RM2.6 billion doggie in Najib’s window


August 6, 2015

Malaysia: RM2.6 billion doggie in Najib’s window

by Azrul Mohd Khalib

http://www.malaymailonline.com

Penderma UtamaPrime Minister Najib Razak’s Generous Donor

If, like me, you are frustrated and furious with the recent revelation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that the RM2.6 billion that was deposited into Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak personal bank account was found to be from donor contributions and not from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), let me assure you that you are not alone.

Thousands of people across the country are clustered around tables at kedai kopi, mamak shops, dining rooms and even hipster cafes wondering what the hell is going on.

The whole thing feels like it was stage-managed to help take the heat off this particular issue in the wake of the reportage from The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), The Edge Financial Daily, The Edge Weekly and the Sarawak Report.

Earlier tweets from the honourable Member of Parliament for Kota Belud disparaged and mocked WSJ’s report last month, describing it as “gutter journalism” and a “wanton allegation.”  There was also his earlier vocal support for the continuation of the work of the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee into the 1MDB issue to “end it” and provide closure.

Then came the recent Cabinet reshuffle, the raids on the MACC, the agency’s revelation regarding the RM2.6 billion, and the suspension of the PAC hearings.

azalinaMinister of Sycophancy

Newly-minted Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman wasted no time in distinguishing herself from the pack by actually saying that the amount in the Prime Minister’s personal bank account was not a big issue.

Congratulations Datuk Seri, on starting your ministerial stint by polishing the apple with a touch of sycophancy. But to be fair to that lot in the Cabinet, it sounds like precious little is shared on this issue during those weekly meetings. As was confirmed by a former member, you find out more from reading a copy of The Edge Financial Daily or The Wall Street Journal.

After all, collective responsibility only goes so far. It must also be great being a minister.

By stating that the amount in question originated from donor contributions rather than the 1MDB, the MACC announcement inadvertently confirms the following points which were earlier reported by the abovementioned publications:

That the funds existed and were a total of US$700 million or RM2.6 billion (would be worth more in today’s depressing value of the ringgit). That the amount was deposited into a personal bank account.

That the account holder was Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, the current Prime Minister of Malaysia. RM2.6 billion is a heady sum. It would be strange if you felt that there is nothing wrong with this picture and that the PM is entitled to have that amount in his personal bank account.

To put the US$700 million into context, consider that this amount is equivalent to 1 per cent of the 2014 Federal Government Budget of RM262.1 billion.

If I were to take the MACC announcement at face value, I would have at least three questions to ask:

1. Who were the donors of such largesse? 

2. What were they expecting as a result of their generosity?

3. Why was the prime minister the recipient/ beneficiary/ trustee of these donations?

Let me say right now that to explain away RM2.6 billion as coming from contributions of UMNO members and various supporters, would be an insult to the Malaysian people’s intelligence. Don’t even try it.

If it didn’t come from 1MDB funds, from whom and where did this funding come from? I must surmise that with all this sudden talk about how it is alright for politicians to receive foreign funding, that this amount allegedly came from sources abroad.

If this funding which the ministers are now suddenly acknowledging exists and are claiming is above board, why then the need for secrecy and the reticence? Sure, it’s not a crime to receive all that money but whose money is this? Are the donors governments, organisations, companies or special interest groups? It is extremely important to highlight not only how much but where the money came from.

Is this why we have been bowing and scraping to various entities in the Middle East? What kind of influence do these unknown donors and benefactors have over our country?

Which leads me to the second question, what were or are they expecting in return? What is the quid pro quo? Nobody gives this kind of money dengan penuh tulus ikhlas, without expecting something in return. Let’s not be naïve.

This is a sobering reality as money is endemic in a democracy. There is a famous quote attributed to American politician Jesse Unruh who said that “money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Or in our case, this is probably susu kambing of some kind.

Private financing is a legitimate and necessary tool for political parties and their candidates. Campaign war chests are growing ever bigger with each election. In many countries, record amounts are being spent on elections.

Consider the following:

In the last US election according to the New York Times, Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012 raised around US$770 million (not including the Democratic Party and political action committee funding). His opponent Mitt Romney raised US$467 million through his own campaign fundraising. In total, each had more than a billion dollars on hand to spend.

On the lower end of the scale, the cost of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (SPD) campaign in the last German federal election, was around 30 million euros or RM127 million. That was for everyone. From her all the way down to the junior parliamentarians. Not individually but everyone combined.

If RM2.6 billion was divided by the 726 seats (221 parliamentary and 505 state assembly) contested by the Barisan Nasional in the last general election, it would come up to RM3.6 million per seat. That’s assuming that the disputed funds were shared with all the Barisan Nasional partners and not for Umno alone.

However, under Section 19 of the Malaysian Elections Offences Act of 1954, each candidate is not allowed to spend more than RM200,000 (parliamentary seat) or RM100,000 (state seat) for campaigning.

The ability to raise private funds to finance political activities, especially from abroad, makes politicians and political parties vulnerable to a wide range of threats to democracy, especially those which affect government policies and actions.

Finally, the Prime Minister was the recipient and trustee of these funds. If we are to hold ourselves to a higher standard of transparency and accountability like that of developed countries, it would be very clear that nobody gives campaign donations direct to the personal bank account of a politician. Certainly not in these huge amounts.

For the sake of the dignity, honour and credibility of the position of the Prime Minister, this issue must be further clarified and explained.

PARLIMEN / ANIFAH AMAN / KIMANISNot too long ago back in 2012, Foreign Minister Anifah Aman stated that foreign funding of NGOs in Malaysia, could be “seen as interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state.” A whole buffet of pro-establishment Malay rights NGOs attacked their counterparts who received funding from abroad and accused them of helping to “destabilise the peace of the country.” Despite the fact that these civil society organisations were working to strengthen democracy and human rights in Malaysia, they got hell for this and were even accused of being foreign agents.

Suddenly, some are barking that “politicians are free to accept financial aid or contribution from abroad.” What are we to think?

There is an obvious and urgent need for political campaign finance reform in Malaysia as big money politics is threatening and compromising the integrity of this government and the country.

We need reform urgently because when you look at history and precedence, the pattern where there are huge amounts being spent which are extremely disproportionate to the number of registered voters and population, can be found in banana republics, authoritarian regimes and tin-pot regimes where corruption runs rampant and unchecked.

KUALA LUMPUR 29 NOVEMBER 2012 - PRESIDEN UMNO, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak tersenyum melihat Timbalan Presiden UMNO, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin yang mempamerkan sepanduk `Saya Sayangkan PM' semasa Majlis Perasmian Perhimpunan Agung UMNO 2012 di Dewan Merdeka PWTC di sini hari ini. Gambar: MOHD NAIM AZIZ Pemberita: TEAM UMNO UTUSAN/KOSMO!

The Price of Loyalty–Out of The Cabinet and Public Office–Stab in the Back Politics in Malaysia

The emergence of such “black money” in elections often leads to erosion of public confidence in the political process. We cannot let that happen.

I am willing to bet that there are many, many questions that the Malaysian people are asking about this RM2.6 billion which is probably just a part of a very large iceberg in our democracy.

But I have just one more before I end my piece: Unless it was all spent during the 2013 elections and its aftermath, where is the rest of the RM2.6 billion?

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.

Malaysia: Prime Minister Najib Razak’s Defence Game


August 2, 2015

Malaysia: Malaysian PM’s Successful Defensive Game

by John Berthelsen@www.asiasentinel.com

Najib-Razak-david-_3392712bNajib Razak got a message on Corruption from David Cameron

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has played a deft defensive game to keep his job in the face of what ought to be overwhelming forces to remove him. He has fired enemies, co-opted others and muzzled  the press.

That leaves only a handful who may stand in his way including Zeti Akhtar Aziz, the central banker, who is said to be under enormous pressure but who has access to incriminating bank records on both Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor. The other is Ahmad Hamdan Dahlan, the chief of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, who has remained silent on which way the commission may go. There are rumors in Kuala Lumpur that he may be the next to get the boot.

Political analysts now are trying to assess new damage from an explosive account in the UK-based Sarawak Report that published what are purported to be drafts of corruption charges to be brought by Malaysian former Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail, who was fired on July 28, and shunted into a make-work position. Rumors of Gani Patail’s decision to charge the prime minister circulated well before he was sacked.

Scandal and tumult

That was only the latest in a tumultuous week in Kuala Lumpur. For more than a  year, Najib has been ensnared in one of the biggest financial scandals in recent history.  But despite the ostensible damage, he is expected to survive, at least for now, partly because there is nobody around with the power to topple him. Even if the opposition were to somehow pull back together, he seems safe from a no-confidence motion in the Parliament and has until 2018 to regroup for the next general election.

While the economy may be more decisive in determining the outcome of the next general election, analysts expect the political cauldron to continue to bubble for the next two years, unless something unseen breaks. It is hard to see what that might be given the peculiar nature of Malaysian politics, as ethnic Malays, who make up 60 percent of the country, regard UMNO as their defender against the Chinese, who occupy the economic heights.  To many the continuing attacks on Najib and UMNO represent a threat against their guardian.

Over the years Najib has survived being caught in a Port Dickson motel room bed with an actress, being investigated by French prosecutors for taking a €114 million kickback on the purchase of submarines as Defense Minister and overpaying by a vast amount on the purchase of a wide range of other military weapons that probably resulted in kickbacks.

In the current episode, the Premier has muzzled the most influential business newspapers in the country and left those owned by the political parties, including UMNO’s vitriolic Utusan Malaysia, the Malay-language broadsheet, to blast opponents as agents of foreign powers. The English-language New Straits Times and Star have been content to largely parrot the government  line.

By firing Akhil Bulat, the head of Special Branch, Najib has pushed out what amounts to the police intelligence chief and the man who knows where the bodies are buried. Bulat, a source told Asia Sentinel, has grown increasingly critical of Najib in private circles, saying he has to go.

The most potent threat, beyond the Bank Negara documents, is the long-running and often-delayed investigation by the parliament’s Public Accounts Committee into the affairs of the troubled 1Malaysia Development Bhd. Najib has addressed that by appointing four UMNO members of the committee to cabinet positions when he reshuffled the cabinet and ousted his critics. The chairman, Nur Jazlan Mohamed, has been named Deputy Home Minister.

Nur JazlanLoyalty over Duty=Promotion=Loss of Dignity

While opposition members of the bipartisan committee have vowed to continue their work, other observers believe it has been effectively neutered, at least for now.

Whether or not Najib retains the loyalty of the 190-odd United Malays Organization district chiefs, he has neutered opposition there as well by pushing intra-party elections back by 18 months so that even if his enemies, including former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad could generate party support, it doesn’t appear that anybody can get at him. But pushing the elections back cuts both ways. Najib can’t be ousted but neither can Muhyiddin Yassin, fired as Deputy Prime Minister early this week, be sacked as Deputy President.

Najib also endured a tongue-lashing this week from British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had the ill timing to land in Kuala Lumpur to peddle trade as the scandal blew open. The British premier skulked out of town as quickly as he could. It was hardly the reflected prestige that Najib was counting on to boost his street cred.

Deflect the bad news

As Najib’s supporters have done since the scandal blew open months ago, they sought to deflect the latest salvo by Sarawak Report, saying unnamed forces want to end parliamentary democracy in Malaysia. Apandi Ali, the new attorney general, who was appointed the same day Gani Patail was removed, said the documents were part of a “conspiracy to topple a serving prime minister” and a “threat to Malaysia’s democracy.”

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the nakedly ambitious and often mercurial deputy prime minister picked to replace Muhyiddin, and Inspector General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar, went on the opposition against crusading Sarawak Report editor Clare  Rewcastle Brown, saying sedition charges are likely to be brought against her, a hollow charge since she operates in the UK, which is not about to bend to already-existing demands to extradite her. For weeks, forces believed to be paid by middle eastern oil interests have staged an all-out campaign to discredit Rewcastle Brown, stalking her in London to photograph people she meets and charging they are part of the conspiracy.  They paid a former Sarawak Radio official to accuse her of altering documents to discredit 1MDB.

In the latest case, Rewcastle Brown said she had verified the documents with senior officials before printing them. Gani Patail has been silent on it. One presumes he would denounce the documents if they were fake.

Americk Sidhu, a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer, went to bat for the documents. “The way those charge sheets are drafted indicates the person tasked with that job knew what he was doing,” Sidhu said. “There is a complex legal structure to both charges (in the alternative) which any layman would not be able to understand or even appreciate. The details are also too intricate to be made up. Remember these were still drafts. The final product would have been a little different but the substance would remain.”

The draft also contains a police report, on which the draft charge would have been based. “I have seen charge sheets before,” Sidhu said. “They look like this.” The documents indicate Gani Patail was about to charge Najib and a company director of the controversial state-backed 1Malasia Development Bhd with corrupt practices under Section 17 (a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, with the potential of up to 20 years in prison.

Do average voters care?

But Najib remains insulated from rank and file voters.  “IMDB is too complicated for the average Malaysian,” said a veteran think tanker, who pointed out that a decision to impose a goods and services tax in April has been hugely unpopular. 

“What the average Malaysian thinks is this – I have to pay GST because IMDB owes RM42 billion, can’t pay its loans and has to be bailed out by the government. Other missteps by government – petrol prices raised BEFORE [Ramadan]. Think of the impact on all those in the kampungs.  Consumer spending is down this year.”

The business community and the economy are being hit hard.  The ringgit, the Malaysian unit of currency, has fallen more than any other in Southeast Asia. Malaysian Industrial Finance  has reported that so far in 2015 nearly RM10 billion net has flowed out from the stock market after another RM6 billion plus in 2014.

He still faces opposition from Muhyiddin and Mahathir as well. Muhyiddin is still UMNO Deputy President despite having been sacked as Deputy Prime Minister. He retains considerable power in the southern state of Johor, an UMNO bastion.

“Now freed from government work, Muhyiddin can visit UMNO branches to canvas for support. He also has very, very well-heeled supporters, “said the think tank  operative. In particular, the Tunku Makhota, Johor’s crown prince recently attacked the handling of the scandal only to have UMNO figures lash out at him. That in turn earned the critics an investigation for insulting the Johor monarchy, further splitting the party in the state.

“I think Najib made a mistake in sacking Muhyiddin,” the think tank official said. “Sacking him will prompt Muhyiddin to go for broke. I think a better strategy would have been to allow Muhyiddin to remain as DPM but give him an inconsequential portfolio.”

Kleptocracy, Corruption and Media Control


July 30, 2015

Malaysia: Kleptocracy, Corruption and Media Control

by Dr Syed Farid Alatas

http://www.themalaymailonline.com

Syed FaridThe recent reports in the Wall Street Journal and Sarawak Report alleging massive corruption involving the upper echelons of the political and corporate elite of Malaysia have once again raised the question of whether or not Malaysia is a kleptocracy. The term is derived from the words ‘klepto’ — (thief) and — cracy’ (rule) and refers to a government dominated by those who use their office to seek personal financial gain, power and status at the expense of the governed. The impact of kleptocratic rulers and officials on a country is devastating. They rule with unscrupulousness and hypocrisy, and distort development planning and policy. Such rulers do not seem to have any interest in the rights, opinions or sentiments of the people they govern. Under their watch a country would undergo large-scale resource depletion and experience a loss of talented human resources. Kleptocratic rule also has dire consequences for the freedom of expression in a country.

A vital means of combating corruption and preventing the emergence of a kleptocratic state is the maintenance of a free press. Although it is true that the irresponsible exercise of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression in general can be harmful to the stability and security of a country, the muzzling of voices of conscience pose a greater danger. Excessive media control is a symptom of authoritarianism. The gradual imposition of high-handed governmental controls over the media takes place as rulers feel more and more insecure and vulnerable as a result of their misdeeds being publicised and debated by academics, activists and the population in general.

The kleptocrats impose restrictions and controls over the media in order to shield themselves from criticism, minimise public information and debate about their misadventures, and eventually prevent voters from acting against them at the polls. It is obvious that the freer people are to obtain information, analyse government decisions and actions, and criticise the perpetrators of illegal and despicable acts, the stronger those people become vis à vis their government. Is that not how things should be? After all, elected polit In fact, there is evidence from cross-country research to show that “a free press is bad news for corruption”.

In a study published in 2003, Aymo Brunetti and Beatrice Weber showed that having free media was positively correlated with better governance (A Free Press is Bad News for Corruption, Journal of Public Economics, 87). This is because press freedom allows for more information to be available to people which in turn enables citizens to exert more pressure on their governments.

Some days ago, the Malaysian Home Ministry suspended the publishing permit of The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily for three months starting from July 27, 2015. The reason given by the Home Ministry is that the reports of the two publications on 1MDB were “prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to public order, security or likely to alarm public opinion or is likely to be prejudicial to public and national interest”.

This is a claim that few thinking Malaysians would accept. Most Malaysians would also agree that the real danger to the nation is corruption. Furthermore, most people in Malaysia who support free reporting and public discourse on corruption would not condone the spread of rumours to destabilise our country. Those who do act in this irresponsible manner should be dealt with by the law. But, the media should not be gagged. This is because the media have a vital role to play in preventing instability.

Research has shown that it is corruption that results in instability. Sarah Chayes, in her book entitled Thieves of State: Why Corruption threatens global security (W.W. Norton & Co., 2015), investigates how kleptocratic governance results in civil unrest and even provokes violent extremism. To the extent that a free media results in pressures on the government to clean up or at least minimise the incidence of corruption, it can be said that freedom of the press, far from being prejudicial to public interest, is necessary for the stability of the nation.  The probability that kleptocracy would be publicly debated and kleptocrats investigated, exposed and prosecuted, is higher in a country with a free press than in one with a controlled and irresponsible press.

In Islam, as in all the great religious traditions that make up Malaysia, there is the universal value of attachment to the truth. It is regarded as sinful to provide false information, particularly about events that one has personally witnessed. Equally sinful is the withholding of the truth. The Qur’an frequently exhorts humans to avoid concealing testimony and refrain from confounding the truth by lacing it with falsehood.

If it cannot be proven that The Edge reported falsehoods and violated journalistic norms or broke the law, the suspension is against both the standards of universal values as well as Islamic tradition. Islam is the religion of state in Malaysia. Therefore, Malaysians expect the politicians and civil servants to rule with justice and integrity.

The Qur’an commands those entrusted with public and professional duties to carry out their rule with justice and fairness (4:58-59). The vizier and scholar of the eleventh century Seljuq Empire, Nizam al-Mulk, in his famous treatise, the Siyasatnameh or Book of Government, advised his sultan that he should listen to the grievances of his subjects directly, without intermediaries.  A thousand years later, this is still what we want from our leaders.

The fourteenth century Muslim social theorist, Abdul Rahman Ibn Khaldun, believed that government decisions were as a rule unjust. This was based on his study of West Asian and North African polities as well as his experience with the vicissitudes of political life. More than five hundred years later, the Spanish philosopher and intellectual leader of the Spanish Republican government, José Ortega y Gasset, referred to the state as the greatest danger. He believed that state intervention was the greatest danger that threatened civilisation. Malaysians want a strong state that can establish and maintain public order and run an efficient administration. But we do not want a dangerous state, one with disproportionate power such that its intervention results in rule by thieves.

* Dr. Syed Farid Alatas is the Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, in the National University of Singapore.

Remembering Zainon Ahmad


July 23, 2015

Note: I was reading Balan Moses on Facebook early this morning and decided that I should post his moving tribute to our departed friend, Pak Non, who was an exemplary journalist of my generation. I interacted with Pak Non as I used to frequent Parliament House when it was in session. He was always gave me interesting insights into Malaysian politics and our politicians at work.

He saw politics a kind of sandiwara by our parliamentarians whenever they appeared before the camera. Pak Non was particularly fond of the theatrics of Bung Mokhtar Radin, the fiery UMNO Member of Parliamentarian for Kinabatangan constituency in Sabah.  At that time, Pak Non was the Chief Editor of the Sun Daily  and media consultant with a column of his own.

I liked his style of writing. He sought the truth, as Balan says, but he was balanced and fair. Although he is no longer with us, I will remember Pak Non as a Malaysian journalist in a class of his own. As a friend and fellow Kedahan, he was indeed kind, sincere and considerate. It was my privilege to know him.

To those who do not know, let me give you his background. Pak Non won the Media Personality Award in 2010. Zainon earned a degree in History and a Masters in International Relations from University of Malaya. He had also studied newspaper management at the Thomson Foundation, London and was a fellow of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tuft University, Boston in the US –Din Merican

True Malaysian Journalist: Zainon Ahmad, affectionately known as Pak Non, was always preoccupied with the truth

by Balan Moses

March 29, 2013–www.nst.com.my

ZAINON Ahmad, who left us on Wednesday (March 27, 2013), had a lifelong affair with truth, his fascination with getting past the red herrings always at the fore of his private and professional life.

In the later part of his career with the New Straits Times, the teacher-turned-scribe pasted a telling note about himself to the pillar where the office printer was located. It went something like this: “I tell the truth as much as I can and the older I get, the more I am able to tell the truth”.

This was Pak Non at his best, a journalist who said it as it was, albeit with a levity reflected in azainonahmad_6 full-faced smile that took the sting out of his comments, leaving one with only the feeling that a lesson in life had just been learnt.

There was never an ounce of malice in the avuncular figure, who roamed the news floor to exchange colourful repartees with colleagues, many of whom knew the soft inner core of the man who always meant well despite his rare but seemingly cutting remarks.

Despite his years of experience, he invariably wrote with the verve, vivacity and wonder of a novice reporter handling his first big story.Pak Non, a name we always teased him about, given the many times that people telephoned the office to ask for “Cik Zainon”, dared to walk the proverbial (journalistic) ground where angels feared to tread.

It did not help in terms of upwards professional mobility or enhancing his circle of acquaintances (he had no lack of friends), but these things never really mattered to him.

P.C. Shivadas says Zainon’s love for the difficult story (his series on the Mindanao conflict was of epic proportions) was legendary as was his ability to outperform those younger than him in a hostile foreign environment. “He put himself in harm’s way to get the story. He was a part of that small and elite group of journalists who would go anywhere, anytime to get the story,” says the former NST group editor.

Pak Non waltzed through journalistic life with an ease inherent in those with nothing to fear but God in whom he placed his utmost trust. I, like many others, like to remember Pak Non as the man with short curly hair with a zany sartorial touch (he came to love batik shirts later in life) and a toothy grin, who often greeted close friends with a Tamil movie tune of the 1950s.

Philip Matthews, a former NST editor, saying that Zainon was the same “on camera or off camera”, remembers his failed attempt at becoming an RTM Tamil news reader. Rose Ismail, former NST deputy group editor, and Fatimah Abu Bakar, former NST entertainment editor, fondly remember Zainon singing the nursery rhyme, Baa Baa Black Sheep, to a Tamil tune complete with shaking of head.

Former NST associate editor Tony Francis says Zainon, who eschewed titles or awards, “was (if there ever was one) a journalist who deserved a datukship”.”He was content to do what he loved without expecting any rewards or honours,” he says.

Zainon and I hit it off from the start with our love for Tamil movies and songs.”I remember watching Nadodi Mannan (a Tamil movie from 1958 based on The Prisoner of Zenda). What acting by MGR,” Pak Non used to tell me with awe.

One of his favourite numbers, Pambera Kannaley (eyes like spinning tops), by late Tamil comedian J. P. Chandrababu, was a song he could sing at the drop of a hat.

One of his favourite pastimes at the NST was going for a banana leaf lunch with, among others, Lim Thow Boon (his partner in crime generally), the late John Pillai, the late Shaik Osman Majid, Rudy Beltran, Unny Krishnan, K.P. Waran and I.

The estate boy who grew up as Jeganathan, the name that childhood friends gave him at the Patani Para Estate in Kedah, had a degree in history and master’s in international relations from University of Malaya.

The Journalist of the Year in 1986 and Media Personality of the Year in 2010 went on from the NST to become the first editor-in-chief of theSun, later assuming the post of consultant and political editor there with a popular column, What They Say. He was a journalist’s journalist, a man after our own collective heart.

To his wife, Hasnah Abdullah, children and grandchildren, his former colleagues at the NST wish to say that it was a singular pleasure working with a man who did not mind wearing his heart on his sleeves. He lived an exemplary life as a journalist with a heart and died as he lived — with honour.

We will sue you, Sarawak Report tells Minister Rahman Dahlan


July 22, 2015

We will sue you, Sarawak Report tells Minister Rahman Dahlan

by FMT Reporters

Editor takes particular offence to Abdul Rahman Dahlan labelling her “scum”.

Dr Mahathir and C BrownSarawak Report yesterday vowed legal action against Barisan Nasional’s strategic Communications Director Abdul Rahman Dahlan, New Straits Times and other publications which have deliberately promoted falsehoods designed to damage its credibility.

It also promised to invoke the criminal process against Lester Melanyi for what it claims was a “vicious criminal libel”. “Usually, we rely on the facts to make our case against detractors and allow readers to decide by comparing those facts with the criticisms against us,” it said in a statement posted on its website which is now hosted on a different URL.

“However, over the past days, certain characters who claim to represent the government and their friendly media outlets have gone too far. They have paraded a sick and discredited individual, who has poured out strings of lies, which none of them have sought to check out, in order to claim this as ‘proof’ that our research was all ‘forged’.”

The whistleblower website claimed that it would normally consider Lester’s concocted story to be “entertaining for being so ridiculous” given the mass of evidence which it says supports all that it has written.

Rahman-Dahlan-Clare-Rewcastle-Brown“But ministers have now used this character and these ludicrous libels as an excuse to order an internet ban on Sarawak Report,” it lamented.

Editor Clare Rewcastle Brown took particular offence with Abdul Rahman for “outrageously” libeling her, in particular by calling her “scum” and labeling the portal’s research as “blatant lies”.

“(Abdul Rahman) has not produced a single shred of evidence that would lead anyone to believe the ravings of the mentally unbalanced bankrupt, Lester Melanyi,” she claimed.

“We therefore accuse (him) of criminal libel, motivated by malicious intent. Despite deciding not to sue Lester, Brown warned “him and anyone who continues to promote his present and future made up stories” of future legal action if they persist.

Why is Najib’s Cabinet scared of Racists and Bigots?


January 4, 2015

Why is Najib’s Cabinet scared of Racists and Bigots?

Raja_Nazrin_Shah“National leaders must show their statesmanship and sense of responsibility. They have to show exemplary conduct and leadership qualities by refraining from sensationalising religious matters.”–HRH Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah of Perak

by Ravinder Singh@www.malaysiakini.com

The Cabinet’s abdication of its duty to stem the rising tide of racism that could, if not checked, lead to the Talibanisation of this county, galvanised some very concerned, very senior and enlightened Muslims to come together to make an open stand on this subject.Ahmad Kamil Jaafar

The original group of 25 has increased, and has a lot of support from moderate Malaysians, including HRH  Sultan of Perak who stated in his Maulidur Rasul address that in 627AD Prophet Muhammad had signed an agreement with monks at the St Catherine monastery, providing a guarantee to protect Christians, their homes and their place of worship.

Why did the Cabinet neglect its duty to stop the racist bigots from spewing vitriol and driving wedges between the harmonious multi-racial, multi-religious relations that have been the pride of Malaysia as a melting pot of racial and religious harmony in diversity? Did the cabinet feel that it is pantang (taboo) or haram (unlawful) for it to take cognisance of the activities of the racists and bigots, and stop them creating racial discord because they claim to be operating under God’s law over which the cabinet has no jurisdiction?

Was the Cabinet afraid of a backlash from the racists who are quick to condemn anyone who dares to say that what they are doing and preaching is un-Islamic? So the Cabinet felt that the words and actions of these bigots had to be allowed in the name of “freedom of speech” although they clearly run afoul of provisions in the Penal Code?

The immediate concern of the G25 is no doubt to put a stop to the activities of the racists in operation at the moment. But these racists are just the tip of the iceberg.

Rising racism in schools a greater worry

Mahathir-Vs-NajibTwo of a Kind on Race Relations and Extremism

An even greater worry than the small band of the noisy, aggressive bigots operating today is the racial indoctrination of children that is talking place. Since the 80s, parents have been complaining of rising racism in schools, and the “Islamisation” of national schools. This is one reason why many non-Malay parents have taken their children out of these schools.

This has become so bad, as demonstrated by some incidents in the recent past – e.g. head teachers telling children during a school assembly to “balik China/India”; non-Malay children being put out of sight of the fasting Muslim children during school breaks so the latter would not be tempted to eat; cattle being slaughtered in school compounds; a literature book introduced to the school curriculum with a derogatory reference to Indians.

There is a very challenging task ahead for G25 to take race relations back to the era of the 50s and 60s. Stopping the present-day bigots, be they professors or self-acclaimed religious authorities, is an immediate need before more damage is done to racial harmony.

However, for the long-term, it is the racial indoctrination of children and young persons that has to be stopped. If this is not done, the next generation would see droves of racists and bigots who would be too many for anyone to stop. Talibanisation of Malaysia would then become a fait accompli. What is the number of today’s adults who have already gone through racial indoctrination in some way or other, subtly or directly?

Dato Noor FaridaI hope that the G25 will be taking note on the greater importance of stopping the racial indoctrination of children and young persons in all institutions of learning, including outfits such as (BTN) Biro Tatanegara. The real evil is in the indoctrination of tender and young minds who are innocent, and know not the treachery behind such teachings of racism.

Something has definitely gone seriously wrong in the teaching of religion, for people to become racists when religion does not teach enmity and hatred of people from other beliefs and cultures. In fact, religions teach people to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” and “love thy neighbour as thyself”.