Kalsom Taib’s responds to Dr.Mahathir


March 25, 2011

Our Response to Doctor in the House

by Kalsom Taib*@http://www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT In Chapter 53, ‘Anwar’s Challenge’, on page 695 of the book, ‘A Doctor in the House, The Memoirs of Tun Dr Mahathir‘, Mahathir wrote, “Though some witnesses were hostile towards me, nobody came forward to say that I had forced him to tell lies to support me.

“One of these hostile witnesses was the former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency, Datuk Shafee Yahaya (right), who had earlier accused me of interfering with an ACA investigation into then DG of the EPU, Tan Sri Ali Abul Hassan.

“In 1998, I had received a complaint that the ACA had been offensive during his investigation and so, knowing how government officers could sometimes be overzealous in their duties, I asked Shafee to explain the situation. Our meeting did not go well and Shafee became angry, accusing me of interfering with his duties.

“Actually the affair with the ACA had nothing to do with Anwar’s case. But Shafee had his day in court and seemed to be happy to vilify me.”

After reading the above, I had two choices to make – just shrug it off and keep quiet or present our side of the story. Guided by what Allah SWT had said in Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 42, “And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth while you know the truth,” I have decided to respond to Mahathir’s allegations for the sake of my children, grandchildren and future generations to come.

The incident referred to by Mahathir happened in June 1998, three months before the expiry of Shafee’s contract as director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency. An aggrieved party had made a complaint against the then director-general, Economic Planning Unit in mid-May 1998 over a privatisation project.

Mahathir ‘kept quiet’

After taking the complainant’s statement and studying the case, the ACA needed to take the relevant files pertaining to this project from the EPU office. As it involved a very senior officer, following past practices, Shafee informed the prime minister of the case at the end of May 1998, but the latter “kept quiet”.

Although it seemed safe enough for Shafee to interpret Mahathir’s silence to mean “no objection”, Shafee decided to inform Anwar Ibrahim, then deputy prime minister and finance minister, of the ACA’s intention to raid the EPU office.

Anwar asked him whether he had cleared it with the prime minister. Shafee mentioned that he had and that the prime minister had kept quiet. Anwar left it for Shafee to decide. Shafee also informed the then chief secretary to the government (Abdul Halim Ali).

The ACA subsequently raided the EPU office on June 16, 1998 to find the files concerning the privatisation project. In the course of searching for evidence, one of the ACA officers found a large sum of money in a drawer belonging to the then DG.

In his letter to me dated Oct 8, 2010, Mat Zain Ibrahim, former Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigation Department chief, disclosed that the amount found was RM100,000. The EPU DG gave an explanation but the ACA wanted more evidence and verification.

The public was not aware of the raid on EPU at that time, as it was not reported in the newspapers. There had been rumours and whispers, but no confirmation that there had been an investigation of the former EPU DG. The public only knew what really happened in June 2000 after the court case.

Shafee had been subpoenaed to appear in court as a witness in Anwar’s sodomy trial on June 12, 2000. Shafee had to take an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. He was also guided by Surah Al Baqarah 2:283, in which Allah says, “…And conceal not the evidence for he, who hides it, surely his heart is sinful. And Allah is All-Knower of what you do.”

What took place between Shafee and Mahathir in June 1998 was revealed in court during Anwar’s sodomy trial, and the court transcripts dated June 12, 2000 is in Appendix 1 of my book on Shafee’s biography.

Based on Shafee’s sworn testimony in court, Shafee said that after the raid of the EPU’s office, Mahathir called Shafee to his office. Shafee said he was told off by the premier.

“How dare you raid my senior’s officer’s office?”

Shafee replied that “it was based on an official complaint by an aggrieved party”.

“I did what was officially required under the law.”

‘Called to see Mahathir twice’

Mahathir also accused Shafee of trying “to fix the EPU DG” and questioned whether Anwar Ibrahim had asked him to raid the EPU office. In the court testimony, Shafee replied, “That is totally wrong because it is wrong in law to fix anybody. As a Muslim, it is a big sin to fix anybody.”

Shafee also said that Anwar did not ask him to raid the office. Shafee was called to see Mahathir twice after the first “scolding” over the EPU DG’s case. This was not revealed in court because justice Arifin Jaka disallowed further testimony on the matter.

For Mahathir to write that Shafee was a “hostile witness“, that he “became angry, accusing me of interfering with his duties” and that “Shafee had his day in court and seemed to be happy to vilify me” is most unfair.

One has to bear in mind that Shafee was subpoenaed to appear in court and he took an oath in court to tell the truth before answering the questions. If you were caught lying, you could be charged with perjury. We believe that if you start with one lie, you may end up telling more lies to cover that lie you started with.

Mahathir had every opportunity to refute Shafee’s statement in court as it was reported in the media the next day. Mahathir had been subpoenaed to attend the court hearing but he fought tooth and nail to resist appearing in court.

In the July 6, 2000 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review, it was written that “when asked about Shafee’s claims, Mahathir told reporters, in apparent reference to Anwar: “I don’t know. What I do know is that there was one person who tried to prevent a case being tried in court, but as far as I tried to interfere… I don’t know.”

After denying it in June 2000, several years later, in 2008, he could remember the incident based on his version. Mahathir had also forgotten that he had vilified Shafee openly in his letter that was published in The Sun dated April 8, 2008.

The next question to ask is why should Shafee lie? What could he gain by lying? I am sure he would gain a lot if he had chosen to just keep quiet. In fact, by being firm and maintaining the facts of the case as required under the law, he had incurred the wrath of the prime minister.

What has he personally to gain?

Under the circumstances, a person needs a great deal of courage to defend his or her conviction. It would have been easier to succumb, to not rock the boat, or displease the prime minister. As ACA DG, Shafee was legally bound to investigate any infringement of the laws on corruption, irrespective of the position of the person.

When the prime minister, who was responsible for his appointment as ACA DG by the Yang di Pertuan Agong, summoned Shafee to his office and be confronted with words, “How dare you investigate my senior officer!”, would that not indicate a scolding by a superior of a subordinate?

And what did the words imply? Based on Shafee’s testimony in court, the investigation on the EPU DG arose out of a formal complaint/report lodged by an aggrieved party, and not because Shafee wanted to fix the EPU DG. This can easily be verified from official records and the complainant identified.

One should also ask the question why would a civil servant whose contract was about to expire, would want to do anything that could offend the prime minister, unless he believed in the lawfulness of his actions and that the prime minister too would let the law take its course.

What had Shafee personally to gain from his actions? He was merely doing his job, upholding the law based on truth.

In Surah An-Nisa 4:135, Allah SWT says, “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you avoid justice; and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.”

 

KALSOM TAIB is the author ‘The Shafee Yahaya Story, Estate Boy to ACA Chief’, a book about her husband, Shafee Yahaya.

39 thoughts on “Kalsom Taib’s responds to Dr.Mahathir

  1. For Mahathir to write that Shafee was a “hostile witness“, that he “became angry, accusing me of interfering with his duties” and that “Shafee had his day in court and seemed to be happy to vilify me” is most unfair.
    ——————————

    There is nothing hostile about a hostile witness.

    When you call a witness to give evidence for your case and during the examination-in-chief, your own witness testimony falls short or proves the other party’s case rather than your own, then you will need the consent of the judge to treat your witness as a hostile witness so you could cross-examine your own witness.

    Otherwise cross-examination is a tool for the other party. Cross-examination in the hands of an experienced advocate is a powerful tool.

  2. THIS DAMN MAMAK KUTTY THE BIGGEST LIAR FROM KERALA JUST FORGOT OR PRETENDS TO FORGET WHATEVER ‘GOOD DEEDS’ HE HAD DONE ! MAMAK MUDAH LUPA ! BUT ‘MASYUK’ TAK LUPA ! UMNO BUMS & SCUMS WILL BELIEVE HIM BUT NOT ALL MALAYSIANS WILL !

  3. Al Kutty , the liar and petty thief , should be ashamed of himself .

    And Kalsom Taib , many here i am sure , like me , like to commend you for standing up on behalf of your husband and your religion.

    But it is also sad that there is so few like you, not only from followers of your faith, but also from the wider Malaysian public.

  4. To me, the book “Doctor In the House” is not a memoir but a written record of one man’s attempt to cover and divert the truth before he goes to meet his maker. He doesn’t give a damn if he destroys families or reputations along the way, just to protect whatever little left of his legacy!

  5. Martin Jalleh (or whatever your real name is)

    You have been a frustrated old agitator for years. Malaysia gave you a place to live in and a place to work, and shit in, and have turned into an old blungling old fool. You are the most ungrateful person I have ever seen.

    You have been trying to get the nonMalays to rise against the Government for some personal selfish reasons. You have metamorphosised into a fraught, canine devil as seen through your howling, cat-calls and vents.

    This piece of writing, (if one cal call it writing) is another crowning effort by this pendatang.
    One just cannot fathom why you are so myopic as to Anwar’s agenda. Anwar is leading the opposition for his own selfish reason, not for the people and country.
    You accuse of UMNO being a spin-doctor when we are dealing with one of the biggest one of all, you.
    Admittedly, we are ‘Bolehland’ AND PROUD OF IT, of what your original homeland of you, pendatang could not provide you, so you had to seek greener pastures. You have to get out of your syndrome of self-deception, delusion and denial.
    You are one who cannot accept the truth, especially of Anwar affairs.
    The laugh of the day, you top Tunku Abdul Aziz as a respected public figure when he is in your class. He is another old frustrated rant!

    Everything is a circus for you, when the fact remains that you are the Circus Ringmaster.
    You have been ranting, and raving all your life. If life is so bad in Bolehland, ever thought of moving on to your kind of heaven.
    Wake up man! It is not very strange that you are always right while everything around you is wrong? Everything and everybody around you in Malaysia is wrong except you!

    You are a disgrace to society and “your” kind of people you support, the posterior minded people.
    Your tantrums of temper, play up of your theatrics, your low-down threats and taunts and you meandering the truth, always comes to nought.

    You accuse others of being politically bankrupt when it is you reflecting a mirror image of yourself – Ever thought about it?

    You being the expert in all affairs give you zero credibility and credence – Ever thought about it?

    Learn to reflect!

  6. Review by OOI KEE BENG, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore:

    Dr Mahathir, Politician to the core:
    more political than the personal!

    But although that is not his stated intention, I have to say that the fervent and categorical use of “race” is disturbing and certainly makes his book unnecessarily racialist ….

    He accuses the British of being unfair in devaluing the pound sterling without first telling Malaysia about it (page 189). But currency devaluations do not work unless they come as surprises; that is how capitalist finance is played …

    The Malays as such are also blamed. Shortcomings in the New Economic Policy are not blamed on the state and its administrators but on the greed and poor money management of the individual Malay (pages 232, 267)……

    ….Dr Mahathir’s book fails to bring greater understanding to his time in history….

    http://right-waystan.blogspot.com/2011/03/dr-mahathir-politician-to.html

  7. If a man can be vindictive, vicious and deceitful at the age of 87, he must be evil to the core and destined for Hell because he is incorrigible and beyond redemption.
    Mahathir will die like a worm.

  8. Mr Ilham, I see no attempt by Dato Din to discredit Tun Mahathir. It is Mahathir himself who is his own worse enemy. The former Prime Minister’s memoirs tell us what sort of man he is–a man confused about his identity and a bitter person with an inflated ego. To boot, he is corrupt.

    We have heard from his nephew Ahmad Mustapha Hassan, now Kalsom Taib, soon according to Terence Netto we will hear from Musa Hitam, followed by Daim Zainuddin. Tawfik Tun Dr. Ismail will release his late father’s memoirs too. Tengku Razaleigh calls Mahathir a political liar. Mr Ilham, only a person of your mind-set who cannot see Mahathir for what he really is. You are the loser.

  9. dear ilham…plz lah be a little bit objective…we are talking about…someones statement in court vs a person memoir…of melayu mudah lupa…and the many facts in the so called memoir which have been disagreed upon!!!

  10. After taking the complainant’s statement and studying the case, the ACA needed to take the relevant files pertaining to this project from the EPU office. As it involved a very senior officer, following past practices, Shafee informed the prime minister of the case at the end of May 1998, but the latter “kept quiet”.

    ——————————-

    In jurisdictions where adherence to the rule of law is not an empty slogan, the head of an investigative agency dealing with corruption among public officials would never look to the head of the executive arm of the government for guidance or approval before taking action. He is a servant of the law and has the law to uphold.

    He is not accountable to the head of the executive arm of the government. So what exactly was the D-G looking for?? Does his job description say he has to get the green light from the PM before he investigates a case? I don’t think it says that anywhere.

  11. As it involved a very senior officer, following past practices, Shafee informed the prime minister …

    ————————-

    “Following past practice”?

  12. I would like to know if the PM had told him that he ought to stop all investigation, would he have complied? If the DG had no intention to comply then why consult (to use the language of the constitution) the PM??

  13. The truth is the DG misread the body language of the PM and took his silence to mean approval but consulted his deputy just in case — who then kicked the ball back to his side of the court.

  14. MalayVoice, Martin Jalleh is a God-fearing writing of social issues that he feels affect the lives of Malaysians irrespective of race, colour or creed. He has never used race or religion to champion any of the issues he has written. I know Mr Jalleh personally and I follow his writings conscientiously. It is people like you who cannot accept someone like him who propagates for a TRUE MALAYSIA which belongs to EVERYONE of us. You only want it for yourself and your cronies of the same skin, color and religion, from your nick, I would presume only for Ketuanan Melayu. I think people like you know no shame but to just capitalize and abuse race and religion just for personal gains!

  15. yup! why consult? when the written principals demands that an enforcer of the law to be subservient to the law itself rather than the body which elects him into office!

  16. Kalsom, it was made known to me that this Maha Firaun nearly issue warrant of arrest for Shafee under the ISA.
    Bagi Sdr Ilham, hang ini betul2 bodoh, tuli dan pekak selama2 nya macam ketua2 awak dalam UMNO.

  17. Mahathir angry at anybody who wants to tell the truth? Shocking!

    One thing I don’t understand, why must the ACA consult the PM first before investigating one of his officers?

  18. Ariffdanial,

    Why waste your breath on this fiend Ilham? He’s the type of person who’ll jump from the building if asked by Najib or Mahathir. He’s allergic to facts.

  19. One thing Shafee missed – why didn’t he check on Dr Mahathir also to see if he had any interest in the said privatisation project? If there was, Shafee could have changed the History of Malaysia then.

    It takes the mind of a thief to catch a thief. You know what I mean!

  20. Zaib,

    The reason why Mahathir was angry at Shafee was because at the time of the raid, EPU was considering Mokhzani’s proposal for the hospital privatization project or if I am not mistaken, approval have been given to it. Abul Hassan wld have told mahathir, ‘look, they are not only investigating me but also your son’s proposals for the hospital privatisation…and anwar must have instigated them to raid EPU.” That got Mahathiir mad.

    Shafee’s only failure then was not arresting or investigating Mahathir for interfering with the ACA investigation. But in malaysia it takes a lot of guts to do that considering the fact that Shafee was only a PTD officer being seconded as ACA head.

  21. Bean,

    ” Following past practices ” means it is an unwritten rule . In Malay , it is like this – ” Lain lain tugas yang di arahkandari masa kesemasa. ”

    Hope you can comprehend Bean.

  22. justice Arifin Jaka –nie idup lagi ke?

    in the end, we need to wait until this man that claimed to be ‘ even though I have indian blood, but i am true malay…dia malaya ke indian??

    pity..so byk tipu punya olang! Deyy Tamby…poodah chitt big fat liar sama itu Big fatt Mama!!

  23. The former Prime Minister’s memoirs tell us what sort of man he is–a man confused about his identity and a bitter person with an inflated ego. To boot, he is corrupt.

    apsal mau gaduh pasl itu tua nak mampus punya memoir–sula confused lah…lagi skit mau masuk itu gool..Izrail tgh tunggu permit sahaja mau tarik itu olang tua???

  24. This is what ISEAS Senior Fellow Dr. Ooi Kee Beng has to say on Doctor in the House (The Star, March 25, 2011):

    BELIEVE it or not, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been a part of Malaysian politics since World War II. Thus, his long-awaited memoirs easily drives home the fact that his influence runs deep and continues unabated, over 60 years later.

    Not one to shy away from controversial views, he expressed grave disappointment with every one of Malaysia’s prime ministers and deputy prime ministers, barring Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.

    Studying his words, one also sees that Mahathir was often in conflict with himself, for example when denying the key role he must have played in many failures and controversies.

    He is also known for his willingness to do whatever it took to remain in power once he had reached the pinnacle in 1981. His deputies never had an easy time, and all of them fell by the wayside. Not even Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, despite being the only one to reach the position of prime minister, could remain safe from Mahathir’s assailment.

    The stamp of ownership Dr M put on Malaysian nation building is undeniable, and no one today doubts that both the good and the bad from his long period of dominance will continue for quite some time yet.

    His 22 years in power were controversial ones, during which scandals broke one after the other, and opponents were at times arrested without trial. The latter actions, he now claims, were against his will.

    But his tenure was also the time when Malaysia gained global prominence, not only as an economic wonder and a showcase for “moderate” Islam but also as a multiracial society that posed as champion of the South and the Muslim world as well.

    However, after he stepped down in October 2003, the long-term effects of his method of nation building have become obvious. Institutional degradation threatens to be his lasting legacy, and the establishments ruined in his time include UMNO itself.

    One can thus understand that his memoirs was eagerly expected. Many wish to know how he perceives his own achievements, and even more want to see some regret.

    Now that he is no longer a politician, can he exercise enough distance from his own past to achieve a credible narration of his life and achievements?

    As it turns out, he can’t. Dr Mahathir cannot not be a politician. Perhaps how he sees himself is best noted in what he says about his daughter: “Marina turned out to be a lot like me: argumentative, stubborn, opinionated and always believing she is right. She does not mind expressing her views: and that makes things very difficult sometimes. (Tun Dr Siti) Hasmah always said that an elephant could get crushed between two people who think they are always right”. (Page 216.)

    Doctor In The House, stretching over 800 pages, varies in style. It varies in depth as well, with some subjects studied much more at length and in detail than others.

    Taking too long to finish a book has many drawbacks, the chief of which is that the parts will not gel well, making the final product feel like a collection of chapters written by different people. It does not help that Dr M dwells excessively on the chapters that are lessons in official history and not biographical.

    I was certainly left wishing that he had had expert help or that he had listened more to whatever expert help he may have had when finishing the book.

    The lack of proper referencing gets exasperating after a while since many claims made in the book certainly cry out for verification. Yet, it is not historical errors that are the major irritants. Many concepts, especially nationalistic notions, are thrown in without any consideration of their dubiousness. “Tanah Melayu” is used as if it were a reference to a bygone polity and not a term used by early anthropologists.

    Mahathir’s potential for controversy was obvious already when he began publishing articles in The Sunday Times after the war. His first piece saw the light of day on July 20, 1947. It was about Malay women empowering themselves, and about how their “fervent nationalism and sympathetic understanding” actually inspired their men to struggle for their own survival.

    This view on women is one of the more commendable aspects of Mahathir (page 235), as is his affection and respect for his wife, Dr Siti Hasmah, and his joy in fatherhood.

    Some of his passing memories are amusing to read as well, and I am sure they bring a recognising smile to older Malaysians the way Lat’s cartoons do; by capturing passing pedestrian scenes that otherwise remain outside description.

    Most other areas that he draws attention to are done in a much less amiable fashion. The issue of race, a 19th century notion that most social scientists today find well nigh impossible to define, let alone use, is not a problem for Dr Mahathir. And he does realise that much of what he had to say can be construed as racist or narcissistic (page 24).

    But although that is not his stated intention, I have to say that the fervent and categorical use of “race” is disturbing and certainly makes his book unnecessarily racialist, if not racist.

    Some narcissism is apparent when he exaggerates his role in the resistance against the Malay Union (pages 92-95) or when he claims that after his expulsion from UMNO, “no one else was championing the cause of the Malays” (page 210).

    He is probably right when complaining that he became persona non grata after Tunku Abdul Rahman kicked him out of UMNO in 1970, but to be flabbergasted and to protest as avidly against being ignored after his retirement in 2003 is surely unjustified (pages 210, 243).

    “Successors, even if they are of the same party, do not wish the people to remember their predecessors. Many try in different ways to obliterate memories of the recent past. This is easy if the predecessor is disgraced, yet even if the predecessor willingly surrenders power, a successor may be uncomfortable if he is remembered too kindly (page188).”

    The lack of a serious class analysis in the book is disturbing, as is Dr M’s tendency to place blame on others in analysing history.

    He accuses the British of being unfair in devaluing the pound sterling without first telling Malaysia about it (page 189). But currency devaluations do not work unless they come as surprises; that is how capitalist finance is played. And accusing voters of being vindictive when not supporting him in 1969 also shows a warped understanding of what popular will and democracy is (page 196).

    Dr Mahathir claims that UMNO was being magnanimous in not playing racialism to the hilt when they cooperated with non-Malays back in the 1950s instead of embracing the Islamist splinter group, PAS, thus forgetting in the process that independence would not have been impossible otherwise (page 222).

    Here, the myth of complete Malay unity as a default situation looms large despite the evidence. Umno’s subsequent weakness is blamed on non-Malay demands and not on the obvious reality that, for most people, ethnicity-based dominance is not always the paramount consideration in politics. Other dimensions such as inter-personal conflicts, profession, class, gender, education and urbanity, not to mention an endless array of historical circumstances, are equally relevant.

    Needless to say, PAS is also blamed for being betrayers of the Malay cause (page 223), while Datuk Onn Ja’afar is not judged the same way despite his departure from UMNO and his forming of alternative parties.

    The Malays as such are also blamed. Shortcomings in the New Economic Policy are not blamed on the state and its administrators but on the greed and poor money management of the individual Malays (pages 232, 267).

    Doctor In The House seeks to be more than a mere memoirs but ended up disappointing this reader, both as an autobiography and a lesson in Malaysian history. If the goal is to leave to posterity a simplified version of history easily digested by people prone to ethnocentric thinking, and highlighting the role Dr Mahathir played in it as understood by him in his twilight years, then that is immediately achieved.

    But in presenting half truths, selective recollections and opportunistic rationale, Dr Mahathir’s book fails to bring greater understanding to his time in history.

    **Ooi Kee Beng is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. He is the author of The Reluctant Politician: Tun Dr Ismail And His Time (ISEAS 2006).

  25. In another words, “Dr Mahathir is a “Politician” to the “core”.

    Despite his retirement, now 87 is still a ‘politician’ , playing dirty politics, unlike Dr. Lim Chong EU, a real statesman.

    Also said, his autobiography is more about the political motive than the personal as the article from the Star posted to Rightways earlier:

    Dr Mahathir, Politician to the core
    http://rightways.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/dr-mahathir-politician-to-the-core/

  26. Well Ilham speak for yourself but Dr.M doesn’t make me feel inferior in any way. Anyway what do you mean he makes you feel like an idiot and a fool? I thought you already are.

  27. Bean,

    ” Following past practices ” means it is an unwritten rule . In Malay , it is like this – ” Lain lain tugas yang di arahkandari masa kesemasa. ”

    Hope you can comprehend Bean.

    arokiasamy – March 26, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    —————————–

    An unwritten rule? Who makes the rule? The Prime Minister?

    What happens to the doctrine of civil service neutrality? The head of the national investigative agency is a civl servant and once appointed to office is bound to uphold the law. True. He may be answerable to the PM (who is a politican and head of the executive arm of the government); but he is accountable under the law and is under duty to investigate a public official for alleged corruption based on reports submitted to him and does not need permission to do so.

    The AG is under duty under the constitution to prosecute once enough prima facie evidence is available to ensure a successful prosecution. He has no choice in the matter under the law. His discretion does not go so far as to excuse him from prosecuting such a case.

  28. Bean, this is Bolehland. Everything is boleh provided you’re on the right side of the equation. Woe betides those who are on the wrong side. End of cerita…

  29. Bean,

    I am not disputing your thoughts on ” following past practices “. On the contrary, i do agree with you .

    But there is this last clause in all civil servants duty list and as i said earlier , it reads like this:

    ” Lain lian tugas yang diarahkan dari masa ke semasa “.

    This clause alone can be all encompassing and can compromise every civil servant . The degree to which he or she maybe compromised will depend on his strength of character and how the powers that be interpret this clause . If the powers that be is someone as depraved like rahim tamby chik then the civil servant is a goner .

    It will be the same if the power’s that be is Maha Firaun . I am sure this is obvious even to you.

    But if the power’s that be is someone like Tunku Abdul Rahman or Tunku Abdul Aziz , or even Dato Din Merican, then the civil servant will thrive . It will be a joy to work under minds like this because they know the limits and they know better then to compromise their staff.

    Remember Bean, both Good and Bad , Light and Darkness , good versus evil is inate to all human beings . It is how we manage these opposite qualities personally and how we manage it for the people around us THAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE .

  30. It seems to me that Tun M is a kind of person who likes to make enemies with many people and shockingly never feel or show the feeling of regrets about it. It also seems to me that he will never apologise to people whom he made them suffer in life, cos to him he has never done anything wrong. Such a person again in my opinion will never believe he has created so much sins. My prayer still, for Allah to give him a chance to repent before Allah really takes him from this world…Amin AND Allahuaklam.

  31. only God knows everything,anyway,we cannot deny mahathir’s contributions to our country,just be a thankful person.k, plz dont be such ungrateful here,thanks

  32. I am totally agree with azeeda. I do think that he has given wonders to Malaysia and his concerns about the Malays are very genuine and heartwhelming.He is a genius and i love him so much. So, others,just shut up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.