, Sabah, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein (right) said.

He said a thorough investigation needed to be done to find out the real motive for the intrusion, including if there were any parties that underwrote the terrorists from the southern Philippines to undermine the country’s stability and sovereignty.

“This can be done either by an RCI or opening a White Paper.I myself want to know who are the masterminds and who are funding the terrorists and did the planning because all these concern national security,” he said.

Hishammuddin said this at a press conference at the Sandakan Police Headquarters today after being briefed on the latest public order situation in Sandakan, the second largest town in Sabah, from Sandakan Police Chief ACP Rowell Marong. Meanwhile, he said overall, the security situation in Sabah including in Tawau, Semporna and Sandakan had improved.

On the Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM), he said a group led by Chief Secretary to the Government Dr Ali Hamsa (left) would be in Sabah tomorrow to identify the additional requirements for its establishment. He said enforcement in waters off Sabah’s east coast would also be stepped up to prevent illegal entry including via rat trails by Philippine nationals.

Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi today announced that the ministry would take over responsibility for security along Sabah’s east coast covering 1,400km, from the Prime Minister’s Department.

Wisma Putra to discuss with Manila

On the arrest by a Philippines Navy patrol unit yesterday of 35 Filipinos suspected to have ties with the Sulu terrorists, Hishammuddin said Wisma Putra would be discussing with Manila on the matter.

The Philippine media reported that the suspects were intercepted in two boats which were carrying weapons and explosives, in waters off Tawi-Tawi at 6.30am yesterday.

Meanwhile, Hishammuddin also took time off to visit L/Cpl Mohd Zariman Ibrahim, Corporal Affendi Rusli and Corporal Khairul Anuar Md Isa who were injured in the Ops Daulat to rid Sabah of the terrorists and are receiving treatment at the Duchess of Kent Hospital in Kota Kinabalu.

In KANGAR, Perlis’ Komuniti 1Malaysia (K1M) also urged the government to set up an RCI to get to the bottom of the armed intrusion. Its consultative chairperson Nordin Abdullah said the organisation sympathised with the families of the men who were killed in fighting the terrorists.

Fifty-six Sulu terrorists have been killed so far since the Ops Daulat offensive was launched while the security forces lost 10 men, eight from the Police and two from the military.

- Bernama

Malaysian Caped Crusader?

March 11, 2013

by Mariam Mokhtar@http://www.malaysiakini.com

Malays could be the masters of their own destiny, but decades of spoon-feeding, reinforced by an unhealthy belief that they are morally and spiritually superior, has robbed many Malays of the power of critical thought and analysis. It is as if the strain of thinking for oneself, is too great a challenge.

When a Malay criticises the ruling party, he is seen as ‘ungrateful’. He is told that he should be appreciative for all that UMNO has done for him – all the opportunities for education and work. It is conveniently forgotten that not all Malays benefit from the New Economic Policy (NEP).

Many middle-class Malay families complain that scholarships or study loans go to the children of well-connected parents. In businesses, and especially in government tenders, the same applies – connections count more than skills or expertise. Many senior politicians and their wives are more commonly known as Mr. or Mrs. “Ten percent”.

Conversely, Malays have not realised that receiving an education or business opportunity via the affirmative action policies, should not deprive them of a voice. Malays must learn that keeping the government on its toes does not mean that they are unappreciative or disloyal.

Some Malays have a child-like version of the world. In a discussion with a non-Malay, the Malay who cannot present his facts in a logical manner may invariably blurt out, “Go back to where you came from”. It is like the frustrated child who does not get his way and threatens his sibling with, “I’ll tell father what you did”. He does not care about the consequences. He just wants to hurt and get retribution.

When our leaders act in the same manner, this presents a very poor example for the Malays. As an example, former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had encouraged the stripping of Ambiga Sreenevasan’s (left) citizenship because she wanted true democracy.

When all else fails, some Malays bring Allah into the argument. Malays are adept at emotional blackmail, especially when the threat of eternal damnation is involved.

Malays fiercely defend their religious rights and condemn non-Muslims for entering the discussion. Some claim that as they do not interfere with other religions, then non-Muslims should not interfere in theirs. Could this be an explanation for the muted Muslim voices when a band of renegade Malays dragged a cow’s head through the streets of Shah Alam?

Why have Malays not acknowledged that for centuries, the word ‘Allah’ was used with no problems until UMNO Malays decided it was wrong?

Suffering trial by ordeal

Malays swearing on the Quran in a mosque debases the religion. Compare this with trial by ordeal in medieval England. If someone was accused of a crime against the monarch, he might suffer trial by ordeal. If he did not sustain injuries when his arm was placed in a vat of boiling oil, then he is found innocent.

Saiful Bukhari’s father, Azlan Mohd Lazim, has claimed that the sodomy charges against Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had been politically motivated. UMNO leaders treat Malays as simpletons. Will Malays ask Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to respond to Azlan’s latest revelation and also address the accusations made by carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan and former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Musa Hassan?

Why don’t Malays consider a range of other views, to help shape theirs? Sadly, some non-Malays also fall into the trap of not entering into a discussion because they are told that “it does not concern them”. Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, so all Malaysians are free to express the opinion on any aspect of Islam.

Malays dislike being told that they are in the wrong. Instead of having a rational discussion, some prefer to bottle their emotions, than risk running amok. Decades of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ have reinforced this flaw in their character.

Mahathir said that the opposition would destroy the Malays and bumiputeras in Selangor. Mahathir’s ‘Project M’ allowed illegal immigrants into Sabah. Najib and the Election Commission (EC) permit illegal immigrants into Malaysia.

Malays are being betrayed by UMNO Malay leaders. These policies of offering citizenship to illegal immigrants have contributed to the loss of lives in Lahad Datu.

Whilst Najib fell under Psy’s charms in Penang, and Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin had reportedly been in Indonesia for Chinese New Year, armed Sulu invaders had slipped into Sabah where they were allegedly plied with food and drink by the UMNO government during negotiations.

A news blackout did nothing to quell criticisms of the handling of the crisis, it merely festered the spread of rumours. Najib has only himself to blame for this debacle.

The country is being crippled by abuses of power, corruption, police brutality and high levels of crime, and the man in the street knows the perpetrators. Both Mahathir and Najib have portrayed Anwar as an agent of various foreign governments, a stud (from the various sex videos produced by UMNO), and the one who will bring the Malays down.

Anwar may be portrayed by UMNO as a supervillain, but he is not responsible for these crimes. On the contrary, he is the superhero who would like to avenge them.

People may have read on the Internet about the portly delivery van driver who dressed as Batman and marched a suspected criminal into a Police station in Bradford, England. If only Najib could have exercised his full powers when he was Prime Minister and put a stop to all the evil in Malaysia. Perhaps, he could have been the Malaysian Batman – The Caped Crusader.

Their similarities and differences

The original Batman was the son of millionaire philanthropists; Najib and his wife have become multi-millionaires from being in politics, but they are no philanthropists. Any largesse they exhibit is paid for by the taxpayer.

There are some significant similarities and differences between Batman and Najib. Batman lives in a gothic mansion, whereas Najib has a Louis-Farouk monstrosity. Batman has a Batmobile, but Najib has access to a variety of vehicles, including two submarines with slight technical glitches.

Batman has a ‘six-pack’, whereas Najib is blessed with a ‘12-pack’ figure. In the UMNO world, quantity matters. Batman has his sidekick, Robin “The Boy Wonder”.

Najib has three sidekicks – Hishammuddin Hussein the “Action Boy”, Zahid Hamidi “GI Joe” and Rais Yatim “The Disinformer”. Batman has eyes only for the femme fatale “Catwoman”, whereas Najib has Rosmah Mansor “The Bag Lady” and Ummi Hafilda Ali “The Wazz”.

The Malays must understand that if Najib cannot defend Lahad Datu from a gang of invaders, he has little chance of defending the name ‘Allah’, nor protecting Malaysians from a band of internal crooks.

No Deal on Sabah Claim by the Philippines, Please

March 11, 2013

by Emeritus Prof D. S. Ranjit Singh (03-10-13)@http://www.thestar.com.my

A major shift in Malaysia’s position on the Philippine claim to Sabah is needed.

THE Philippines Government officially announced their claim to North Borneo (now Sabah) on June 22, 1962. Despite numerous attempts to settle the issue, it still festers on, exemplified by the latest tragic events unfolding in Lahad Datu on the east coast of Sabah.

The Philippine claim is based on two documents dated January 22, 1878. By the first document, Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzam granted (pajak) all his territorial possessions in Borneo (tanah besar Pulau Berunai) to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent Esquire as representatives of a British Company for a yearly payment/ quit rent (hasil pajakan) of five thousand dollars (Spanish dollars).

By the second document, the said Sultan appointed Overbeck as “Dato’ Bendahara and Rajah of Sandakan” with the fullest powers of a “supreme ruler” (penghulu pemerintah atas kerajaan yang tersebut itu).

Descendants of Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzam (the number cannot be ascertained, but is large), represented by the Kiram Corporation and the Philippine Government, have always claimed that this 1878 grant was a lease (pajakan) and not a cession as claimed by Malaysia. The continuous annual payment of the quit rent or cession monies of five thousand dollars (now RM5,300) to these descendants is cited as further proof of this contention. Based on these grounds, they claim, Sabah belongs to the Philippines/ the Sultan of Sulu’s descendants.

Before discussing how Malaysia has been responding to this assertion and how it should alter its position drastically, a little bit of historical narrative is in order.

Without going too far back in time, it is suffice to say historical documents confirm that both the Sultanate of Brunei and the Sultanate of Sulu exercised political control over parts of present-day Sabah (there was no State or Negeri Sabah at that time) in the late 19th century. Brunei had defacto jurisdiction on the west coast from Kimanis to Pandasan, while Sulu ruled the east coast from Marudu to the Sibuku River. The interior was largely independent under local indigenous suku chiefs.

Both Sultanates, however, claimed dejure jurisdiction from the Pandasan on the west coast to the Sibuku River on the east. Both Sultanates were also in a state of decline. Brunei was suffering from internal decay while large parts of its territories were being swallowed up by the new state of Sarawak under the Brookes.

In the Philippine region, the Spanish authorities in Manila had been trying to subjugate the independent and powerful kingdom of Sulu for three centuries without success. In 1871, the Spaniards launched another exerted campaign to conquer the stubborn kingdom.

It was in this kind of environment that a number of European and American speculators became interested in obtaining territorial concessions from the two weak Sultanates for speculative purposes. Among them were Lee Moses and Joseph Torrey of America; and Baron von Overbeck and Alfred Dent who had formed a company called the Overbeck-Dent Association on March 27, 1877 in London for the purpose of obtaining land concessions in Sabah and selling them for a profit.

Overbeck and Dent acquired Brunei’s jurisdiction over its Sabah possessions in five documents dated Dec 29, 1877 from the Sultan of Brunei and his ministers. After this, Overbeck sailed to Jolo where he also obtained the rights of the Sultan of Sulu in Sabah through two agreements concluded on Jan 22, 1878.

Why was Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzan prepared to lease/ grant/ pajak his territories in Sabah to Overbeck and Dent? Sulu was on the brink of capitulating to the Spaniards and as such Sultan Muhammad was hopeful of obtaining some assistance from the Overbeck-Dent Association and possibly even from Britain. Placed in such dire straits, he was therefore not adverse to giving Overbeck and Dent territorial concessions in Sabah with some hope of salvation.

In the event, no such aid came either from the Overbeck-Dent Association or the British Government. Six months after the Overbeck-Dent grants were concluded, Sulu was conquered by the Spanish authorities on July 2 1878. With the fall of Sulu, the said Sultanate ceased to be an independent entity as it was incorporated as part of the Spanish colonial administration of the Philippines.

In 1898, Spain lost the Philippines to the United States by the Peace of Paris (Dec 10, 1898), which ended the Spanish-American War. The US ruled the Philippines till 1946 when independence was granted.

Meanwhile, in 1936, the US colonial administration of the Philippines abolished the Sulu Sultanate upon the death of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II (1894-1936) in the same year in an attempt to create a unitary State of the Philippines. Jamalul Kiram III is a self- appointed “Sultan” with a dubious legal status.

Now, coming back to the question of Malaysia’s ongoing treatment of the claim, and why and how it should completely alter this position. Since the official announcement of the claim by the Philippine Government on June 22, 1962, Malaysia has been pursuing an ambivalent policy. On the one hand, it has persistently rejected the Philippines claim, but on the other it has compromised Malaysia’s sovereignty by agreeing to settle the “dispute” by peaceful means (such as the Manila Agreement, Aug 3, 1963) and a number of other mutual agreements between the two countries.

Most damaging of all is Malaysia’s willingness to honour the clause in the 1878 Sulu grant pertaining to the payment of the annual quit rent or cession monies as Malaysia says, of RM5,300, to the descendants of the former Sulu Sultanate. To this day, Malaysia is still paying this quit rent, lending credence to the claimants’ argument that the 1878 grant was a lease and not a cession and therefore it still belongs to them.

If Malaysia continues to follow this policy, there will be no end to this problem except to buy out the rights of the descendents of the Sultan of Sulu. But this course is fraught with danger as it will lead to further legal complications with the Philippines and even endless litigation with the descendants.

My proposal is that Malaysia should go by the laws of “effectivities”, as in the case of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) judgement pertaining to the issue of sovereignty over the Sipadan and Ligitan islands, and the law of acts of a’titre de souverain as in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh.

No title, however strong, is valid once the original owner fails to exercise acts consistent with the position of a’titre de souverain. The opposite is true, that is, the holder of the lease may not have original title but he ultimately gains permanent possession of the lease by virtue of continuous state “effectivities”.

In this case, the Sultan of Sulu and its successors including the Philippine government have failed to conduct any acts of a’titre de souverain since 1882, and so they have legally lost their title.

On the other hand, the successors of the Overbeck-Dent Association, that is the British North Borneo Company (1882-1946); the British Colonial Administration (1946-1963); and Malaysia, (from 1963) have been exercising continuous acts of a’titre de souverain for a period of 131 years.

Since we have all this evidence on our side, Malaysia should now take a new stand by totally rejecting the validity of the 1878 grants on the grounds of “effectivitie” and a’titre de souverain. It should also immediately stop paying the so-called annual quit rent or cession monies. This payment has always brought huge embarrassment to Malaysia and has in fact compromised its sovereignty.

We should also never agree to go to the International Court of Justice not because our case is weak (it is very strong), but because we don’t want to trade the fate of sovereign territories and people through the judgment of any court, even the ICJ.

There’s one more point that should be pondered upon. No country or state or nation which has obtained independence has ever paid ownership monies to its former masters. The 13 Colonies of America did not do so, India did not do so, the Federation of Malaya did not do so.

Sabah became an independent state on August 31, 1963 and decided to form the Federation of Malaysia with three other partners on Sept 16, 1963. It is strange indeed, if not preposterous, that a sovereign state is paying ownership or cession monies to certain people based on a colonial, pre-independence treaty that is 131 years old!

Emeritus Prof D. S. Ranjit Singh is Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (ranjit@uum.edu.my).

Lahad Datu Incursion: Handling the Hype

March 11, 2013

by  Farish A. Noor@http://www.nst.com.my

CHECK THE INFO: There are many actors in the Sulu saga and there is a need to separate fact from fiction

THERE are times when I do believe we ought to be more circumspect and perhaps even cynical when reading the news we get.

As the Sabah crisis continues at its own pace, different contenders have come to the fore offering their opinions as to how the crisis ought to be settled.

Among them has been Nur Misuari, leader of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), who was once a player in the regional dynamics of Southern Philippines, but who now seems to be taking the opportunity to foreground himself once again.

I was somewhat alarmed to read a report in the Borneo Post when Misuari claimed that “Sarawak is also part of his clan’s ancestral lands”.

I had to read the article several times to convince myself that my failing eyesight was not deceiving me and that the article was genuine and not a spoof.

Misuari had also suggested that he be given a role as mediator to end the Sabah incursion, despite his claim that Sarawak belongs to his clan.

Then came other reports about how the MNLF was threatening “chaos” in the region, and that 10,000 Filipinos would be sent to Sabah in a show of support for the pretender to the Sulu throne there.

Once again, I had to read the reports several times to convince myself that my eyes were working and that I was not seeing things.

In a state of crisis, one of the first conditions that has to be met is information management and verification of reports.

While sensational headlines may sell newspapers, they do not calm an already delicate situation and may, in fact, have the opposite effect of rousing fear and anger among readers or viewers.

It is for this reason that we ought to remember some salient facts that are pertinent to the Sabah situation at the moment. First, Misuari’s MNLF is today a spent force, with around a few hundred followers left.

If Manila had chosen to broker a peace accord with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) instead, it was for the simple reason that MILF claims to have 15,000 followers and is perhaps the strongest armed force in Mindanao at the moment.

They are in fact the only power brokers and if peace is to be restored to southern Philippines, it cannot be done without the support of the MILF.

Second, the other splinter groups that have been largely responsible for the incursion into Sabah happen to be those who felt left out of the peace accord and who may have felt that they had been denied a slice of the pie.

This is indeed unfortunate, but it has more to do with who the government in Manila recognises as legitimate actors, and who are not.

No other country in ASEAN has the right to intervene in this process, but can only help it along by mediating when asked.  Third, it ought to be clear by now that the incursion into Sabah was certainly not the desire of the Philippine government. As President Benigno Aquino Aquino has noted in his presidential address last week, the Constitution of the Philippines does not allow for the creation of private armies, the ownership of weapons without permits, and the unilateral declaration of war on another country by a citizen who does not represent the state.

 On these grounds, the incursion into Sabah has no legal standing and was, in fact, contrary to Philippine law itself.   Malaysia cannot pick itself up and relocate itself in some other quiet corner of the world, and we should not deny our long historical and diasporic links to all the mobile, fluid communities that make up the complex social landscape.

 Indeed, for centuries, people from Sulu have moved in and out of Sabah along with Bruneians, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Bajaus, Ilanuns and Bugis. What is at issue here is how an internal domestic crisis in the Philippines has erupted and spilled over into the territory of another country, namely Malaysia.

The Malaysian public in turn may be wary or even angered by a Philippine citizen who suddenly claims to be their sultan out of nowhere, but we cannot allow our judgment to be clouded by fiery rhetoric, disinformation and propaganda that may be designed to upset us. We need to constantly remind ourselves that this situation was never the desire of the Philippine government, and we should not blame the Philippines as a whole for what has happened.

In the meantime, some of the stories that are emanating from the likes of  Misuari ought to be taken with a heavy dose of salt too: the man who now claims to wish to mediate the crisis also happens to be the same person who, during his younger left-leaning days, was inclined to criticise the traditional rulers of southern Philippines for their feudal culture and elite status.

The solidarity shown for those claiming to be the descendants of the Sultan of Sulu seems hollow and more instrumental, as are the claims that tens of thousands of southern Filipinos are about to invade Borneo. If these leaders truly wanted peace in the region, they ought to begin by tempering their own rhetoric for starters, and stop making claims like Sarawak is also part of his clan’s ancestral lands.

 

Haris Ibrahim on Project IC

March 10, 2013

A friend, quite sometime back, told me of an incident that his close friend was subjected to.His friend, a high-flyimg corporate figure, was summoned to meet the then Prime Minister, that man of Keralite descent.

Now when you are a businessman and are told that the Prime Minister wants you to see him, you do go.

On reaching the Prime Minister’s office at the appointed time, he was ushered into a waiting room and told that the Prime Minister had some visitors then and that he would be called as soon as the Prime Minister was free to see him.

Whilst alone in the waiting room and after the customary tea and snacks had been served, this corporate figure was surprised to see a single, thick file on the coffee-table in front of him with his name emblazoned on it.

After furtively glancing about to make sure no one else was there nor could anyone see him, he peeked into the file and to his horror found that just about every wrong that he had done in his life was meticulously recorded and documented in that file.

Shortly thereafter and whilst his head was still ‘spinning’ from his discovery, he was ushered in to meet the Prime Minister.When the Prime Minister spoke to him, it hardly registered in his mind what was being said. All he could then think of was what was in that file and wondering to himself how long and how many knew about what he had done.

Not surprisingly, whatever the Prime Minister then asked of him, he readily agreed to.If you have ever wondered what is it that makes so many of our people, numbering amongst them politicians, civil servants, judges, businessmen, activists and others (including those who suddenly do an about-turn), ‘toe the line’ when it comes to fulfilling the wishes of our leaders, the above scenario provides a likely explanation.

It should come as no surprise therefore that high up in the criteria for selecting persons to key appointments is that the file kept on them ought to be sufficiently thick and detailed to enable them to be kept under control.

To aid in the control of them, too, it is advantageous to permit them to continue in their wrongdoings as these acts can be further recorded and documented in their files for further use in controlling them.

Now do you understand how and why so many of our Ministers, civil servants and so many others in key positions were and are corrupt? They are permitted to be so, so that they can be controlled.

If investigation had commenced against them or charges preferred against them, so much the better.The investigation could be stifled or the charges dropped and their eternal loyalty and gratitude obtained.

It is not surprising therefore to learn that those involved in Project IC in Sabah, as reported, made money in the process and sold these ICs.

As reported, the Special Branch of the Police knew of it and by extension therefore the political masters knew too.

The political masters were quite content to allow them to make money on the side as this would further ‘buy their silence’ over the matter. Though it must have been known that these people were making money on the side in issuing ICs under Project IC or Project M as it is better known, yet they were never charged in Court.

Why were they not charged?Well, there was the risk that they might, to save their own skin, blurt out in Court that they were following orders from their political masters in issuing the ICs.

I venture to guess that some amongst them, who the political masters were subsequently afraid might ‘spill the beans’, were then detained under the ISA in a bid to intimidate them and keep them silent.

Do not therefore be mistaken into believing that the NRD officers in Sabah in illegally issuing ICs did so independently and solely for monetary gain without the complicity of the political masters.

I will not be surprised if that is the line taken by Mahathir to save himself.The reported meetings had with Mahathir’s henchmen, Megat Junid and Aziz Shamsuddin, on these matters are however too revealing to exculpate Mahathir’s involvement in these treasonous acts.

Is it any wonder then that Mahathir is campaigning in the 13^th GE as though his very life depended on it? He may, after all, be right about that.

Sulu Sultanate has no legitimate claim over Sabah, says Malaysian Bar Council

March 10, 2013

Malaysia

Sulu Sultanate has no legitimate claim over Sabah, says Malaysian Bar Council

by Zuraibi Ar@http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

The Sulu Sultanate no longer has any legal claim over Sabah since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognised Malaysia’s rights and sovereignty over the east Malaysian state and its surrounding islands during a territorial dispute in 2002, the Bar Council said today.

The ICJ recognised Malaysia’s claim in its decision on the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan off the coast of Sabah in December 2002. The Philippines had at the time applied to intervene in the case, but its application was rejected.

“The Sultanate of Sulu had, by its several actions and by various separate instruments between 19 April 1851 and 26 June 1946, relinquished and ceded all of its rights, interests and dominion over what was previously referred to as North Borneo,” Council Vice-President Christopher Leong said here in a statement.

“The Sultanate of Sulu, even if such an entity were to legally exist today, has no subsisting legitimate claim to Sabah.”

Last week, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima from the Philippines’ Department of Justice reportedly said the government had not ruled out taking the Sulu group’s claim on Sabah to the ICJ, but was carefully studying the case as it did not want to strain its friendship with Malaysia.

The Sulu Sultanate has laid claim to Sabah, saying it had merely leased North Borneo in 1878 to the British North Borneo Company for an annual payment of 5,000 Malayan dollars then, which was increased to 5,300 Malayan dollars in 1903.

Sabah, however, joined Malaya, Sarawak and Singapore to form Malaysia in 1963, after which Malaysia continued paying an annual stipend of RM5,300 to the Sulu sultanate on the basis of the sultanate ceding the Borneo state.

In a referendum organised by the Cobbold Commission in 1962, the people of Sabah voted overwhelmingly to join Malaysia.

The Bar Council also urged Putrajaya today to solve the ongoing conflict in Lahad Datu in a peaceful manner, while treating prisoners according to international humanitarian law and international human rights standards.

This comes as the death toll of Sulu militants reached 53 in the sixth day of “Ops Daulat” launched to flush out the remaining armed intruders from Philippines, and alleged violence used by the Malaysian police on Suluks and suspected followers of the Kiram clan.

“As we seek to assert our rights and protect our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we must continue to conduct ourselves with a strong sense of dignity and professionalism, with due observance of our own laws as well as international laws and standards,” Leong said.

“We expect that the due process of the law shall be observed and accorded to these arrested persons,” Leong said, referring to the 85 suspects arrested under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA).

SOSMA was tabled in Parliament on April 10 last year and passed in June, officially replacing the ISA and removing the government’s option to detain without trial.

Under the ISA, an individual believed to have committed a security offence can be detained for up to two years without trial, on orders from the home minister.

The Council also asked for authorities to ensure that all combatants, either friend or foe, are treated humanely with access to necessary medical assistance and treatment.

Malaysia launched an all-out assault on the Sulu group on Tuesday morning, using fighter jets to rain down bombs on Kampung Tanduo where the Sulu group had been hiding.

After the airstrike, ground troops moved in for the “mopping up” operations, going from door-to-door and advancing slowly over the uneven terrain surrounding the coastal village to hunt down the armed militants.

Lessons for Singapore: Malaysian Armed Forces vs Sulus Gunmen in Sabah

March 8, 2013

LESSONS FOR SINGAPORE: Malaysian Armed Forces versus Sulu Gunmen in  Lahad Datu, Sabah

By David Boey

SINGAPORE – A week ago, Malaysia’s Defence information officers were busy ramping up publicity for the Malaysian Army’s 80th Anniversary celebrations – a happy occasion that culminated in a massive show of force by Tentera Darat Malaysia (Malaysian Army) in Port Dickson.

After their 80th Anniversary their pace of work increased dramatically with real operations in the East Malaysian state of Sabah.

After a weekend on duty, their pace of work increased dramatically with real operations in the East Malaysian state of Sabah. Ongoing operations by Malaysian security forces against Filipino gunmen in Lahad Datu, Sabah, mean that it will be sometime yet before information officers from Cawangan Perhubungan Awam (Public Relations Department) at Kementerian Pertahanan (Kementah, the Malaysian Ministry of Defence) can enjoy a restful weekend.

The exposure to real operations in Sabah will reward Kementah’s information officers with firsthand experience managing hearts and minds operations during an unfolding operation that has international dimensions.

Add in the timing of the operation, which was triggered during the run-up to the Malaysian General Elections, and the information officers entrusted to handle media operations will get a chance to learn invaluable lessons in calibrating domestic political considerations during an unfolding operation other than war.

While it is early days yet before defence observers can compile a credible blow by blow account of the assault, here are some preliminary thoughts on the situation:

1. Malaysia’s mainstream broadcast media, RTM, worked commendably fast in producing the clip with rousing martial music and TV footage aired at the end of Tuesday night’s news bulletin that canvassed support for Malaysia’s Fallen Heroes.

This is the type of psychological defence response that the Malaysians are good at, having picked up valuable lessons from the British during the Emergency years.

2. The casual attitude to personal protection equipment by Malaysian soldiers and General Operations Force Field Police has been noted by defence observers.

The casual attitude to personal protection equipment by Malaysian soldiers and General Operations Force field police has been noted by defence observers.

During the three-week long standoff against a force which claims to have 200 gunmen and even after blood was shed, Malaysians deployed for security duty do not seem to care much for their own personal protection.

* Body armour is rarely seen. When worn by some officers, the body armour appears to be of the soft body armour type which is not designed to withstand full metal jacket projectiles discharged from firearms or mortar rounds.

* Headgear in the form of ballistic helmets is almost never worn. And let’s not even go into protective eyewear like goggles.

This apparently cavalier attitude during live operations is baffling when measured against mountains of defence science literature which underline how lives can have been saved from ballistic protection.

If the officers are content to deploy for operations unaware of the life-saving potential of ballistic protection, then this indicates a failure of the curriculum in Malaysia’s military education system.

If the officers are aware but sent their men into action ill-equipped, then the After Action Review (AAR) should perhaps look at how to address the shortfall in such equipment.

Medical reports on the Malaysian security forces killed in action should indicate the cause of death, whether by penetrations from firearm projectiles (if so, the estimated calibre), shrapnel or non-penetrating trauma caused by blast damage.

A frank report would reveal the possible root causes of casualties during the Sabah operation and could suggest the type of protection needed to reduce casualties during the next operation.

3. Concomitant with the above observation is the poor quality of firearms used by the Police General Operations Force. Their M-16 5.56mm rifles are aimed using iron sights. There appears to be no option for optical sights (for example, a Picatinny rail) that can improve marksmanship or, more importantly, allow Malaysian police officers a rudimentary night-fighting capability.

4. Even after a deadly ambush, it is noteworthy that armoured vehicles appear to be in short supply in Sabah. Vehicle patrols by the Police there continue to be mounted in unarmoured Land Rovers and trucks. Again, this begs the question what happened to lessons learned during the Emergency?

Even after a deadly ambush, it is noteworthy that armoured vehicles appear to be in short supply in Sabah but not during exhibitions.

5. The tit-for-tat cyber attacks, said to have been the work of computer hackers from Manila and Kuala Lumpur, are a sign of things to come during a Period of Tension (POT) or OOTW (which is what the Sabah operation has evolved into).

Singapore must therefore prepare itself for such a virtual world onslaught as part of its business continuity plan. It should perhaps also study options to pay back with interests anyone who opens an account with Singapore using cyber attacks.

6. At a more basic level of security preparedness, it would be ill-advised for the Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Defence and Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to display the level of tolerance shown by the Malaysians during this episode.

A three-week standoff against armed intruders said to have conducted active operations on home ground and shed blood is a trigger point Singapore’s government should never de-sensitise itself to.

Our circuit breaker must be designed to trip much faster so that a swift and decisive response can be unleashed.

Malaysia has been named among 54 countries which have helped the US’s Central Intelligence Agency by hosting secret torture cells and participating in illegal deportation of detainees to and from US custody without any legal process.

The writer, a former defence correspondent for the Straits Times, maintains Senang Diri, a blog about Singapore defence matters (http://kementah.blogspot.sg/).

-AsiaOne

Lahad Datu: Intrusion Confusion

March 8, 2013

The Philippines and Malaysia

Intrusion Confusion

A farcical invasion of Borneo gets serious, and nasty

March 9, 2013 | MANILA |From the print edition

FIGHTER aircraft gave covering fire as Malaysian troops mounted what their government hoped would be the final assault on a coastal village in the Malaysian state of Sabah, on the island of Borneo, on March 5th. Their mission was to end a three-week-old incursion by scores of Filipinos, some armed, who call themselves the Royal Army of the Sultanate of Sulu. But the intruders slipped away.

The intruders had occupied the village to stake a claim to Sabah by the man they recognise as the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram III, whose forebears once held sway over parts of Borneo and of what is now the Philippines, but who himself is a Filipino citizen living in Manila. After the assault, the Sultan called for a ceasefire, but told his followers to stay put.

If the Malaysian government thought the assault would end the incursion, it was mistaken. Its mistake is one of a series which threatens to turn what originally had the air of a quaint historical pageant played out with live ammunition into a real guerrilla war.

The Philippine government made the first mistake three years ago, by mislaying a letter from the sultanate asking it to take into account the claim to Sabah in peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), a rebel group that had been fighting for independence for Muslim areas in the south of the mainly Christian Philippines. Previous governments had pressed the sultan’s claim. More recent governments have let it lie dormant, not least because Malaysia is the broker of peace between the government and the MILF. A preliminary peace agreement signed last year makes no mention of the claim. The Sultan was slighted.The Sultan made the next mistake, by thinking that by seizing the Sabah village of Tanduo, he could make the Malaysian government take him seriously and negotiate. The Sultan’s claim is legally plausible: Malaysia pays the royal house of Sulu a token rent for Sabah. But the idea that Malaysia would turn one of its constituent states over to a foreigner is just fanciful.

The Philippines government has also ordered the sultan to withdraw his followers.On March 1st shooting broke out in Tanduo. It is not clear who fired first, but 12 intruders and two Malaysian Policemen were killed.A day later, in fighting elsewhere in Sabah between the security forces and armed men described by the Malaysian authorities as Filipinos, six Policemen and six gunmen were killed.

This snapped the patience of the Malaysian government, and the assault on Tanduo began. The security forces said they had killed 13 intruders, and suffered no casualties themselves. As The Economist went to press, the sultan’s followers were still at large. An official of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), another Philippine Muslim rebel group, which made peace in 1996 but was never disarmed, said many of its fighters, acting independently, were on the way to Sabah as reinforcements. A Malaysian Police officer described the Filipino gunmen as adept at guerrilla tactics. The Malaysian government may now look at the 800,000 Filipinos living and working in Sabah and wonder whose side they are on.

It will also wonder how the stand-off will affect a keenly contested general election due by the end of June. Some think Sabah is where the poll will be won or lost. The government has dropped dark hints of the involvement of a Malaysian opposition leader in the invasion. But, if the mess worsens, it might lose votes itself.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21573148-farcical-invasion-borneo-gets-serious-and-nasty-intrusion-confusion

Lahad Datu Incursion: Can we defend ourselves?

March 7, 2013

by P Gunasegaram (03-06-13) @http://www.malaysiakini.com

QUESTION TIME: The way the entire Lahad Datu intrusion/ insurgency/invasion – or whatever else one may want to call it – has been handled raises grave doubts over Malaysia’s ability to defend itself without fear or favour against anyone who infringes upon its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

That it has allowed itself to be lulled into such a state of complacency and lack of urgency, and seems to have totally underestimated the enemy is quite astonishing. And when it moved in after much foot-dragging it had nothing but embarrassment to show for it.

How could the authorities responsible for security have allowed the situation to balloon into such a serious violation of Malaysia? And how could Malaysia have continued to allow a claim on part of its territory to go on for such a long time, even appearing to cuddle up to those making those claims?

Remember, this is the country, perhaps the first in the world, to have successfully contained and eventually beaten back the sustained armed communist insurrection and then faced down a confrontation from its big-brother neighbour Indonesia in 1965.

Have we gone slack in the intervening years and have we begun to severely underestimate the many threats of terrorist groups in this region? Are we fully capable of dealing with a sudden armed incursion into our country?

Armed intruders

Just over three weeks ago a group of heavily armed intruders, variously estimated at between 100 and 400 arrived in boats from the Philippines and took over a village near Lahad Datu, causing alarm and fear among residents there.

That so many people were able to do this without being detected by the security forces not only indicates a severe lapse in intelligence but plain, old simple vigilance. In an area which has had numerous incursions from terrorist and criminal elements in the past, the Police and Army should have been much more on their toes.

The intruders, who turned out to be supporters of the so-called Sulu sultanate which lays claims to parts of Sabah, had no trouble establishing themselves in the neighbourhood and settled in.They claimed they were coming back to live in their homeland.

Our Police and our politicians engaged in negotiations with them and wanted them merely to leave peacefully and everything would be over.

That was absolutely the wrong thing to do – our laws prescribe death for those in possession of arms, even if is just one single bullet, what more rifles and grenade launchers.

We not only used kid gloves, we send them food and water while we negotiated with them.What kind of a way is that to deal with armed intruders? Should their religion be even an issue here? Is it not the duty of those in power to restore our sovereignty as soon as possible?

As an aside, Malaysia was formed in 1963 when Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore and the then Malaya amalgamated. If I remember my history right, a referendum in Sabah and Sarawak was held before that.

If that referendum was held, what right does any Sultanate have to claim Sabah? Why did Malaysia even continue to pay royalties to the so-called Sultan?And why did these descendants of the Sulu sultanate decide now, a half century after Malaysia’s formation, to come and claim their homeland?

After the first breach – the landing of the intruders without detection – the next best thing for security forces to do would be to surround them and issue a warning for surrender. If that was not forthcoming, then move in with air and other support to crush them once and for all. It should have been over within hours,

But the negotiations went on, and on and on. It took the brutal killing of two Policemen before our forces attacked. Meantime, problems were escalating in Semporna with gunmen attacking Police there.

We attacked the area the intruders were holed up in with fighter bombers, bombing and strafing enemy positions. But when the ground operations to sweep up the intruders began, there was nothing – no dead bodies, no injured, no subdued terrorists.

How could these terrorists, numbering as much as four hundred according to estimates but probably comprising some 200 or so, have completely vapourised into thin air without a trace?

They were supposed to have been encamped in an area of 4 sq km which was surrounded by the security forces. How could they have broken through the barricades? Was the bombing so inaccurate that it had not even killed one intruder?Even if it had been that inaccurate how did the terrorists get past the tight cordon thrown around them by elite forces?

Lax intelligence, surveillance

A number of things are very clear from this train of events. First our intelligence and surveillance of terrorists in southern Philippines is rather lax, laid back and dangerously complacent.

Terrorists are terrorists no matter their race, creed or religion and have to be treated as the deadly menace they are. There is no excuse for the complacency given the many acts of violence that have been committed on Sabah by criminals and terrorists from the Philippines.

We need to be real serious about intelligence and surveillance. We must patrol our seas and shoreline much more than what we are doing now.

Second, we must make clear our policy of not negotiating with terrorists, with the only possible exclusion being when we need to do that to preserve the life of hostages. That will discourage terrorists from trying this again.

Third we need to know whether the bombs landed in the right places and if they did not why not. It was a rather small area whose coordinates are known with pinpoint accuracy.

And we need to know how the terrorists could evade a tight security cordon thrown around them and escape. What are the implications for security if they are not found?If this is the way we have handed a small band of armed intruders, is there confidence that our armed forces will be able to do better in all-out war? The answer is obvious.

Lahad Datu shows there is a lot we need to do to fix right now in terms of our defence capabilities – and that’s an understatement.

The Sabah Claim: A Thorn in Malaysia-Philippines Relations (PART 2)

March 7, 2013

http://www.nst.com,my

INITIATIVE: Philippine leaders have, since Marcos, taken the effort to resolve the sovereignty issue, writes Dr Paridah Abd Samad

THEN Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos made a dramatic move towards normalisation of bilateral relations in 1976, just prior to an ASEAN summit meeting, when he stated that the Philippines no longer intended to press its claim to sovereignty over Sabah, though he did not officially drop it. The pronouncement, however, was never followed by any concrete action.

The dispute dragged on into the Corazon Aquino administration, which tried to resolve the problem through revising legal and constitutional provisions to drop the claim. The Philippine Constitution of 1987 no longer includes the phrase “by historical and legal rights” as part of the definition of the national territory. Also, Senate Bill No. 206, redefining the archipelagic boundaries of the Philippines, called for amendments to Republic Acts 5546, and it particularly excluded Sabah from Philippine territory.

However, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III’s denouncement of Aquino’s government for endorsing the bill without consulting him and bungling by the newly installed administration kept the bill from getting through the Senate, denying Aquino a diplomatic victory of the ASEAN summit in December, 1987.

The Philippines cannot just drop its claim to Sabah to patch up differences with Malaysia, as it must first consider the repercussions of such a decision on the politically unstable Sulu Archipelago. Sabah and Moro are interrelated in prolonging settlement of the dispute and in deepening the security concerns of the Philippine government.

The transmigration of mostly Filipino Muslim refugees to Sabah has put the Philippines in a favourable position because this has significantly contributed to reducing the Muslim population ratio and its resistance strength.

In 1970, Tunku Abdul Rahman played an important role in promoting international support for the Moro cause. As Secretary-General of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (now Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), he endorsed the Moro case submitted to him in 1972 and asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and (Libyan) president (Muammar) Gaddafi to help in persuading other OIC member states to support it.

But Malaysia’s optimism and hope for a new and brighter chapter in Malaysia-Philippines relations remain unfulfilled. While the Aquino administration made the effort and took the initiative to drop the sovereignty claim on Sabah, it was unable to push through its initiative because of stumbling blocks. Senate Bill 206, which excludes Sabah from Philippine territory, remains unenacted.

Since no law has yet been passed on the dropping of Sabah claim, the Philippine government still has the option to actively pursue the claim through internationally accepted norms. By pursuing the claim, the Philippine government could promote the Philippines’ historic rights and legal title over Sabah, as well as the proprietary rights of the heirs of sultan of Sulu.

However, the 1930 treaty between the United States and Great Britain drew a precise boundary to separate their island possessions off the northeast coast of Sabah. The allocation of islands defined in these treaties was enshrined in Article 1 of the Philippine Constitution of 1935.

The Philippine claim has no known international support while Malaysia is morally supported by Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Nations in rejecting this claim. Even the US has assumed a position of neutrality. The other Asean countries, though discreetly distancing themselves form the issue since it involves two of their fellow members, also seem to silently acknowledge Malaysia’s right to the disputed territory.

For the Philippines to drop its claim to Sabah without concessions would mean outright recognition of Malaysia’s sovereignty over Sabah. Taking this position might also jeopardise the proprietary rights of the Sultan of Sulu. In general, choosing this option appears to be damaging the national integrity.

Malaysia gave a solemn commitment to satisfactorily resolve the proprietary claim with recognised Sulu heirs once the sovereignty claim is legally and finally dropped. It sees no linkage whatsoever between the two claims. Malaysia has always insisted that sovereignty and proprietary rights over Sabah are two separate questions.

The writer is a former lecturer of UiTM Shah Alam and International Islamic University Malaysia, Gombak

Lahad Datu Incursion: Politics At the Expense of Lives

March 6, 2013

by Jahabar Sadiq
Editor, The Malaysian Insider

A bid to undermine Philippine President Benigno Aquino in the republic’s mid-term elections in May and control the bicameral legislature is said to be a reason for the Sulu Sultanate’s incursion of Sabah, say sources.

The Malaysian Insider understands Philippine politicians want to put pressure on Aquino ahead of the 2016 presidential elections to get a pardon for his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who is under house arrest for electoral sabotage.

Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, who ordered the armed incursion to claim Sabah last month, ran as a senator as part of Arroyo’s Team Unity in the country’s 2007 elections. He lost by some 800 votes.

“Some want to undermine Aquino in the mid-term legislative elections to enable them to control of the Senate and the House before the 2016 presidential election.

“This will ensure that Arroyo will get pardoned later,” a diplomatic corps source told The Malaysian Insider.

Several political commentators have already taken Aquino to task over Malacanang Palace’s handling of the situation, saying the first-term president was not backing the sultanate’s claim to their ancestral lands.

“This is just pure politics and the Sulu claim is also politics,” said a source based in the Philippines.

Aquino has said Manila will look into the claim for Sabah, but said the Sulu Sultan and his followers should respect Malaysian law and not carry out the incursion. He also said the Philippines did not allow private armies, ensuring the so-called Royal Sulu Sultanate Army was illegal.

Coincidentally, Putrajaya had also blamed Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of being in contact with the Sulu royalty before Jamalul Kiram’s brother, Agbimuddin Kiram, landed in Lahad Datu with armed followers on February 9.

But the Filipino militants have denied any links with the opposition in Malaysia, where a general election is due to be held before end June.

Malaysian security forces moved in yesterday to end the standoff with Agbimuddin Kiram’s group holed up in Kampung Tanduo, Lahad Datu. Fighter jets screamed through the air as artillery pounded the village before soldiers moved in to flush out the militants.

Putrajaya has said that the operation codenamed “Ops Daulat” was a success and no casualties reported, but added the forces were still looking for the militants.

Eight Malaysian policemen had died earlier in two skirmishes that also killed 20 militants in Semporna and Lahad Datu, both areas with large population of Sulu people who are either Malaysian or Philippine citizens.

However, they are said to owe their allegiance to the sultanate, which has five claimants to the throne. Malaysia still pays RM5,000 a year to the sultanate for the ancestral lands first leased to the North Borneo Company in the 19th century.

Influential Philippine news portal Rappler.com reported that before his senatorial bid, Jamalul Kiram was a member of the Legislative and Executive Advisory Council (LEDAC) on the Sabah Claim and was Arroyo’s Presidential Adviser on Muslim Royalties Concern.

In the 2007 elections, Jamalul Kiram finished 26th out of 37 candidates. He garnered 2.49 million votes, or 8.4 per cent of the votes cast for all senators. But he lost to then re-electionist senator Edgardo Angara by more than 800 votes. The 74-year-old self-styled sultan got 546,670 votes, while Angara got 547,507.

A total of 18,022 national and local posts, including 12 senatorships, will be decided in this year’s elections. The Philippine Senate has 24 members who serve six year terms.

Lahad Datu Incursion: Malaysian Military in Action

March 6, 2013

M Jegathesan, AFP@www.malaysiakini.com

8:36PM March 5, 2013

The military today launched a fierce assault including jet fighters on up to 300 Filipino intruders after a deadly three-week standoff, but the militants’ supporters said they had escaped and were alive and well.

Earlier Federal Police chief had also raised doubts about the success of the air and ground attack, saying “mopping up” operations had yet to find any bodies and suggesting at least some of the militants might have slipped away.

Premier Najib Abdul Razak said as the raid was under way that he had no choice but to unleash the military to end Malaysia’s biggest security crisis in years after the interlopers refused to surrender and 27 people were killed.

A day after the Philippines called for restraint, Malaysia launched a dawn assault on the estimated 100-300 gunmen on Borneo island, who invaded to claim Malaysian territory on behalf of a former Philippine sultanate.

Fighter jets bombed the standoff village of Tanduo in Sabah state on the northern tip of Borneo island, followed by a ground assault by troops. The area is set amid vast oil-palm plantations.

“The longer this invasion lasts, it is clear to the authorities that the invaders do not intend to leave Sabah,” Najib said in a statement.

But Abraham Idjirani, spokesman for the Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, told AFP the attack had occurred “away from where” their men were, saying he spoke with the leader of the armed group about eight hours after the assault was launched.

IGP: Enemies are still out there

Malaysian Federal Police chief Ismail Omar told reporters in a press conference hours after the initial attack that soldiers combing across a wide area of hilly plantation country were yet to find any dead militants.

“I have instructed my commanders to be on alert because we believe the enemies are still out there,” Ismail said.

He added Malaysian forces had suffered no casualties. But if even some of the invaders had escaped a tight Police and military cordon, it would likely fuel perceptions of incompetence by security forces in the affair, and sow fears that armed and dangerous gunmen were loose.

The crisis comes just as Malaysia’s 56-year-old ruling coalition is bracing for what are widely expected to be the country’s closest-ever election against a formidable opposition, which has harshly criticised handling of the incursion.

Jamalul Kiram III, 74, a self-proclaimed Sultan and leader of the insurgents said earlier Tuesday in Manila that the invaders, which had included his younger brother “will fight to the last man”.

Muslim-majority Malaysia has been shocked by the spectacularly bold stunt by the Islamists, who claim to be asserting Jamalul’s ancestral control of Sabah as heir to the now defunct Sulu sultanate.

The invaders had been holed up in Tanduo village since landing by boat last month, highlighting lax Malaysian security in the region and the continuing threat from southern Philippine Islamists.

Manila blamed intruders

After the assault began, Philippine President Benigno Aquino’s spokesman blamed the intruders for the assault. “We’ve done everything we could to prevent this, but in the end, Kiram’s people chose this path,” said the spokesman, Ricky Carandang.

After a lengthy standoff, violence first erupted in Tanduo on Friday with a shootout that left 12 of the gunmen and two police officers dead.

Another gunbattle Saturday in the town of Semporna, hours away by road, killed six Police and six gunmen, raising fears of a wider guerrilla infiltration and leading to Tuesday’s military operation.

Police had already said at the weekend they were hunting for a group of “foreign” gunmen in yet another town, but have provided no further updates. Meanwhile, followers of Kiram, have repeatedly warned that yet more militants were poised to land in Sabah.

The mayhem has triggered panic in Semporna, where many residents were witnessed by an AFP reporter fleeing the town on Monday, fearing more violence.

The Sulu sultanate, based in the southern Philippines’ Sulu islands, once controlled parts of Borneo including Sabah.

Its power faded about a century ago but its heirs continue to insist on ownership of resource-rich Sabah and still receive nominal Malaysian payments under a lease deal originally struck by Western colonial powers.

Sabah has seen small raids by Islamic militants and criminals coming by boat from the Philippines before, but nothing on the current scale.

- AFP

Lahad Datu Incursion: Our Leaders have failed not just Sabahans

March 5, 2013

by Din Merican

Yesterday afternoon, my wife and I had tea with a Semenanjung (West Malaysia) man with his wife who is a Sabahan lady. He was seething with anger over what is happening in Lahad Datu. Come to think of it, I am now not sure if he was angry or was just expressing utter disappointment in the state of our country.

 Our tea conversation started with our worry over the high incidents of street crimes and the failure of the Home Ministry to curb it. It is now almost a daily occurrence that someone gets snatched, slashed and snatched, and crashed and snatched even in locked cars at traffic lights. This is manifest that the Police have failed in upholding their pledge under the Police Act - the protection of life and property.

 Then the topic became more heated when my friend’s wife, the Sabahan lady, said that our leaders have failed us in more ways than one. She said Malaysians in Semenanjung  no longer feel safe within the borders of the country, and,as a Sabahan, she is now petrified that her home state can be so easily “invaded” by a ragtag army from Southern Philippines.

She recalled that some three weeks ago, the Home Minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, expelled an Australian Senator Nick Zenophon because he was a threat to the national security of the country, but defended the presence of the Sulu gunmen as somewhat of a peaceful delegation. And now what has happened?

She then asked rhetorically – Where is our Malaysian army? Where is our Malaysian Navy? Where is our Scorpene submarine? We spend billions in defence and we can’t even ward off a rag tag unsophisticated group of criminals from across the border.

It is meaningless for Defence Minister Zahid Hamidi (left) to appear on the front page of national newspapers dressed in army fatigues, whereas we have allowed one hot spot in Lahad Datu to expand to Sampoerna and Kunak. And yet our Ministers say it is only 3 locations. ONLY?

We were then joined by another couple from Sabah, the husband is a former Policeman turned private sector lawyer and the wife a former magistrate in Sabah. Both of them were very certain of whom they hold responsible – our government leaders. All were very sympathetic to the policemen who were killed and their families. “We grieve for them but their deaths could have been avoided if the politicians had taken things more seriously and are not busy politicising this matter” said the lawyer husband.

He pointed out the multiple crimes committed by these Filipino criminals – illegal entry, bearing and using firearms, kidnapping, murder etc etc, all these latter crimes punishable with capital punishment. He mocked our Foreign Minister, Information Minister and all government Ministers for falling into the trap of characterising these criminals as the Sulu Sultanate army. They are not even recognised by the Philippines Government and yet we are ever too eager to treat them as if they are a legitimate army.

 On the night the 2 Policemen were killed, the country’s Information Minister, Rais Yatim, was on national TV at the Malaysian Film Festival receiving an award of his own creation, insensitive to the fact that the nation’s security personnel are battling their lives for the country.

There is a news blanket on what is happening in Sabah whereas entertainment programs continue to lull the public into complacency, into a false sense of security oblivious to the fact that the security forces are facing clear and present danger from this highly explosive situation.

When 911 happened in New York, all TV stations in the USA made live reporting hour by hour as if the whole of USA was under attack. The incident received worldwide attention and sympathy. Here in Malaysia, we have an invasion-type criminals terrorising the state of Sabah, and yet our leaders make it appear as if it does not affect the country. Is Sabah a hinterland of no significance to the Federation of Malaysia? What does being part of a federation mean if the Federal government cannot protect Sabah as part of its sovereignty? This is the central issue in this incident.

“It is also a mistake to keep on harping about these criminals being Sulus” said the Sabahan wife. “Just as Malaysia is a multiracial country that we are proud of, Sabahans too consist of many indigenous groups including Malay, Chinese,Kadazan, Murut, Bajau and Sulu. Thus, focusing on the Sulu will isolate the Sulu people to feel uneasy and forced to take sides” she said. In Sampoerna, it was the Sulu community that disarmed the infiltrating criminals. So, there are good patriotic Malaysian Sulus just as there are patriotic Malaysian Indians, Chinese, Kadazan, Murut and others.

 On the other hand the country’s leaders from Semenanjung seemed ignorant in not involving the TYT of Sabah who is a Sulu, or for that matter the Sabah UMNO Chief Shafie Afdal who is also a Sulu, in seeking a resolution to this problem. The best asset available in Sabah are not used, instead the Semenanjung Ministers are busy posing for photographs!

Then the lawyer husband made an interesting comment that this incident would not have happened in the time when Dato Ramli Yusuff was Police Commissioner Sabah and Brig-Gen Yasin was Army Commander Sabah. I asked him why he said that. He then narrated a fact unknown to most Malaysians that after the Sipadan hostage incident in 1999-2000, Dato Ramli became Commissioner Sabah from 2001- 2004.

At the request of the then Chief Minister Chong Kah Kiat, Dato Ramli (above) formed a special Task Force with the Army Commander of Sabah to rid the state of illegal Indonesian and Filipino immigrants. Hundreds of thousands illegal immigrants were driven out of Sabah. Ramli was so successful that the then State Government of Sabah awarded him the Dato’ Pahlawan Sabah for truly taking care of Sabah’s territorial borders.

 But little did Dato Ramli realise that he was digging his own grave by doing that because those whom he drove out of Sabah were not just illegal immigrants. These were illegal immigrants issued with NRIC masterminded in a BiroTataNegara (BTN) project to secure Sabah votes for BN. This is now revealed in the on-going RCI on the NRIC issue. It is a surprise that neither Chong Kah Kiat nor Dato Ramli are asked to give evidence in this RCI.

 So, for doing that “good deed” for Sabah, Dato Ramli was summoned back to KL on a lateral transfer as CPO Pahang. In 2006, when Dato Ramli became the Director CCID, he was aware of the fragile coastal line around the Tanjung Labian area. To prevent illegal human traffic and arms flow, he conducted an aerial survey over the area called Den Haven in Tanjung Labian in full uniform escorted by 4 other uniformed Police personnel. For doing that, then IGP Musa Hassan and A-G Gani Patail charged Dato Ramli for unlawfully using a Police Cessna for personal use. That was how insidious A-G Gani Patail behaved towards Dato Ramli in order to bring him down.

 Dato Ramli was protecting the Sabah borders and yet he was charged just because A-G Gani Patail (right) couldn’t find enough things to charge Ramli for in that infamous RM 27Million Cop Story. After that, no Commissioner Sabah dared to do a similar aerial survey and that explained the intrusion into the Sabah borders that we see today undetected by our security forces.

 Life has a strange way of turning a full circle. Today, we know that Dato Ramli was cleaning up and saving Sabah while A-G Gani Patail, a Sabahan, was and is preoccupied saving crooks and criminals close to the corridors of power. Today we know some truth, not all, but some truth about how the NRIC project in Tun Mahathir’s time and perpetuated by other BN leaders have proven costly to Sabah.

 We mourn for the loss of lives of our security personnel. They are indeed heroes and should be honoured as such. Malaysians should be united in that. However, we cannot absolve our leaders for the mistakes they committed in causing these losses.

We cannot forgive the Home Minister Hishamamuddin Hussein, the Defence Minister Zahid Hamidi and the Information Minister Rais Yatim for all their bungling acts. Ultimately, the buck must stop with the Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, and the government of the day that he leads that has caused our sovereignty to be trifled with and our territorial integrity violated.

As we approach GE-13, the likes of Dato’ Ramli and other former military leaders must come forth to seek election as the people’s representative. These are the people whom we can trust to protect our country and our sovereignty when our current leaders have failed not just Sabahans but all Malaysians!

Look, Who’s Talking Now

Intruders use History to make History

March 4, 2013

by Farish A. Noor @http://www.nst.com.my

COMPLICATED: It’s a dangerous path to follow when groups make claims to territories based on centuries-old claims

THE stand-off in Lahad Datu has reached a violent peak and is not over yet. From day one, we were confronted with a complicated situation to handle, for this was not an attack by another country, but rather an intrusion into the territory of one country by citizens of another, who argued that they had a historical basis to justify their actions.

For academics, this aspect of the event was the most complex, namely the way in which history has been brought into play by those who claim that they have a right to Sabah.

This was an instance when history was blatantly marshalled to the aid of politics, and where historical claims were being used to further political claims in the present.

Many historians would insist that this is a dangerous path to follow, for the simple reason that it leads to an infinite regress that cannot bring either side to a happy resolution. Why?

The reason is simple enough: when anyone reads history with the intention of excavating details to serve their own agendas and to prove their point, another person or interested party can do the same, too.

History is a narrative without a full stop, in the sense that history is constantly being written as we speak and is constantly being revised and appraised, too.

For someone to claim to have rights over Sabah on account of documents in his possession is one thing, but let us not forget that centuries before that, Sabah and Sarawak also came under the dominion of an even older kingdom, namely Brunei.

And reading of records from the 16th century and earlier will show that it was Brunei that held sway across the northern coast of Borneo.

Likewise, the patchy and convoluted history of Southeast Asia would show us that much of the region has been contested in the past: Singapore was part of Johor, while the Siamese kingdom once held power over Kelantan, Kedah and Terengganu. But does this mean that Malaysia can claim Singapore? Or that Thailand can claim the northern half of Peninsular Malaysia? Or that Brunei can claim Sarawak and Sabah? Of course not.

The reason why the modern-day postcolonial states of Southeast Asia do not embark on such claims is that they are all nation-states that behave as responsible actors on the stage of international politics.

States are expected to behave responsibly, and to abide by certain norms of conduct. Walking into a neighbouring country and claiming territory is not an example of what “responsible conduct” means, and when Iraq did that to Kuwait, the entire international community, including all the states of Southeast Asia condemned it, and rightfully so.

What complicated matters in Sabah is that those who have made the claims on Sabah were not representative of the government and people of the Philippines. (Indeed, it could be said that they were an embarrassment.)

The question is how does a state, in this case Malaysia, deal with non-state actors such as those who entered Lahad Datu? Here is where diplomacy on the high and low level comes in: to work with the Philippine government to end this impasse that involves some of their citizens behaving in a manner that is jeopardising the good bilateral relations Malaysia and Philippines enjoys, notably after Malaysia’s role in helping to bring about the peace deal to the restive south of the Philippines.

Malaysian would be wise to be wary of such claims in the future. For there is nothing to prevent others from making similar claims, regardless of the damage they do to themselves and to the bilateral ties between the two countries.

In the long run, however, all the states of Southeast Asia have to realise that whether we like it or not, we live in an age of nation-states.

Nation-states may be clumsy, complicated objects; but they are in fact the only tools we have to deal with the real-life problems and challenges of governance today. But nation-states are also far more responsible when it comes to respecting borders, policing frontiers and dealing with other states.

Nation states must and will continue to respect and abide by internationally-recognised rules and norms, including the law of boundaries. It would be hopeless for us to dwell on the past and lament the loss of historical standing.

For as was mentioned earlier, almost every country in ASEAN can go about making historical claims if they wanted to. But this will not bring us any closer to ASEAN integration, and may instead fuel feelings of resentment and hyper-nationalist pride instead.

In this decade to come, all the countries of ASEAN will have to deal with the real challenge of waning American power and the rising economic clout of China in our region.

This is a real issue that begs for real answers, and that is what ASEAN should be focusing on. For the sake of the region and the future generation of ASEAN citizens, ASEAN should take the present arrangement of nation-states as a given, and move on. History may remind us of mistakes and errors of the past, but it will not and cannot provide a magic pill to solve our existential angst of today.

Malaysia’s Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty is NON-NEGOTIABLE

March 3, 2013

by Bunn Nagara @http://www.thestar.com,my

After Sabah’s standoff is resolved, the intruders will need to reconcile with modern realities.

IT is too easy to dismiss the Lahad Datu standoff as typical of Sabah’s labyrinthine intrigue. That would trivialise the rich history and cultural diversity of the state, besides mistaking a largely Philippine problem as being Sabah’s.

True, anywhere else in Malaysia with a significant Tausug population deriving from the former Sulu Sultanate’s diaspora, like the Klang Valley, would be unlikely to experience the drama of the past couple of weeks.

But none of the events in Kampung Tanduo, near Lahad Datu in eastern Sabah, was predictable or inevitable. The former Sultanate occupied only a small portion of Philippine territory and an even smaller portion of Sabah’s.

And yet, the peculiar combination of north-eastern Borneo’s demography, geography, history and political heritage provides a probable backdrop to just such a standoff. How did it all begin this time?

On February 9, nearly 100 Philippine nationals, several of them armed, arrived by boat to join a smaller group that had arrived earlier. They took over the village, claiming the area belonged to the Sultanate that they said they represented.

They also demanded recognition as the Royal Sulu Sultanate Army, as well as a meeting with an unnamed Malaysian leader. Malaysian authorities rejected both demands.

They further said they had come in support of Sabah’s Tausug population, alleging reports that following a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Sabah’s illegal immigrant communities, Tausugs would be deported.

Many locals would be surprised by the claim. Sabahan-Malaysian Tausugs, who prefer to be called Suluks, have long settled comfortably among Sabah’s three dozen or so ethnic groups.

Filipino Tausugs who arrived later as migrant workers, clinging more closely to their “Tausug” roots, may face a different reality. But ethnic persecution hardly if ever surfaces in Sabah because of, not despite, its rich cultural diversity.

The annual lease payment of RM5,300 agreed in 1903, increased from RM5,000 agreed in 1878, was also said to be insufficient. Others said the territory should be returned to the late Sultan’s descendants anyway.

Although British and Sulu versions of the 1878 agreement differed slightly, the Sulu version was clear enough: “… hereby lease of our own free will and satisfaction … all the territories and lands … forever and until the end of time, all rights and powers which we possess over all territories and lands tributary to us …”

Both the Philippines and Malaysia would rather do without such disturbances that serve only as irritants to bilateral relations. As modern nation states, both countries have evolved well past an extinct sultanate.

But there are also differences.For Malaysia, the sovereignty and territorial claims of the former Sultan’s descendants are simply unacceptable. No such claims are negotiable.

The claimants argue that the sultanate’s territory had been leased only to Britain, with no agreement on incorporation into Malaysia. But their case is inconsistent.

Sabah, the former North Borneo, became a British protectorate from the late 19th century until it became a crown colony. It gained a brief period of independence before becoming part of the Malaysian Federation in 1963.

By then, the Cobbold Commission (above) had determined that a majority of people in Sabah and Sarawak favoured the formation of Malaysia. For a century the former Sultan’s descendants did not retake territory, but instead agreed to continue accepting the lease payment under the previous arrangements.

The Philippine government, which subsumed the sultanate’s authority in the four provinces of Mindanao, also took over the role of pressing the claim to Sabah. Despite being a republic that had abandoned all royal authority, Manila continued with the claim before, during and after Malaysia’s formation.

Although the Philippine claim has since become dormant if not extinct, Manila found it difficult to renounce it. It has become an object of nationalists eager to strike populist postures in domestic Philippine politics.

The issue has a different spin among the Moro or Philippine Muslim community in Mindanao, of which Tausugs are a part. Despite Malaysia’s key role in peace talks between the two main Moro separatist groups and the Philippine government, both groups are not necessarily in Malaysia’s corner.

The MILF (Moro Islamist Liberation Front) disagreed with the takeover of Kampung Tanduo, saying negotiations should have been the way. This wrongly presumed that the issue was negotiable for Malaysia.

The MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front) is an even more enthusiastic supporter of the armed intruders. But it should be more mindful of the implications involved.

Since the former sultanate covered the Philippine provinces of Basilan, Palawan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi in the ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao), and only an eastern part of Sabah, followers of the former Sultan should first settle differences of territorial authority with the MNLF and the MILF before venturing into Sabah. They should also settle differences with Manila over such issues as hegemony, usurpation and compensation.

Both the Philippines and Malaysia, as sovereign states that had subsumed and developed beyond the Sulu Sultanate, have successfully concluded various agreements bilaterally and multilaterally. Those agreements confirm mutual acceptance of their respective statehood in their present configuration.

Besides, the former Sultan and his descendants had consented to the terms of the agreement in return for the lease payment. So long as payment is still made, they are obliged to continue abiding by the agreement.

That would make any unilateral attempt to retake territory by force of arms illegal and unjustified. Whether Malaysia will seek to prosecute after a resolution of the standoff is another matter.

Army General: Intruders ‘well-trained’

http://www.malaysiakini.com

by Nigel Aw | 1:08PM March 3, 2013

Army General Zulkifli Zainal Abidin opinied that armed intruders in Sabah have shown combat experience and adeptness in insurgency tactics.

“From our intelligence and observation, they have combat experience and their insurgency guerilla tactics are quite good, I would say,” he said.He said that the group has positioned snipers in one area with a large public space. He did not name the area.

“They know we are not able to go in without casualties because of the open area,” he told a press conference in Felda Sahabat Residence, Lahad Datu.

Today was the first ever joint press conference by the Police and Army, more than three weeks after the first standoff in Kampung Tandou, some 15km away from here.

The press conference was held following another landing by intruders in Kunak and an ambush on a police team in Sempoerna. It is still unconfirmed if the two incidents are related to armed intruders loyal to the Sulu Sultanate.