Friday, 13 November 2009

Thaksin Shinawatra: the full transcript of his interview with The Times 09-11-2009

This interview is inaccessible/banned from Thailand, so I am posting it here, so whoever is searching for it from Thailand will be able to read it.

From
November 9, 2009

Thaksin Shinawatra: the full transcript of his interview with The Times

Richard Lloyd Parry, Asia Editor of The Times, spoke to the ousted Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra at his home in Dubai

Ousted Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra

(Charney Magri/The Times)

Ousted Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra

Thaksin Shinawatra: [My election victory in 2001] was the first time in Thai history that one party won half of parliament's seats. We won a landslide — half of parliament's seats — and we formed a coalition government. And it was the first time in Thai history we stayed for a four-year term without the House being dissolved. And it's the first time in Thai history that the prime minister was re-elected for a second term. And the first time in Thai history that we won 377 seats so that we could form a government without needing a coalition — 76 per cent of the parliament's seats at that time.

That became my problem — because I was too popular, being loved by the people too much. That's where my problem comes from.

I was told by some of my people that the media would start to attack me – because the opposition is so weak so the media would become the opposition. I didn't believe that at that time. And finally I saw the media attack me with unreasonable things. One day I came across the son of the owner of a daily newspaper. I asked him: ‘Ask your dad, why does your newspaper attack me unreasonably?' He said, 'Uncle [a general term of respect], there's nothing I can do because my father has been lobbied by two Privy Councillors. They came to have dinner with my father and they said the King doesn't want you anymore.’ I said I don't believe that — His Majesty never wants to become involved in politics. Maybe it's because of their own prejudice against me.

Why are they prejudiced against you?

They spread rumours that I wanted to turn Thailand into a republic and that I wanted to be president, which is something I never thought. I'm very loyal to the monarchy. You know, when I first became prime minister I went to an audience with His Majesty. I said, ‘Your Majesty, I'm very loyal to you. I'm the first prime minister born in your reign. I'm humbly saying – not that I consider myself as your child – but my age is about the age of your children. So please consider me and teach me as though I'm your children's age, even though I'm prime minister. Your Majesty has been reigning for three generations – the generation of my grandfather, the generation of my father and then my generation. So I very much respect Your Majesty. Whatever I need to do properly, please teach me.’ This is how I present myself. And, ‘Your Majesty has been working hard for the Thai people for many years and you may be tired and you're getting old. Please use me. I will shoulder all the burdens and I will work hard for you to solve the problems of your citizens.’ That is the very first thing ? I told His Majesty.

And I worked hard until I got more and more popular, and the popularity became my problem. The opposition Democrats are very good at alleging things about people. They start rumours and attacking me. Even when they are in power, they still allege that I want to be president. This is a very sensitive issue for Thai people because Thais love His Majesty, and Thais will not allow anyone who dare to topple the monarchy?

Was it because people thought you were more popular than the King?

When you have a son, he loves the wife and he loves the mother ? It's a different kind of love. The people love me because they can touch me. They can use me to improve their well-being. But the King, they respect him very much like God. It's a different kind of love. But the people are trying to make it the same love. That's really the whole problem.

In Thai politics the King is one of the most powerful people. Is that a good thing?

The King is the most respected person. He's become god in the feelings of the Thai people. Thais don't obey one another. They need someone they really respect – that is the King. But the people who surround the King and the Queen, what I call the palace circle, they try to make influence.

Most privy councillors are retired government officials? they have their subordinates so they want to have some kind of influence. Let's say like General Prem [Tinsulanonda, president of the Privy Council] – he wants someone to be army commander-in-chief. But if you appoint someone else he may not be happy. That is the exercise of power without the intention or anything of the monarch. It's the palace circle who are playing the games.

So General Prem and people like him are manipulating the King?

The Privy Councillors are. Not only Prem but others like ladies-in-waiting, and whatever, of the Queen. Thai society looks big, but it is very narrow in terms of the elite in Bangkok. So the influence, the network is there. That's what makes politics complicated. It's not like the UK or Japan, where people are not allowed to influence things.

That's the problem in Thailand. The monarchy is not the problem. The monarchy is good for Thailand. Thailand needs to have a monarchy but it should not be abused or played by the palace circles.

So the monarchy is a good thing but the royal institution needs reform – is that right?

Yes, yes.

What kind of reform?

The constitutional monarchy must be strictly abided by. All the institutions must function according to the rule of law and the political rules, but sometimes they've been influenced. The justice system can be intervened in by the palace circle.

Thai democracy is not really mature. It looks mature but it's not mature, because of the intervention of the military which should not be allowed. Every time you stage a coup you take control of sovereignty — that should not be allowed. Democracy should be through elections only — you have to give the power to the people. But power is not with the people. The election has become just a rubber stamp for democracy. You have to care for the people, you have to respond to their needs.

It's been a plot to shift the power. Actually there are two camps, the Democrats [the Democrat Party of the current prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva] and my supporters. They want to shift from my supporters to Democrats. Democrats wanted power twice — not by people power, it's from defection of MPs from some other party.

In Thailand we call them cobra — because people don't trust the cobra. The cobra can bite the owner.

In April you made an appeal to the King [Bhumibol Adulyadej] to intervene to heal the divisions in Thai society. Do you still hope the King will do that?

The government is engaged in a conflict with my supporters. We are rivals, so the government is not in a position to solve the problems. The government is not in a position to be trusted because they steal the power, they rob the power from the people.

The only way the government can be involved is that they have to rethink being antagonistic to others. But they're not generous enough, because they're afraid that if they have an election again they will lose. I can assure you that the government will lose in the election. We [the Pua Thai party of Thaksin’s supporters] are going to win a landslide again. So that's the reason they want to hang on in power regardless – they never want to dissolve parliament. I don't care, but the people are now suffering, the country is suffering – you can see it. Thailand is now heading to more problems.

What can the King do in this situation?

You have to bring the two parties together and then start it over again. That is, forgive every party involved.

What would you say to the King?

I would say, ‘Your Majesty, it's time for Your Majesty to be kind to the Thai citizens, by giving them peace. Let them stay together peacefully through the blanket amnesty and pardons. So let everyone go back to their normal life and draft the new constitution.’

?

They [the enemies of Mr Thaksin] tried to kill me. They had a meeting in the house of Mr Pi [Malakul], who is close to Her Majesty? General Surayud [Chulanont, former Thai army commander, and prime minister after Thaksin was ousted by the military coup] asked General Panlop [Pinmanee] to assassinate me.

Did His Majesty know about this?

I don't think so. I can assure you His Majesty is above [politics], but those in the circle have a network. They stay together, they talk together, they try to give the impression that they are very loyal so they have to get rid of the one who is not loyal, who might turn Thailand into a republic. They want to get rid of me because they say I am trying to turn Thailand into a republic and topple the monarchy. That's not true. I have a very high respect for the monarchy and royal family.

The Queen attended the funeral of one of the Yellow Shirt supporters [the ‘Yellow Shirts’, Mr Thaksin’s opponents]. You must have been very surprised about that.

Everybody, the whole of Thailand, was surprised. But I know Her Majesty. Her Majesty is very kind when someone gives her wrong information [such as] ‘That lady's dying because she tried to protect the monarchy.’ I think she was lied to. People around her circles try to give her the wrong impression, to give wrong information to Their Majesties.

You've made your appeal to the King to intervene and your supporters have presented a petition for your pardon. Why has the King ignored them?

I think His Majesty maybe now feels unwell because he's been in and out of hospital. I hope after His Majesty gets stronger he will find a way for the country to be back to unity. We cannot let the country go on like this. We will be getting worse and worse and the division will be getting deeper and stronger.

The King seems to be recovering from his latest illness now. But there will eventually be a change of monarch. What will that mean for Thai politics and Thai society?

Thailand's been governed by? this dynasty more than 200 years. There's going to be a smooth transition but Thais need to reconcile their differences first, before the reign change. The reign change will be smooth.

One day the Crown Prince will become King. How will his style be different from that of the current King?

It may be different, but I think it will go smoothly because he's a constitutional monarch. The people around the Crown Prince will be new, and the palace circle will not be that big because he will be new.

The Crown Prince, because he will be new, may not be as popular as His Majesty the King. However, he will have less problem because the palace circle will be smaller, because of being new in the reign.

How would you describe the Crown Prince’s character?

He's the newer generation, modern.

What kind of personality does he have?

He has a very strong determination to do what he really wants to achieve. He has a strong determination.

What does he want to achieve?

He's not the King yet, he may not be shining. But after he becomes the King I'm confident he can be shining to perform Kingship, because he has observed His Majesty, his father, for many years. He learns a lot from His Majesty. It's not his time yet. But when the time comes I think he will be able to perform.

Sometimes even in a constitutional monarchy when a new monarch succeeds to the throne there is a new spirit in the country. Do you expect that will happen in Thailand?

I think His Royal Highness the Crown Prince – he has grown up abroad, he had education abroad and he's young. I think he understands the modern world. For a constitutional monarch the world is changing. The monarchy is evolving according to the changing world anyway.

How do you think the Thai monarchy needs to evolve in the next generation?

Being a constitutional monarch and understanding the changing world – that is enough to be a change.

You were elected three times in Thailand. You were never defeated and you were ousted in a military coup. What is your position? Are you still the prime minister of Thailand in exile?

Now I consider myself as ex-prime minister of Thailand and in exile. I was asked to lead a government in exile. I didn't do that because I don't want to hurt the monarchy. So after the King signed the decree accepting the coup, I said then ‘I am finished’.

I am now just trying to fight for justice, not for myself but for the people of Thailand, especially the poor. They'd been provided with opportunities and they started to see light at the end of the tunnel. But they staged a coup and destroyed their hopes and now the country has got worse for three years. So I fight for their justice. They deserve to be provided with opportunities.

Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen compared you to Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. Is that a good comparison?

There are some similarities there, but not really everything. The similarity is we won elections, we rule the countries. We've been ousted by the coup d'etat and we come from the people. We are democratically elected leaders and we come from the majority of the people – a big majority, not just a small majority.

She's under house arrest, I've been kicked out of the country. They know that if I am in the country it'll be worse [for them] than Aung San Suu Kyi.

You're meeting Cambodia's Hun Sen this week. Are you going to relocate to Cambodia?

No, I can work online. I can work through email, but I want to thank Hun Sen in person.

After he announced the royal decree I rang him to thank him and he invited me to go to Cambodia.

The government of Thailand reacted very strongly, by withdrawing their ambassador. Why did they react so strongly?

This government's trying to protect its power by every means. They're afraid that if I were staying there it might be too close. I'm not going to stay, anyway, but I have to travel there.

The whole government is just in a panic about me and doing nothing for the country. They over-protect their power. They don't have power easily, so when they managed to gain power with the help of the military and the president of the privy council they have to protect it very well – like the cobra protects the eggs.

They are very childish. They're afraid if I were there my supporters would be more upbeat, because I stay close. I'm not going to stay, I know it's too close, but I will visit from time to time.

In March you said: ‘If there is the sound of gunfire, of soldiers shooting the people, I'll return immediately to lead you to march on Bangkok’. Would Cambodia be a good place to start that march?

f I were to start the march I would start from the north-eastern part of Thailand, on the soil of Thailand, but I will have to enter Thailand from the border. I can enter Thailand from Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar. I can find a way.

Under what circumstances would you do that?

I try not to. I have the steps [to take before doing that]. Win the next election - that’s crucial, but it doesn't really solve the problems of Thailand. It may solve my problem but not the problem of Thailand. The problem of Thailand must be solved by bringing both sides together and make them bury the hatchet for national reconciliation's sake.

Who can do that?

The King. Normally the president of the Privy Council should be able to do it but now the president of the Privy Council has got involved, and will be attacked strongly by Red Shirts [the supporters of Thaksin], and there is nobody left. There is nobody left to make this thing happen. It can be the King or the Crown Prince, who is going to be the next King.

?

The government want to keep me out of Thailand. They don't want me to go back to Thailand. They want to keep me out of politics. It's really politically motivated.

If I were to go back now it would be even more chaos because my supporters, millions of them, would come out. They know that I've been bullied politically. I haven't really had a fair trial or justice.

If I were to go back now there might be bloodshed because the government will definitely use military force with live ammunition. So it wouldn't benefit anyone.

How would you describe the situation in Thailand now?

Any sport will never have chaos if the referee is fair and if both sides play by the rules of the game. In Thai politics they don't play by the rules of the game.

Until a few years ago, the image of Thailand was of a country very united with a strong sense of national identity. How have Thais become so disunited?

Because of paranoia over the stability of the monarchy. They thought that I'm too popular and might topple the monarchy and then I will turn Thailand into a republic, which I've never thought of. I just try to serve my country. I'm loyal to my monarch. I keep doing good things for them.

Is there a possibility of compromise?

Yes. It depends on who sits at the head of the table.

Have you been in contact with people in government?

No, they have never contacted me. They claim that they called me, but they never did. They never want to settle, otherwise they cannot hold power. They are obsessed with power. If the country is not in a mess and there is no one helping them to get the power they will not be able to hold on to power.

A lot of your money is still in Thailand, $2.2 billion [frozen by the government while Mr Thaksin was being prosecuted and convicted of corruption]. Are you ever going to get it back?

I hope that one day if there is justice I will get it back. Because it is family money which has been declared long before. It's the same amount of shares that we owned before entering politics. And the whole family sold that amount of shares so the source of money is clear, but they're trying to make the story that the price increased because of my influence. Actually all the shares in the stock market increased in line with the index of the stock market and some companies increased more than the average, but it's not our family company but the companies of others. Our family's went in line with the index.

If the government said to you: ‘OK, we'll give you back your money, but you've got to stay out of politics, just be a businessman’, would you agree?

Well, you know, I just want justice. I don't care whether I will go back to politics or not. But if the majority need me then I have to go back, I cannot be selfish. But if I were able to choose, I would live my life peacefully. I want to form a new party called 'Enjoy Life Party'. [Laughs.] You know I have no time to enjoy my life. I have been working hard since I grew up. After I became a successful businessman, instead of living my life happily, I volunteered to work for the country. Normally politics is not for rich people to go into. Seldom people who are rich want to go in politics. But I love the people. I love my country, I want to do good things for them. ? I could walk away. I'm really fed up of Thai style politics. But if the people make me go back, I owe them.

I'm very, very revolutionary. I want to reform. I reformed so many things. I reformed ministries that have been there for 100 years. I was about to reform the whole legal system to make it modern.

Since you left Thailand, how has your support within Thailand changed?

It's gone down a little bit, especially in the urban areas because of the biased news against me, just one-sided all the time. But after I'm cleared, the support will come back very quickly. The last election after the coup [in December 2007] shows that even though I'm not there we still win more seats. That's going to be true again in the next election. If I were to be there, that's going to be an even bigger majority. That's the reason why my opponents, the Democratic Party, are very afraid of me and try to tarnish me. They are trying to do everything to keep me away.

How much financial support do you give to the Red Shirts?

If you go and talk to the Red Shirts you will understand very well that they come by their own money. And they even help each other, donating a bit of money when they come to Bangkok. They collect money. They help each other a lot. It's very surprising, it's not like the Yellows [Yellow Shirts]. The Yellows come from the military to take control of the airport [Suvarnabhumi airport, occupied by Yellow Shirts in 2008].

You must give them some money. You're a billionaire.

No, they've been frozen, my assets.

But not all of them - you must have some assets outside Thailand.

Very few, not much.

What is your net worth now outside Thailand?

Outside Thailand it's only a hundred million, or couple of hundred million US dollars. A hundred million US dollars, actually.

A couple of hundred or a hundred?

It used to be a couple but I spent some on my house, this and that. I have about a hundred left.

How long will that last?

I don't know. Now I'm working, I'm doing business. I cannot just sit here and spend money. I'm doing business. Now I invest. I have ten gold mines in Uganda. I have lottery licences in Uganda, in Fiji, in Angola. We are about to start in January. Then the gold mining licence, which has very good potential. Then I'm signing the contract in Papua New Guinea on the gold concession, on land. I do the rough diamonds, too, we do the polishing. I decided not to do the mining because it's too risky. We will turn a profit quickly.

How do you spend your time when you're in Dubai?

Doing business, meeting friends and my supporters from Thailand, and travelling. I average about ten days travelling in a month, 20 days here.

How many hours a day do you spend talking to supporters in Thailand?

About three hours, maybe.

Who do you talk to?

Even taxi drivers, small merchants and some politicians.

Which politicians?

The Pua Thai party.

What’s your input into the Pua Thai party? What do you do for them?

Myself is the selling point for the party. I sometimes have to talk to my supporters from time to time. Every Tuesday I do the radio broadcasts on the internet.

On November 14 there will be a fundraising concert. I'm going to sing [a Thai song entitled] 'Thanks for beating me up again!', because they keep beating me. The song is saying, ‘Thanks for repeatedly beating me, and you beat me in the same place where it really hurts!’ That's a song about love.

Do you have a political strategy?

I do have, but by very peaceful means. I want to see reconciliation rather than confrontation. I want the red shirts to be a pressure for reconciliation, not for bloodshed or confrontation.

Do you have a timetable for returning to Thailand?

The ball is not in my court. Now the ball is with the Thailand government. I can stay here one year, two years. I'm fine. But the situation in Thailand needs to be solved quickly.

Why? If it's not solved, what's going to happen?

The economy will get worse, the Thai people, their life, is getting worse, and Thailand is not on the radar screen of major countries anymore. Now the political centre is not going to be in Thailand anymore. For the US, it's shifted to Indonesia.

Some people in Thailand seem to have worse fears than just economic and diplomatic stagnation. You hear people talking about some kind of economic collapse, civil war. Is that possible?

Thailand is near to being a 'failed state'. Because every institution almost cannot function because you don't allow the rules of the game to take their course. You don't allow the rule of law to prevail and you are biased against others. You don't shine before the whole world. You just want to control power regardless. That's why I'm saying Thailand has almost become a failed state, because no one trusts each other. There's no institution that's being trusted like before.

What were your mistakes?

I did politics without understanding the power structure of Thai society that much. I just tried to do it like a businessman, tried to do the marketing and campaigning and sales. I tried to help the poor and campaign for popularity, campaign on what I have done for them and work hard for them without being aware of the complication of the power structure of Thai politics. I was very naïve in that. So I stumbled.

What about the sale of Shin Corp [Mr Thaksin’s family telecommunications company which was sold to the Singaporean government for 77.3 billion bath (£1.14 billion) without paying tax, a cause of intense criticism of Mr Thaksin when he was prime minister]. You didn't pay tax. Putting aside the legal rights and wrongs, was that a misjudgement, politically?

Even if you want to pay tax the revenue department cannot accept your tax. Capital gains tax in Thailand is not tax payable. It's exempted by law. Some countries tax capital gains, but the Thai law has been there for many years as an incentive for a company to register itself in the stock market to exempt the capital gains tax.

So you don't have any regrets or misgivings about the way you handled that?

Well, you know, I’m in a difficult position to say anything as prime minister because it's a family affair, it's not my personal affair. I'm in a very awkward position as a prime minister to say anything.

But speaking now as a private citizen, it was a mistake, wasn't it?

No, because it's jealousy. I am one of the very few who have so much cash. It's the jealousy of the elite. I'm a representative of the rural people who grew up and had that much cash. [My] family wanted me to be free and clear from being criticised for conflict of interest. So they thought they'd better sell [the company].

What about the insurgency in the South [where thousands of people have died in attacks by Muslim separatists]?

I used the concept of the iron fist and velvet glove. The iron fist has been portrayed in the news and mass media more than the velvet glove. I gave a lot of help in education. I gave a lot of help in terms of housing, healthcare and the religion.

But it didn't do any good – the situation got worse every year.

Well you know it was ripe for many years because of the history of that part of Thailand. The map has been redrawn. Some parts that used to be Thailand have become Malaysia. Some parts that used to be Malaysia have become Thailand. The Thai part that became Malaysia, there's no problem with, but in the part of Malaysia that became Thai there is a problem. They look at Malaysia, where they prosper. The side in Thailand does not prosper. It could, but we haven't handled it properly because education is a problem. We allowed them to have only religious education which means they cannot work after that. So they are poor – they want to go back to the Malaysian side because the Malaysian side is better. That's the problem that has been there for many years.

And when they robbed the barracks and took the four hundred-something M16s – from there they started to build the force. And it's getting stronger.

We have to enforce the law. But it was unlucky when things happened at Tak Bai [a notorious incident in which 85 Muslim men died after being arrested following a violent demonstration. They were stacked in the back of army trucks where scores of them suffocated]. It was unlucky because of the transportation of the military – they were so stupid. They didn't have enough trucks so they stacked up the protestors. So they suffocated. That is very unlucky. At the accident [the demonstration] the deaths were about four or five at the site. But it went up to 80 because they stacked them up and during the fasting month they suffocated easily. They don't drink, they don't eat, they've been transported by the low ranking military. They stacked them up because they were afraid for their lives.

A few years ago you got divorced from your wife. Some people said that was a political, legal move to protect your assets.

My wife understands that I have a lot of supporters. I cannot avoid going back to politics because of the supporters who pinned hopes on me. And she really was not supporting me from the beginning to enter politics, because she comes from a very low profile family. She seldom went out with me, especially abroad, she never followed me. She wanted to be low profile, she doesn't like politics at all, but she understands that I have to go back to politics. So she said: 'I cannot be against you in politics anymore because I sympathise with those who are supporting you. But you have to sympathise with me. I cannot bear it anymore, it's too much on my life, so we'd better divorce'. So we divorced with understanding. We help one another to take care of children but with politics she said, 'Please - I don't want to be involved anymore'. She lives in Thailand and since we divorced we never see each other.

[On reform of the monarchy] When the world is changing every organisation must adapt to the changing environment like the human body. When you're born as a baby your heart is very small. When you grow up your heart must grow up according to your body. You cannot keep the baby heart in an adult body. It's impossible. Every institution, not just the royal institution, every institution is the same - it must be adapted to what is changing.

Food for thought from Zaid

Zaid picks Nik Aziz to chair Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia

UPDATED

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 13 — The opposition bloc should name Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat to be chairman of the Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia to foil any further attempts by Umno to have “unity government” talks with PAS, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said today.

The maverick politician also wondered aloud why none of the three parties making up the Pakatan have mentioned the coalition except to clarify that he is the pro-tem chairman.

Writing in his blog today, Zaid also asked the coalition to review its ambitious plans to capture the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak and instead asked them to support local parties there.

He also confirmed The Malaysian Insider's report that the Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia submitted its registration on Nov 3.

"To make these efforts a success, we need 'sacrifices' from Anwar Ibrahim. Abdul Hadi Awang can also make a big contribution by asking Tok Guru Nik Aziz to be the leader or chairman of Pakatan Rakyat, just like Mahatma Gandhi was spiritual leader to the Congress Party," said Zaid, referring to the leaders of PKR and PAS who are seen as less popular than respected PAS spiritual leader.

He also said veteran DAP leader Lim Kit Siang could prove his "statesmanship" by agreeing to his suggestion and to be adviser for democratic and human rights affairs.

"In one stroke, this will silence any agenda for a 'unity government' with Umno," Zaid stressed.

The head of the Pakatan Common Policy Platform secretariat also asked for a review of the bloc's push to win Sabah and Sarawak.

"Political reality shows it is a heavy effort and we have seen negative reaction with the tussle for seats like in the 2008 general election.

"Political wisdom also shows its better for Pakatan to play its role by supporting parties that are in tune with it in Sabah and Sarawak," he said, adding that step would show respect to the locals and make them equal partners in the coalition.

"Isn't this more realistic?" he asked.

"Only a grand coalition like this can overcome the Barisan Nasional giant," Zaid said.

On the flip side, he said capturing Putrajaya would remain a daydream if the leaders of the three parties felt they were strong enough and wanted to continue using old ways such as electoral pacts to form the federal government.

Saying he hoped not to offend anyone, Zaid noted the important issue was to achieve change and it will not happen if the allies only prioritised their parties and positions.

"They are not change agents. This group only wants power for themselves.

"The people will see that this group is no different from Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders," said Zaid, who is noted for being blunt and outspoken.

He said they must make the same sacrifices that they demand from the people for reforms to happen.

"If the leaders are still stubborn, the people will punish us in the next general election," Zaid wrote.

He also noted it was the first time three major opposition parties in Malaysia united in a legal entity with a common logo and single political aim.

But Zaid lamented the joy for the historic moment has not been shared by leaders from PKR, DAP and PAS.

"There hasn't been an encouraging statement from the top leadership of the three parties. It is as if they don't want it made public," he said, noting the only statement made was to deny that he was the chairman of the coalition.

Zaid sarcastically thanked them for the clarification, saying Malaysians know that registering a group or party would require the name of sponsors or a pro-tem committee.

"Of course, it doesn't make sense for me to be leader to top leaders like Anwar Ibrahim, Abdul Hadi Awang and Lim Kit Siang.

"What the people want to hear but has yet to be told is the aim and hope of forming Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia as an alternative to Barisan Nasional," he said.

Zaid said explaining the substance was more important than the form of the organisation, adding that people want to know the aim, vision and joint strategies of Pakatan.

He noted the plans remained vague but Pakatan should work with like-minded individuals such as Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah as another "striker" to strengthen the pact.

"Ku Li might be a veteran but he has integrity and contemporary political views," he said, adding that the Gua Musang MP need not jump from Umno to still help Pakatan.

Zaid said the Kelantan prince could still be invited to speak at political ceramahs as his aims were similar — to eliminate corruption and move the country forward.

Original blog posting

Tengku Razaleigh dan Pakatan

Satu wadah politik yang bernama Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia telah pun dikemukakan permohonan untuk kelulusan Pendaftar Pertubuhan 10 hari yang lalu. Saya amat gembira dengan perkembangan ini; maklumlah ini adalah julung kali tiga parti pembangkang terbesar di tanah air kita bersetuju untuk bersatu di bawah satu kerangka yang sah serta mempunyai lambang dan matlamat perjuangan politik yang satu.

Namun, kegembiraan ini tidak pula dikongsi bersama oleh pucuk pimpinan Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia dan Parti Tindakan Demokratik. Tidak ada langsung kenyataan yang memberangsangkan dari pimpinan tertinggi ketiga-tiga parti itu. Mereka seolah-olah tidak mahu perkara ini dihebohkan kepada orang ramai. Tak tahu lah saya sama ada ini strategi politik masing-masing; hanya mereka sahaja lah yang mengetahui sebab-musababnya.

Sebaliknya yang dihebohkan kepada awam adalah kenyataan seorang dua pemimpin kanan PKR yang bersungguh-sungguh mahu menjelaskan kepada orang-ramai bahawa saya bukan lah Pengerusi Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia. Mereka menjelaskan nama saya sebagai pengerusi “protem” ini hanyalah untuk tujuan pendaftaran. Ribuan terima kasih saya ucapkan kepada mereka kerana gigih berusaha membuat penjelasan itu. Saya percaya rakyat Malaysia yang bijaksana sudah pun sedia maklum yang permohonan pendaftaran sesebuah pertubuhan memang memerlukan beberapa pegawai penaja untuk memenuhi syarat pendaftaran. Sudah tentu tak masuk akal kalau saya yang menjadi “ketua” kepada pemimpin-pemimpin besar seperti Anwar Ibrahim, Abdul Hadi Awang dan Lim Kit Siang.

Yang rakyat ingin dengar tetapi tak diterangkan ialah tujuan dan harapan penubuhan Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia sebagai alternatif kepada Barisan Nasional. Bagi saya penjelasan tentang isi lebih penting daripada bercakap soal kulit. Saya pasti rakyat ingin tahu matlamat, wawasan dan strategi bersama Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia.

Bercakap mengenai strategi politik, saya bukan pakar atau ada apa-apa agenda tersendiri. Saya sekadar ingin melihat satu perancangan dari parti-parti pembangkang yang harus diketahui oleh rakyat; tentang bagaimana pelan tindakan mereka untuk menggantikan BN sebagai kerajaan pusat yang benar-benar berkhidmat untuk rakyat. Buat masa ini pelan itu, kalau pun ada, masih tidak jelas.

Mungkin ada beberapa tindakan yang boleh dipertimbangkan. Misalnya, para pemimpin Pakatan sepatutnya berusaha lebih gigih dan bersungguh-sungguh supaya pemimpin politik seperti Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah masuk gelanggang bersama-sama dengan mereka.Pasukan Pakatan tentu masih memerlukan beberapa orang ’striker’ lain dari yang ada sekarang untok memperkuatkan pasukan.Ku Li memang orang lama; tetapi ada integriti dan pandangan politik nya kontemporari.

Beliau tidak semestinya melompat parti kerana perjuangan untuk matlamat yang sama boleh diwujudkan melalui kerjasama yang lebih rapat. Ini boleh dilakukan dengan mengadakan ceramah dan kempen bersama. Saya sedar Ku Li masih mempunyai impian untuk memulihkan UMNO, iaitu menghidupkan semula UMNO asal yang telah mati (dan kemudiannya menjadi alat untuk kroni-kroni parti dengan masalah politik wang dan rasuah). Bagi saya tidak ada salahnya kerjasama seperti itu kerana hasrat bersama kita ialah membuat pembaharuan ke arah sistem pemerintah yang bersih, cekap dan tidak rasuah.

Untuk menjayakan usaha ini, ia memerlukan “pengorbanan” dari Anwar Ibrahim. Abdul Hadi Awang juga boleh membuat sumbangan besar dengan meminta Tok Guru Nik Aziz untuk menjadi Ketua atau Pengurusi kepada Pakatan Rakyat; sama seperti Mahatma Gandhi yang menjadi “spiritual leader” kepada parti Kongres India. Lim Kit Siang pula boleh membuktikan semangat “statesmanship” dengan bersetuju dengan cadaangan ini serta menjadi penasihat dalam hal-hal demokrasi dan hak asasi. Sekali gus tindakan ini akan melenyapkan sebarang agenda “unity government” dengan UMNO.

Satu lagi perkara yang perlu diberi pertimbangan serius adalah mengkaji semula impian yang terlalu tinggi untuk menang besar di Sabah dan Sarawak. Realiti politik menunjukkan ia adalah usaha yang amat berat. Kesan buruknya sudah pun kelihatan sekarang apabila berlaku perebutan kerusi, sama seperti dalam pilihan raya umum 2008. Hakikat politik juga menunjukan bahawa adalah lebih baik jika Pakatan memainkan peranan dengan memberi sokongan padu kepada parti-parti tempatan yang sehaluan dengan Pakatan di Sabah dan Sarawak. Ini bukan sahaja langkah yang dilihat sebagai menghormati maruah dan kekuatan orang tempatan tetapi juga membawa kepada kesan yang lebih besar, iaitu membawa mereka bersama menjadi rakan kongsi dalam Pakatan. Bukankah ini lebih realistik?

Yang penting untuk menjadi ikatan kuat dalam Pakatan ialah kesanggupan semua pihak untuk bersetuju tanpa berdolak-dalik untuk memastikan wujudnya dasar-dasar negara yang baik dan dipersetujui bersama melalui perbincangan sebagai landasan perjuangan. Hanya gabungan besar atau “grand coalition” seperti ini mampu mengatasi gergasi BN. Sebaliknya jika para pemimpin besar ketiga-tiga parti ini masih lagi merasakan mereka sudah cukup kuat dan hebat, dan memadai dengan meneruskan cara lama, iaitu melalui pakatan pilihan raya atau “electoral pact” semata-mata, saya yakin impian ke Putrajaya hanya akan kekal sebagai mimpi di siang hari.

Saya harap tidak ada sesiapa akan terasa hati dengan cadangan-cadangan saya atau menuduh saya mahu tunjuk pandai. Saya tidak ada niat sedemikian. Namun begitu, saya tetap dengan pendirian bahawa segala usaha perlu dilakukan oleh semua parti pembangkang dan individu dengan seberapa segera supaya hasrat rakyat yang mahukan perubahan dapat dicapai.

Jika masih ada di kalangan Pakatan yang cuma memberi keutamaan kepada kepentingan parti masing-masing atau kedudukan mereka diletakkan lebih tinggi dari kepentingan muafakat, saya anggap mereka ini sebenarnya bukan pejuang perubahan. Golongan ini hanya mahukan kuasa untuk diri mereka. Rakyat akan melihat golongan tak ada bezanya dengan pemimpin UMNO dan BN.

Kita masih dalam era reformasi. Ini bererti semua pihak mesti sanggup membuat pengorbanan. Pemimpin tidak boleh suruh rakyat berkorban jika mereka sendiri tidak mahu membuat apa-apa perubahan dalam diri sendiri. Rakyat sentiasa mengawasi tingkah-laku para pemimpin, terutamanya mereka yang sanggup menggagalkan usaha perubahan ini demi kekuatan kumpulan mereka. Jika para pemimpin ini masih berdegil dan mengikut kaedah lama, rakyat akan menghukum kita dalam pilihan raya umum akan datang.

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Serving out of office

The bridge no one knew about
By Clara Chooi

IPOH, Nov 11 – The Kinta Selatan district council was not the only authority unaware that someone had built an illegal suspension bridge over the Kampar river in Kuala Dipang – the district education department, too, was in the dark that such a structure had been erected on its premises.

District education director Raja Abdul Rahman Raja Amran had apparently seen the 50m-long azure-blue bridge for the first time on Oct 16, only 11 days before the bridge collapsed and caused the deaths of three young girls.

This was claimed today by the Pakatan Rakyat’s ad hoc taskforce, which was formed parallel to the one by the Education Ministry, to conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the incident on Oct 27.

The taskforce’s chairman, Tronoh assemblyman V. Sivakumar, told a press conference today that the committee discovered this after an interview with Raja Abdul Rahman yesterday.

“The district education director himself did not know that the bridge was being built, he only knew about it after it was constructed,” said Sivakumar.

He added that Raja Abdul Rahman, in the interview with the taskforce, had also revealed that such a bridge had been in the pipeline much earlier but no proper plan had been put in place as yet.

The bridge connects SK Kuala Dipang and the district education department’s co-curriculum centre.

“So, who built it then? And under whose orders, when the director himself knows nothing about it?” said Sivakumar.

He added that during the earlier stage, the centre had proposed the construction of the bridge to the district education department but had kept silent when the department’s development officer gave an exorbitant quotation of RM110,000.

“According to the director, there was no follow-up after that because the cost was just too high.

“But yet, the bridge was built and the centre failed to inform the department,” said Sivakumar.

He added that the department’s office was on Pangkor Island.

“We know also that a private company was engaged to do the job but, as of now, we are unable to reveal that information,” said Sivakumar.

The PR’s ad hoc taskforce had revealed last week that the bridge was illegal since no formal application had been made to the local district council to construct it.

Sivakumar also rapped the education department for failing to handle the 1 Malaysia Camp programme efficiently.

“The director also told us that initially, 40 teachers had been slated to help with taking care of the 298 children in the programme.

“On the day of the programme itself however, only 23 teachers had turned up. They should have a contingency plan, at least ... how can so few teachers handle so many students?” said Sivakumar.

He added that the PR’s ad hoc taskforce had also engaged its own civil engineer to conduct tests at the incident site.

“We conducted a soil test today and initial investigations show that the soil at the river banks is soft, too soft.

“However, we will first wait for the report from the engineer before revealing our findings,” he said.

He added that the taskforce would meet with the Drainage and Irrigation Department next, as well as pay a visit to the co-curriculum centre’s office on Pangkor Island.

“Our full report should be compiled and ready by this Sunday and we will reveal it to the media next Monday,” said Sivakumar.

The ad hoc taskforce also announced that it would proceed with its plan to hold a public inquiry into the incident.

Sivakumar said that the inquiry would be held from 10am to 1pm this Saturday at the Grand Kampar Hotel in Kampar.

“Those who have information about the incident and are willing to come forward to speak to us can come and meet us at the hotel,” he said.

Those interested could contact taskforce member, Teja assemblyman Chang Lih Kang, at 012-5173067 to make an appointment prior to the meeting.

And the Perak takeover entrapment case goes on..............

Ex-PKR exco thought MACC agent wanted to make political donation
By Clara Chooi

IPOH, Nov 11 – Former PKR state executive councillor Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi, who is on trial for corruption, was under the impression that the agent provocateur who caused his arrest was just interested in helping his party in the Permatang Pauh by-election when he met him last year.

In fact, on the day he had supposedly received a bribe from the agent, there had only been discussion of the by-election and nothing about the RM180mil housing project he had been arrested over.

The startling evidence submitted by the agent himself, Mohamad Imran Abdullah, in court today, throws light on just how far Jamaluddin was involved in the case, and is a departure from the former's original statement.

Jamaluddin was charged alongside his colleague, another former PKR state executive councillor Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, and three others, for allegedly receiving bribes in exchange with helping Mohamad Imran obtain the RM180mil housing development in Seri Iskandar last year.

Jamaluddin however merely faces a single charge involving RM5,000 in cash, which Mohamad Imran had allegedly given to him on Aug 14, 2008, at his office in the Perak State Seceretariat.

The money was allegedly given as gratification to Jamaluddin to help Mohamad Imran secure the project.

During cross-examination of the star witness today however, Mohamad Imran admitted that in his only meeting with Jamaluddin, which was on Aug 14 itself, he had been introduced to the latter as a person who was “interested in helping with the Permatang Pauh by-election”.

The question was put to him by defence counsel Surjan Singh, who asked if his client, another accused, PKR politician Usaili Alias, had made the introduction.

Surjan Singh: Did Usaili tell Jamaluddin that you came to meet him because you were interested in the Permatang Pauh by-election?

Mohamad Imran: Yes, that is true.

Surjan Singh: Did Usaili ask you to bring RM5,000 to give to Jamaluddin.

Mohamad Imran: No, he did not ask.

Surjan Singh: Who was the one who told you that the money was to go to Permatang Pauh as well as to help secure the project?

Mohamad Imran: (Another accused former Perak Development Corporation technician) Ruslan (Sahat) was the one who asked for it.

Surjan Singh: Whatever Ruslan asked for, we would never know, but to Usaili, Ruslan had said that it was for the Permatang Pauh by-election.

Mohamad Imran: That, I do not know.

Surjan Singh then drew the court’s attention to a report that Mohamad Imran had met with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) after his meeting with Jamaluddin at the latter’s office on Aug 14.

Surjan Singh: You said in your report that the money was for Permatang Pauh and to help secure the project but actually, during your meeting, they never once spoke about your project. It was you who brought up the topic of the project but they never spoke about it. Only you did.

Mohamad Imran gave a long pause and appeared to be trying to recall the events of Aug 14 and when he finally responded, he agreed with Surjan Singh.

In his testimony yesterday, Mohamad Imran had also said that both Jamaluddin and Usaili had been avidly discussing the by-election and political matters during his meeting.

He said that when he mentioned his project, Jamaluddin had merely nodded his head.

During the earlier hearings in court, Mohamad Imran had also mentioned that when he had produced the RM5,000 in marked ringgit notes to Jamaluddin, the latter had not touched the money.

He had also admitted that the words “contribution for Permatang Pauh” had been used during the exchange of the money.

The money, Mohamad Imran had added, had subsequently been passed to Usaili, under orders from Jamaluddin.

At the time of the incident, Usaili was the election director for the Permatang Pauh by-election.

During the hearing later today, Surjan Singh decided several times to give a “Bahasa Malaysia” lesson to Mohamad Imran whom he claimed was having trouble understanding the language.

Mohamad Imran had claimed that the words “dalam pertemuan sama” (in the same meeting), which were used in his report on Aug 14, had meant the entire events that had taken place in the Perak State Secretariat that day and not just his meeting with Jamaluddin.

Surjan Singh: In your report, you said “in the same meeting, Usaili had asked for another RM5,000 and told me to meet him tomorrow.” But this is not true because during the meeting with Jamaluddin, Usaili never asked for the money.

Mohamad Imran: In the (Jamaluddin’s) room, he did not. But he asked for it on the way out towards the lift.

Surjan Singh: Mr Imran, the words “in the same meeting”, it refers to the meeting with Jamaluddin. Are you stupid? If you cannot understand Bahasa Malaysia, don’t you worry, I can teach it to you.

Looking angry, Mohamad Imran replied that he disagreed with Surjan Singh.

Later the witness and the counsel clashed again over another discrepancy in Mohamad Imran’s report, causing Surjan Singh to tell him again that he needed to learn Bahasa Malaysia.

In his report on the events of Aug 14 at the Sri Sayang Apartments in Penang, Mohamad Imran had claimed that he had given RM2,000 to Ruslan and two other accused, former Perak Tengah district councillor Zul Hassan and businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail.

Despite admitting that the money had not only been requested by Ruslan but also given directly into his hands, Mohamad Imran still maintained that his report was accurate.

Surjan Singh: Your report that you gave the cash to all three men was not true because in the videos, you were seen only giving the money to Ruslan.

Mohamad Imran: The report is correct because the others were there too.

Surjan Singh: Imran, Ruslan was alone in the living room when you gave him the money.

Mohamad Imran: Yes, he was alone. But the others were around in the apartment unit.

Judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh looked up at this and repeated Surjan Singh’s question on behalf of the counsel.

“So you are saying that your report is accurate?” he asked Mohamad Imran.

Mohamad Imran: Correct, Tuan. Because they (Ruslan, Zul, Fairul) were all in the unit. Including (MACC officer) Norliza (Musa).

Norliza had gone undercover in the case as Mohamad Imran’s girlfriend.

At this testimony, Surjan Singh stared at Mohamad Imran and said, much to the amusement of everyone in court, “Oh? You say Liza was in the unit too, right? And that just because the others were in the room, they too received the RM2,000 bribe from you? So you are saying that Liza is one of them now? She too received the money? Then why isn’t she sitting here in this dock with the others?”

As he spoke, Surjan Singh gestured to where the five accused were seated.

Mohamad Imran look stumped at the exclamation and took some time before he answered, “What I meant was that they were all inside the unit.”

The hearing proceeds tomorrow.

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Your Money, My Money, No, BN's Money

Allocations withheld for political one-upmanship

It is the federal government's policy not to give development funds to opposition parties' assemblypersons or Parliamentarians for the economic improvement of their constituencies.

The opposition politicians will continue to be sidelined for development funds as BN does not want them to get political mileage over such allocations.

This startling fact was revealed to Malaysiakini by the head of Perak State Development Department, which is attached to the Prime Minister's Department.

Zainal Abidin Omar said: "All MPs development funds come from the Prime Minister's Department. BN MPs are allocated RM1 million annually while opposition held areas are allocated half this amount".

"It is the government's policy not to give directly such development funds to opposition politicians as BN does not want them to get the credit or political mileage over the allocations," he said.

"Many opposition politicians have come to my office and argued over this issue that the funds belong to the public and as such they should be allowed to handle such allocations.

"However, the fact is that it is the government's policy not to let the opposition get political mileage over such funds," he revealed.

Allocation being withheld


"The only solution to this impasse is either the government changes this political stand, or there is a change in the government at federal level," he told Malaysiakini.

Many Perak Pakatan politicians complained that they could not bring about economic development to their constituencies as the development funds allocated for their areas are being withheld.

"We prefer to channel such funds through BN component parties that are in opposition held areas so that the credit goes to BN instead of the opposition," he reasoned.

"One thing we have to be clear about is that the Prime Minister's funding is for the respective areas irrespective of who holds jurisdiction and this is where we come into the picture," he said.

However, he was quick to state that no development funds are handled directly by any politician whether by BN or the opposition.

The procedure is for them to give details of their development proposals to the respective district officers who will then verify the facts before submitting it to the state development department.

Once vetted and cleared, the funds will be paid directly to the parties concerned in the development projects.

Zainal said in addition to the annual allocation of RM500,000, another RM300,000 is given for application of additional projects in the respective areas.

Guidelines for funding

The RM500,000 development funds for opposition held areas are split according to the composition of the BN component parties in such areas.

"Guidelines for such projects are given to Umno, MCA or MIC local leaders for them to come up with the proposals and there is no direct funding to the opposition," he said.

The RM500,000 fund is allocated into three categories - for celebrations of festivals, buying of equipment like computers and small projects like drains, roads and housing.

When asked, how the department keeps track of such funds from being misused, he said "We have our own mechanisms of counter checking if there are abuses".

When asked if there has been abuse of such funds by politicians, he said: "Thus far no, but if we receive such reports from the public, then NONEwe will take the necessary action".

Another additional revolving fund of RM30,000 is allocated for disasters for each constituency, he said.

As for the opposition assemblypersons, their annual allocation is RM200,000 and this is handled by Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir.

"If they require such development funds, they can personally apply directly to Zambry (right)," said Zainal.

Thursday, 5 November 2009

The show goes on..............................

I was paid RM100 per day, MACC agent provocateur tells court

By Clara Chooi

IPOH, Nov 5 — An agent provocateur told the Sessions Court here today that he was paid RM100 per day for helping the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in a sting operation that led to the arrests of two former PKR state executive councillors.

“If I am with them (the targets) for a full day, the payment for each day is RM100. If I am working for a full week for example, then the payment is RM700,” the agent, Mohamad Imran Abdullah told the court.

He added that the daily payment was not inclusive of food and drink and was only paid to him after the arrests were made on August 19 last year.

Mohamad Imran was engaged by the MACC on August 4 last year to act as an agent provocateur in the sting operation which eventually led to the capture of the former state executive councillors, Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu.

Four others were also arrested, including PKR politician Usaili Alias, Perak Development Corporation technician Ruslan Sahat who passed away recently, businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail, and former Perak Tengah district councillor Zul Hassan.

Mohamad Imran, who had refused to reveal the amount two weeks ago, was forced to do so today when Judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh made the order upon accepting the submissions made by defense counsel Surjan Singh.

During submissions, Surjan Singh urged Judge Azhaniz Teh to “create history” and compel the witness to reveal the amount as no agent provocateur had ever been made to do so in any court of law before.

“My learned friends and I have not been able to find any authority on the matter. So, Your Honour, you can create history today and make a ruling — let it go to the High Court or the Federal Court if need be,” said Surjan Singh.

When questioned by the Judge why knowledge of how much Mohamad Imran had been paid would be material to the defence’s case, Surjan Singh said:

“Because the case is one of public interest. That is why we need to know how much he was paid to see why he had gone to such length to trap these people. Furthermore, he had admitted he was paid and you (Judge Azhaniz Teh) had asked him to answer but he refused.

“Is it so scandalous or vexatious?”.

The defence counsel also argued that the accused had been victims of an entrapment plan set up by the MACC.

“Your Honour, this is a case of entrapment. How was Mohamad Imran the complainant (against the accused)? Did he go to MACC and tell them that these men had asked him for bribes (before the trap was set)? No.”

Surjan Singh questioned why the MACC had needed to enlist the help of Mohamad Imran as an agent if they had already known a corrupt practice was taking place.

“Simply because there was actually nothing wrong. They hired Mohamad Imran to get him to create such a situation that would implicate these PKR men.

“Look at the light at the end of the tunnel, Your Honour,” he said.

He further submitted that the alleged act of corruption had not taken place first before the MACC laid its trap.

“It is not that the MACC received complaints first that these men took money and only then decided to send an agent provocateur to trap them

“As we know for a fact, there was no project at that stage, and the land (in the said project) had not been alienated to the Perak Tengah district council.

“They (Jamaluddin and Mohd Osman) are lawmakers. We are not dealing with criminals or corrupt officials, so why go all out to entrap them?” he said.

The men had been arrested for allegedly receiving bribes from Mohamad Imran in exchange for helping him obtain a RM180 million housing development project at a piece of land in Seri Iskandar.

Surjan Singh also maintained that Mohamad Imran had targeted the PKR men, especially Jamaluddin, Mohd Osman, and Usaili.

“He wanted to trap these three. And he himself admitted to the court that he was paid so what is wrong with confirming the veracity of his evidence?

“This is not the case of a policeman pulling a car over and asking for a RM100 bribe — it is entrapment,” he emphasised.

Another defence counsel Mohd Asri Othman said that the entrapment served as a catalyst and a motive to catch the accused and the money paid to Mohamad Imran would determine just how hard the latter would work to ensure the arrests were made.

“The more money there is, the harder you work. If the pay is peanuts, you would not work so hard,” he said.

At one juncture, Judge Azhaniz Teh cut in to question the legality of entrapment in Malaysia.

“The question is, is entrapment legal or illegal? It is illegal in the UK and the US,” he said.

MACC prosecution unit head Datuk Abdul Razak Musa then rose and told the court that there was nothing wrong with the employment of an agent provocateur to help the MACC in a case.

“And agents like these get paid — it is no different from how lawyers get paid to do their jobs,” he said.

He denied that there was any entrapment in the case for the arrests of Jamaluddin, Mohd Osman and Usaili had stemmed from the MACC’s case with another accused.

During the earlier hearings, Mohamad Imran had testified that it was Ruslan who had actually been the MACC’s target in the case before the others were implicated.

Abdul Razak also accused the defence panel of seeking the answer to how much the agent was paid in order to defame the MACC as well as Mohamad Imran.

“They have submitted that they could not find any authority on the matter so if they want this question to be answered, then they should find the authority,” he said.

Surjan Singh however rebutted that fact, saying that since there was no authority, the court should set a precedent and create one.

“If there is no authority, let this honourable court create one today. The law is alive — it is not dead, and that is why we need judges and magistrates who can create the authority,” he said.

After the deliberations, Judge Azhaniz Teh said he would allow the question to be asked.

The trial continues tomorrow.

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

RM22 million budget for GST study

DAP questions RM22 million budget for GST study

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 3 — Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong wants to know why the government is spending RM22 million on a goods and services tax (GST) study.

The 2010 Budget has an allocation of RM22 million for a study on the implementation of a nationwide GST. This tax will replace the current sales and service tax.

“I think RM22 million is a huge sum for a study. I urge the finance minister to explain what is in the study or what is the content of the study that requires the amount and which consultancy firm is handling the study of the implementation of GST,” he added.

He was speaking to reporters in Parliament today.

He pointed out that GST is an important issue and should be debated at a national level.

“When Australia implemented GST in 1998, it was almost decided in the form of a referendum.

“It is a very serious issue which needs a national debate. It should not be outsourced and decided by a consultancy firm.

“So I urge the minister to explain what is in that RM22 million and also to begin a national debate on whether we need GST or government should cut down its spending,” he added.

He explained that GST is a form of regressive tax and the public should be educated on the difference between regressive and progressive taxes.

“GST will be a tax that cuts across the board and everyone will have to pay it when they purchase something. GST and value added taxes are the same. Everyone has to pay the same amount of tax. It is a form of regressive tax.

“Whether you earn RM1,000 or RM30,000, when you purchase something you have to pay a tax compared to a progressive tax where if you earn more, you pay more or if you are in a poor income bracket you pay less,” he said.

Thursday, 29 October 2009

PKR - A whiff of hope in Sarawak while Sabah bickers

I wonder where all the funding for the below will come from?

Bian gets cracking in Sarawak
Print E-mail


Joseph Tawie
Thursday, 29 October 2009 20:28

KUCHING – Newly minted Sarawak PKR chairman Baru Bian seems to start off his new task on the right track.

“We have to put our house in order first before we ask others to join us,” he declared as a matter-of-fact.

“There is no point in squabbling on the appointment of leadership in the party when we fail to win seats at the end of the day,” Baru emphasised at a press conference here yesterday.

“Our concern and focus must be the bigger picture, which is to unite ourselves and PR partners for the next general election against the might of our political foes,” he added.

PKR a 'race-blind' party

On his appointment as State PKR chief, Baru said: “The fact I am Lun Bawang and coming from a small community shows that PKR is a ‘race-bbaru-bian.pnglind’ party.”

“That’s one of the reasons why I joined PKR in the first place. I am conscious that I need PKR today in Sarawak not as a Lun Bawang, but as a Malaysian leader, concerned for everybody’s needs and to fight for the aspirations of all Malaysians.

“PKR never advocates the supremacy of any race except the supremacy of the people (Ketuanan Rakyat).

“By doing so, one does not necessarily lose one’s identity as an Iban, Bidayuh, Malay, Chinese, Indian, Orang Ulu or Penan,” he said.

Baru said Sarawak PKR will be setting up service centres in major towns in the state to strengthen the party machinery and to ensure its physical presence is felt by the people.

“It is essential that our physical presence is felt throughout Sarawak so that we can leave our footprints in all the areas we set foot on,” he stressed.

Achieve dreams and visions

He was optimistic that within three weeks, the new service centres will be operating.

“Next we must be serious in our recruitment of members because the message of hope and change must be disseminated fast to all the nooks and corners of Sarawak,” he said.

He said he would appoint his deputies and other officers within two weeks to assist him after consultation with various people in the party.

“Rest assured that the team will be a reflection of a progressive and dynamic organisation that will encourage everybody irrespective of racial or communal background to achieve our dreams and visions for Sarawak,” he added.

Police and politics - What rights do Assemblymen actually have if they can be manhandled?

Police should not be doing this to Assemblymen, Unthinkable in other countries!



The aim apparently was to strip the official speaker's robe off Sivakumar (centre, left) as well as grab his songkok as he and other Pakatan assemblypersons tried to enter the state government building.

However, the police's first attempt to guide 'the victim' into the trap failed as Sivakumar ignored their instructions to turn left into the building's basement car park, and kept walking straight to the lift, only to find it out of order.

At this point, a police officer arrived and snatched away his songkok to his and other Pakatan assemblypersons' annoyance.

They then turned on their heels and headed outside the building and briefed media representatives standing near the police barbed wire barricade at the road's edge on what had transpired.

This alleged police trap was revealed by Sivakumar at a press conference at the DAP state headquarters here today.

"The police were very smart and methodical in their planning to disrobe me of my official speaker's robe without the knowledge of the media or photographers.

Police attempt keeping media blind

"They made sure that the media stayed out of the 50 m radius court restriction area by erecting barb-wires to prevent them from observing whatever incidents that could take place inside the compound of the State Secretariat," said Sivakumar.

"To make double-sure that the media could not really see the robe being taken off , they chose the left corner which leads into a dimly-lit part of the car park where many police personnel were waiting to pounce on me,"he claimed.

After speaking to the media, Sivakumar and other Pakatan politicians returned to the State Secretariat for the budget sitting but this time around they were cleverly guided into the ambush area where the waiting police jumped on Sivakumar to remove the robe.

"One policeman held my stomach tightly from behind and I was struggling for breathe, when another policeman caught me by the neck from behind and tried to strangle me.

"At the same time, both my arms were pulled back and another policeman was trying to remove the robe from behind," said an enraged Sivakumar.

He tried his best to hang on to the robe but was overwhelmed by the number of policemen who eventually tore away the thick robe from him and he was only able to hang on to a strip (pictured, right) from the torn robe.


"At first, I was worried that they were assaulting me away from the eyes of the media. Then it would've been my word against theirs when talking about this ugly incident to the public and press.

"But luckily for me some of the main media managed to get photographs and published them in today's editions," said Sivakumar with a wide smile.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Some thoughts on todays Perak Assembly Sitting - 28.10.09

I won't comment on the sittings directly as I am on 2 minds on it.

But there are some fundamental democratic concepts being trampled on which have not been mentioned.

All assemblymen are elected representatives and are equal before the law. Yet the Pakatan Adun's are being searched and can only enter the assembly at specific times? The assembly belongs to all Adun's and their entry cannot restricted. Whatever restrictions apply to one Adun has to apply to all. You cannot discriminate against a selection of Adun's by searching them, restricting their entry etc and thereby giving special and unequal treatment to others. If flies against everything an assembly should be. In the assembly everyone is equal.


This is a blot on an august house. The state assembly is not a prison with rules. It is a representative body.