Malaysia Today's webmaster Raja Petra Kamaruddin, charged with sedition and remanded in Sungai Buloh prison for refusing to post bail, was a central figure in a spate of debate in the Parliament today.
On one side was Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) who, in his speech debating on the royal address, criticised Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor for "abusing the laws" in allegedly getting Raja Petra to be charged for sedition.
Raja Petra, in his Internet posting entitled 'Let's send the Altantuya murderers to hell', had implicated Najib and Rosmah in the high-profile murder case of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a Mongolian national.
Lim said the quick police action and subsequent prosecution smacked of an "orchestrated" effort and abuse of the laws and government machinery to punish Raja Petra.
"They (Najib and Rosmah) reserve the right to clear their names through the laws. So why have they used the government facilities to take action against Raja Petra Kamaruddin? This is the abuse of powers," he said in his speech.
"There are other channels for the deputy prime minister and his family to take action against Raja Petra - to use civil action and litigation. Why choose sedition prosecution?" he asked.
"Why has the government machinery (in the form of the office of the) Attorney-General's Chambers been used for this purpose? This is abuse of power! That is why we have to criticise this action against Raja Petra Kamaruddin in the harshest terms," he added.
Barisan Nasional backbenchers, however, raised a ruckus and criticised the DAP veteran leader for making assumptions that Najib and Rosmah were behind the police action against Raja Petra.
"How sure are you that there was an abuse of power in the use of the Sedition Act against Raja Petra Kamaruddin? Do you have proof that the deputy prime minister had gotten the police take the action (against Raja Petra)?" asked Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak).
"Or perhaps this has nothing to do with what the deputy prime minister has done but is just an act by the authorities against someone who has done something in relation to the Sedition Act?" he added.
Lim rebutted by saying: "Perhaps the honourable member from Pasir Salak deems this is as a coincidence, but there are a lot of coincidences in Barisan Nasional."
Oxford graduate under fire
Dr Puad Zarkashi (BN-Batu Pahat), meanwhile, called for Lim to be more "responsible" and refrain from speaking on a matter that was already in the purview of the court.
Puad also said it was right for action to be taken against Raja Petra as he had "incited" people against a senior government leader. "Do you believe in what was written by Raja Petra Kamaruddin?" he asked.
Lim, however, said he did not want to be drawn into the debate on the merits, or otherwise, of the contents of Raja Petra's article.
Other than urging Najib to initiate a civil suit to clear his name and that of his wife, Lim also called for a royal commission of inquiry to determine whether, and to what extent, government figures were involved in the said killing of Altantuya.
Citing Raja Petra's article, Lim said among the many questions to be answered was whether attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail overstepped his boundaries as an officer of the court.
"(The government) should set up a royal commission of inquiry to investigate this so-called high-profile murder to clear the good name of this nation," he said.
Lim earlier chastised Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) who questioned him on the repetition of Raja Petra's use of the word "hell".
"Do you not agree that the only one to determine whether a person will go to heaven or hell is God and not for us to determine," asked Khairy.
Lim, however, thundered back: "We are not talking of religion! This is an expression that those who murdered Altantuya should be punished to the full extent of the law! It's not about going to heaven or hell.
"If even this one cannot understand, what is the point of graduating from Oxford? This is a disgrace to the university," he said, upon which the whole house again descended into chaos as both sides went back to shouting at each other.
Journalists under probe
On a related issue, Lim questioned the police's summoning of TheSun's editors Terence Fernandez and R Nadeswaran to assist investigations into their reports on the Association of Wives of Assemblymen and Members of Parliament in Selangor (Balqis) controversy.
Fernandez and Nadeswaran had written a series of reports on the dissolution of Balqis - soon after the Pakatan Rakyat coalition won Selangor in the March 8 general election - and questions pertaining to the transfer of RM9.9 million of donations out of the association.
"Are they being investigated by the police? Is it because of their investigative journalism? We should be encouraging investigative journalism, not journalism that merely flatters," said Lim.
"The ones who should be investigated is former (Selangor) Menteri Besar Mohd Khir Toyo and his wife... not Nadeswaran and Terence," he added.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Altantuya murderers!
Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell
Posted by Raja Petra
Friday, 25 April 2008
Today, we shall not be talking about politics. We shall also not be talking about race or religion. Today, we shall talk about doing the human thing. Today, let’s discuss how to launch a ‘Justice for Altantuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign. And let’s send those bastards who murdered Altantuya to hell where they belong.NO HOLDS BARREDRaja Petra Kamarudin
I had dinner with a few friends last night and on the way to the restaurant another good friend, Din Merican, phoned to fill me in on the details of Dr Setev Shaariibuu’s press conference that was held earlier that day. I listened as Din filled me in on what transpired and could not help but blurt out, “I am a father of two daughters. I can imagine what Shaariibuu must be feeling. Fucking assholes!”“I have three daughters,” Din responded. “These people are animals, bloody animals. Fuck them! Fuck them!” This is what I would call ‘at a loss for words’ -- and when you just have to say something but no words can fully describe how you feel, then ‘fuck’ is the only word you can use which will console you enough and make you feel you have expressed your anger and disgust in a most ‘appropriate’ manner.“Hey, don’t insult animals,” I replied. “Animals are cute. I love cats, dogs and horses. These people are worse than animals. Even animals will not do something like this.”“Even pigs can be cute,” my wife who was driving the car butted in and I repeated what she said. “Yes, even pigs are cute. These people are not even the same level as pigs. They are lower than pigs. Melayu babi, the whole lot of them.”I found it very difficult to hold back my tears as Din continued with his narration of what Dr Shaariibuu said at his press conference. Yes, I am a very emotional person as many may have suspected by now. But I can also be very stubborn and stiff-lipped as well when facing an adversary, as the Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman have discovered. I am what the Malays would call ‘marah nyamuk, bakar kelambu’. And I would not hesitate to deny my body food and water as an act of defiance just to prove to my jailors that they may incarcerate my body but they can never own my mind or break my spirit. But hearing what Dr Shaariibuu had to say ‘broke’ me. Even my degil got tamed.“Let’s bring these bastards down,” I told Din. “Let’s launch a ‘Justice for Altanatuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign’ or something like that. These assholes must be sent to hell.”Understandably, much of the dinner conversation thereafter was focused on the Altantuya murder. What was most amusing -- not that I would classify this tragic murder as ‘amusing’ -- is that none at the dinner table are lawyers by profession. But all were able to skilfully ‘argue their case’ as any seasoned lawyer with decades of litigation experience under his or her belt can -- or maybe even better than that because not all lawyers are smart (trust me on this one). I always say you need brains to become a lawyer but you do not need to be a lawyer to have brains.Sure, ‘certified’ lawyers would pooh-pooh such ‘coffee shop’ arguments as just that, coffee shop arguments. And have we not overheard and scoffed at many an ‘expert’ at the next table offering his or her legal prognosis to all and sundry who would care to listen? Yes, opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one.But there are opinions and there are opinions -- and, just like assholes, no two are alike. So, while we value the expert opinions of our ‘learned’ legal eagles (yes, that is what they call each other in court even though they may be arguing -- how civil), we too have conducted our own trial by court of public opinion and we have already arrived at our verdict even while the Altantuya murder trial is halfway through and long before we can see the end of what many consider a show-trial in a kangaroo court.Of course, we are not at liberty to say this as this may tantamount to subjudice or contempt of court or something like that (the courts have all sorts of fancy words and phrases to throw at you when they want to send you to jail whenever you differ with their opinion). So I would never dare state that the Altantuya murder trial ‘a show trial in a kangaroo court’ for fear of getting sent to jail. All I am at liberty to say is that many consider the Altantuya murder trial a show-trial in a kangaroo court and leave it at that without declaring whether I too share the opinion of the majority of Malaysians (not sure whether that statement can still get me sent to jail).Anyway, back to the dinner last night and to what all those ‘self-made lawyers’ who never argued even one case in court their entire life had to say. As I said, neither they nor I am a lawyer but I have attended a decade of trials and hearings since the birth of Reformasi in 1998 and my ‘practical experience’ has exposed me to much of what goes on in court. And all I can say is that, and I repeat, while you need brains to become a lawyer, you really do not need to be a lawyer to have brains, as my dinner friends proved last night.It was a long dinner and much was discussed and everyone had an opinion plus, as I said, all skilfully ‘argued their case’. However, to avoid this piece turning into a fifty-page thesis, which may see me getting an honorary law degree (or see me getting sent to jail), allow me to summarise how the ‘case’ was argued last night.First concerns the Affidavit that Razak Baginda submitted to the court during his bail application hearing in the Shah Alam High Court. Justice Segera had initially cautioned Razak’s lawyer that there was no necessity in submitting an Affidavit since it was only a bail application hearing and, anyway, bail is not allowed in murder cases. But the lawyer insisted in pursuing the matter in spite of repeated warnings from the Judge. So the Judge had no choice but to accept the Affidavit as it is the right of the accused to defend himself/herself the way he/she sees fit.Justice Segera then read the Affidavit and remarked that, after reading it, he is even more convinced that Razak is guilty. How then to grant bail, notwithstanding the fact that bail should automatically be denied anyway in cases of murder? Justice Segera was then immediately removed from hearing the case and was replaced by a junior judicial commissioner.Note that Justice Segera is a senior Judge and the most suited to hear this very controversial and high-profile case. Was he removed because he had prejudged the case or because he was now privy to certain information that may influence his decision or because they want to ‘kill’ the Affidavit?This was the first bone of contention. Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief on behalf of Altantuya’s family, then raised this matter during the trial and he asked the police officer on the stand as to why they did not investigate the Affidavit since much has been revealed in that document. The police officer replied that they did not investigate the Affidavit because ‘tidak ada arahan dari atas’ (so instructions from the top).This further enhances the belief that there is some very damaging evidence in that Affidavit and which the government is trying to hide. The fact that the Affidavit exists and Karpal raised the matter in court and the police did not deny it -- other than explain they did not investigate it because of no instructions from the top -- convinces most that something is amiss here.It seems the Affidavit also reveals that Altantuya was camped outside Razak’s house and this caused him to panic. He then went running to Najib, and Rosmah summoned Najib’s ADC, Musa Safri, and instructed him to solve Razak’s problem. Musa then summoned the two police officers currently on trial. So, it appears like Razak and the two police officers are not the only ones involved. Najib, Rosmah and Musa have also been implicated in this entire thing. And why the need for the police officer to declare that he had already killed six people before this if murder was not what was on everyone’s mind?Then the Attorney-General did a very strange thing. Just before the trial started, he made a public announcement that only three people and no others are involved in the murder. This is not only strange but highly irregular as well. It is not the Attorney-General’s job to determine this. This is for the court to decide. Furthermore, the trial had not even started yet so how does the Attorney-General know what is going to surface in the trial? No one has testified yet and until all the testimonies are heard who knows who else is involved and whether the three accused who on trial are even guilty or not? The Attorney-General made it appear like he knows the outcome of the trial even before the trail commenced? How not to feel that the trial is a show-trial?The Sunday morning before the trial was supposed to start, I received a SMS that said the charges against Razak would be withdrawn. At 4.00pm, I received another SMS saying that the entire team of prosecutors will be replaced because they did not agree to drop the charges against Razak. The following morning, the new prosecutor requested a one-month postponement on the excuse that he had just that very morning been told he is taking over the case so he needs time to study the files. The judge gave them a two-week postponement. The SMS may have been inaccurate but the actions thereafter lent credence to the SMS. And this SMS was from a Deep Throat in the Attorney-General’s Chambers so I am not about to just dismiss it as lies and slander.The next point is about where Altantuya’s remains were found, which was deep in the jungles. The three accused deny killing Altantuya yet the police knew exactly where to go to look for the remains. How did the police know where to go when the three denied killing her? Did they use a bomoh? Was there an informer? No, the police just happen to know that deep in the jungles they would find Altantuya’s remains without anyone having to tell them.It makes one wonder whether the police knew where to go because it is a ‘gazetted dumpsite’ where all ‘bumped off’ people are disposed. Does this then mean that the two police officers on trial alongside Razak are police hit men whose job it is to bump people off and then get rid of their bodies at that site where they retrieved Altantuya’s remains? This, of course, remains mere speculation but there is certainly cause for speculation and the evidence all seem to point to this assumption.The whispering amongst those who walk in the corridors of power is that when they went to the ‘dump site’ they retrieved the remains of many others as well. Some say it was the remains of seven people and others say nine. So Altantuya was not the first. There were many others before this, almost ten judging by the remains.This, of course, has never been made public and probably never will. So, until it is, we must assume that the ‘whispering’ is unfounded. But then, what about Razak’s Affidavit we talked about earlier, which stated that the police officer had admitted to killing six people before this. This would then make Altantuya the seventh victim. Against this backdrop, the ‘whispering’ about the police retrieving the remains of seven or nine people begins to sound like very loud whispers.Many other ‘key issues’ raised by my non-lawyer friends, who all argued as if they were conducting the Altantuya murder trial, were matters such as how Altantuya’s immigration records could be erased from the Immigration computers, the letters Najib wrote to the Malaysian embassy supporting Altantuya’s visa application, the photograph of Altantuya, Najib, Razak and Kalimullah taken during Altantuya’s birthday party in the Mandarin Hotel in Singapore, and much more.Rumour has it, and it remains just that, a rumour, is that all this ‘evidence’ has been given to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Okay, maybe Abdullah is using this information to keep Najib in line -- which appears to be working seeing that he is constantly licking Abdullah’s hand. But this is not about politics and should not be dealt as such. This is about the Prime Minister of Malaysia withholding crucial evidence in a murder trial. Abdullah is an accessory to murder and burying evidence that will affect the outcome of the trial and interfere in seeing justice done renders Abdullah as guilty as those currently on trial and those who also should be on trial but are not.I really wish I could write about all the above which was discussed by those at the dinner table last night. Unfortunately, since the trial is still ongoing, I will not be able to talk about any of these matters. The best I can do is relate what those at the dinner table discussed last night and leave it at that without giving my opinion. And the above is what was discussed by those who are not lawyers and never once in their lives argued any case in court.Of course, since all these people are not lawyers, most of what they said is based purely on logic and not on points of law. It is actually quite ridiculous that people not tutored in matters of law would attempt to dissect and analyse the Altantuya murder trial and pass judgement as if they are trained and certified lawyers. Anyway, as I said, opinions are like assholes and every one has one so we should not take too much notice of what my dinner friends said last night. Meanwhile, read what my friend, Din Merican, e-mailed to me this morning:
******************************************
In ancient times, nations go to war at the slightest provocation. In the 21st century, fortunately, we are more civilised than our progenitors, although there are still exceptions. After all, we are members of the United Nations and, I am told, we subscribe to the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Yet, we in Malaysia, treat foreign nationals with total disregard for compassion and human decency. Are we a bunch of cynics? I wonder.Take the case of the beating-up of the Indonesian karate/judo coach and the brutality towards, and extortion of, Indonesian guest workers by Rela, the murder of a Mongolian national, etc. Is the way we deal with our neighbours and other nation states? I wonder whether we are a nation of laws or a country run on the basis of the law of the jungle.Our Prime Minister, Badawi, and his Foreign Minister (at that time Syed Hamid) did not have the courtesy to reply to the letters from their counterparts in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, seeking a fair trial and justice for the family of the late Altantyua Shaariibuu. Too busy maybe? Surely not!It is going to be tragic for Malaysia’s image if the Altantuya family cannot get justice for the brutal murder of their loved one. How can we blow to smithereens a human being, someone’s loved one, and a mother to two young children, using an explosive which is only utilised in times of war to destroy bunkers, bridges and buildings? This is unheard off anywhere in the world. This case, therefore, has a lot of international implications, especially when the deed was done by ‘servants’ of this country.We are being viewed as arrogant by the Indonesians, Thais, Singaporeans, as well as by many of our neighbours. Now, we add to this list the Mongolians. How indecent and irresponsible of the PM and his Foreign Minister for not even acknowledging the receipt of letters from their Mongolian counterparts. Who are we protecting?There is no point in Badawi trying to convince us that his Administration is keen to restore the image of the judiciary. He cannot even fix his own Police Force and the AG’s Office. Frankly, Malaysians should have sent Badawi and his cohorts in BN out of office in the last general election.The mainstream media is just hopeless in the cause of justice for Altantuya and dignity for Malaysia. Malaysians and civil society movements must now pressure the Badawi government to expose the real culprit behind this murder and bring to closure this long and costly trial. Let justice prevail and let us put an end to the culture of impunity, where the powerful and politically connected are above the Law.As a father of six kids (of whom three are girls, including a 16-year old) and a grandfather, I feel for Dr. Setev Shaariibuu and his family. I was at the press conference on April 24 at the Office of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and I personally saw the agony on Dr. Shaariibuu’s face.It is time for Malaysians to push this issue and not allow the murderers who walk in the corridors of power to get away with this vile and evil deed unscathed. It is time to ‘storm the Bastille’. It is time we sent these sorry excuses for human beings to hell where they deserve to be.
Posted by Raja Petra
Friday, 25 April 2008
Today, we shall not be talking about politics. We shall also not be talking about race or religion. Today, we shall talk about doing the human thing. Today, let’s discuss how to launch a ‘Justice for Altantuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign. And let’s send those bastards who murdered Altantuya to hell where they belong.NO HOLDS BARREDRaja Petra Kamarudin
I had dinner with a few friends last night and on the way to the restaurant another good friend, Din Merican, phoned to fill me in on the details of Dr Setev Shaariibuu’s press conference that was held earlier that day. I listened as Din filled me in on what transpired and could not help but blurt out, “I am a father of two daughters. I can imagine what Shaariibuu must be feeling. Fucking assholes!”“I have three daughters,” Din responded. “These people are animals, bloody animals. Fuck them! Fuck them!” This is what I would call ‘at a loss for words’ -- and when you just have to say something but no words can fully describe how you feel, then ‘fuck’ is the only word you can use which will console you enough and make you feel you have expressed your anger and disgust in a most ‘appropriate’ manner.“Hey, don’t insult animals,” I replied. “Animals are cute. I love cats, dogs and horses. These people are worse than animals. Even animals will not do something like this.”“Even pigs can be cute,” my wife who was driving the car butted in and I repeated what she said. “Yes, even pigs are cute. These people are not even the same level as pigs. They are lower than pigs. Melayu babi, the whole lot of them.”I found it very difficult to hold back my tears as Din continued with his narration of what Dr Shaariibuu said at his press conference. Yes, I am a very emotional person as many may have suspected by now. But I can also be very stubborn and stiff-lipped as well when facing an adversary, as the Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman have discovered. I am what the Malays would call ‘marah nyamuk, bakar kelambu’. And I would not hesitate to deny my body food and water as an act of defiance just to prove to my jailors that they may incarcerate my body but they can never own my mind or break my spirit. But hearing what Dr Shaariibuu had to say ‘broke’ me. Even my degil got tamed.“Let’s bring these bastards down,” I told Din. “Let’s launch a ‘Justice for Altanatuya: restore Malaysia’s dignity’ campaign’ or something like that. These assholes must be sent to hell.”Understandably, much of the dinner conversation thereafter was focused on the Altantuya murder. What was most amusing -- not that I would classify this tragic murder as ‘amusing’ -- is that none at the dinner table are lawyers by profession. But all were able to skilfully ‘argue their case’ as any seasoned lawyer with decades of litigation experience under his or her belt can -- or maybe even better than that because not all lawyers are smart (trust me on this one). I always say you need brains to become a lawyer but you do not need to be a lawyer to have brains.Sure, ‘certified’ lawyers would pooh-pooh such ‘coffee shop’ arguments as just that, coffee shop arguments. And have we not overheard and scoffed at many an ‘expert’ at the next table offering his or her legal prognosis to all and sundry who would care to listen? Yes, opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one.But there are opinions and there are opinions -- and, just like assholes, no two are alike. So, while we value the expert opinions of our ‘learned’ legal eagles (yes, that is what they call each other in court even though they may be arguing -- how civil), we too have conducted our own trial by court of public opinion and we have already arrived at our verdict even while the Altantuya murder trial is halfway through and long before we can see the end of what many consider a show-trial in a kangaroo court.Of course, we are not at liberty to say this as this may tantamount to subjudice or contempt of court or something like that (the courts have all sorts of fancy words and phrases to throw at you when they want to send you to jail whenever you differ with their opinion). So I would never dare state that the Altantuya murder trial ‘a show trial in a kangaroo court’ for fear of getting sent to jail. All I am at liberty to say is that many consider the Altantuya murder trial a show-trial in a kangaroo court and leave it at that without declaring whether I too share the opinion of the majority of Malaysians (not sure whether that statement can still get me sent to jail).Anyway, back to the dinner last night and to what all those ‘self-made lawyers’ who never argued even one case in court their entire life had to say. As I said, neither they nor I am a lawyer but I have attended a decade of trials and hearings since the birth of Reformasi in 1998 and my ‘practical experience’ has exposed me to much of what goes on in court. And all I can say is that, and I repeat, while you need brains to become a lawyer, you really do not need to be a lawyer to have brains, as my dinner friends proved last night.It was a long dinner and much was discussed and everyone had an opinion plus, as I said, all skilfully ‘argued their case’. However, to avoid this piece turning into a fifty-page thesis, which may see me getting an honorary law degree (or see me getting sent to jail), allow me to summarise how the ‘case’ was argued last night.First concerns the Affidavit that Razak Baginda submitted to the court during his bail application hearing in the Shah Alam High Court. Justice Segera had initially cautioned Razak’s lawyer that there was no necessity in submitting an Affidavit since it was only a bail application hearing and, anyway, bail is not allowed in murder cases. But the lawyer insisted in pursuing the matter in spite of repeated warnings from the Judge. So the Judge had no choice but to accept the Affidavit as it is the right of the accused to defend himself/herself the way he/she sees fit.Justice Segera then read the Affidavit and remarked that, after reading it, he is even more convinced that Razak is guilty. How then to grant bail, notwithstanding the fact that bail should automatically be denied anyway in cases of murder? Justice Segera was then immediately removed from hearing the case and was replaced by a junior judicial commissioner.Note that Justice Segera is a senior Judge and the most suited to hear this very controversial and high-profile case. Was he removed because he had prejudged the case or because he was now privy to certain information that may influence his decision or because they want to ‘kill’ the Affidavit?This was the first bone of contention. Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief on behalf of Altantuya’s family, then raised this matter during the trial and he asked the police officer on the stand as to why they did not investigate the Affidavit since much has been revealed in that document. The police officer replied that they did not investigate the Affidavit because ‘tidak ada arahan dari atas’ (so instructions from the top).This further enhances the belief that there is some very damaging evidence in that Affidavit and which the government is trying to hide. The fact that the Affidavit exists and Karpal raised the matter in court and the police did not deny it -- other than explain they did not investigate it because of no instructions from the top -- convinces most that something is amiss here.It seems the Affidavit also reveals that Altantuya was camped outside Razak’s house and this caused him to panic. He then went running to Najib, and Rosmah summoned Najib’s ADC, Musa Safri, and instructed him to solve Razak’s problem. Musa then summoned the two police officers currently on trial. So, it appears like Razak and the two police officers are not the only ones involved. Najib, Rosmah and Musa have also been implicated in this entire thing. And why the need for the police officer to declare that he had already killed six people before this if murder was not what was on everyone’s mind?Then the Attorney-General did a very strange thing. Just before the trial started, he made a public announcement that only three people and no others are involved in the murder. This is not only strange but highly irregular as well. It is not the Attorney-General’s job to determine this. This is for the court to decide. Furthermore, the trial had not even started yet so how does the Attorney-General know what is going to surface in the trial? No one has testified yet and until all the testimonies are heard who knows who else is involved and whether the three accused who on trial are even guilty or not? The Attorney-General made it appear like he knows the outcome of the trial even before the trail commenced? How not to feel that the trial is a show-trial?The Sunday morning before the trial was supposed to start, I received a SMS that said the charges against Razak would be withdrawn. At 4.00pm, I received another SMS saying that the entire team of prosecutors will be replaced because they did not agree to drop the charges against Razak. The following morning, the new prosecutor requested a one-month postponement on the excuse that he had just that very morning been told he is taking over the case so he needs time to study the files. The judge gave them a two-week postponement. The SMS may have been inaccurate but the actions thereafter lent credence to the SMS. And this SMS was from a Deep Throat in the Attorney-General’s Chambers so I am not about to just dismiss it as lies and slander.The next point is about where Altantuya’s remains were found, which was deep in the jungles. The three accused deny killing Altantuya yet the police knew exactly where to go to look for the remains. How did the police know where to go when the three denied killing her? Did they use a bomoh? Was there an informer? No, the police just happen to know that deep in the jungles they would find Altantuya’s remains without anyone having to tell them.It makes one wonder whether the police knew where to go because it is a ‘gazetted dumpsite’ where all ‘bumped off’ people are disposed. Does this then mean that the two police officers on trial alongside Razak are police hit men whose job it is to bump people off and then get rid of their bodies at that site where they retrieved Altantuya’s remains? This, of course, remains mere speculation but there is certainly cause for speculation and the evidence all seem to point to this assumption.The whispering amongst those who walk in the corridors of power is that when they went to the ‘dump site’ they retrieved the remains of many others as well. Some say it was the remains of seven people and others say nine. So Altantuya was not the first. There were many others before this, almost ten judging by the remains.This, of course, has never been made public and probably never will. So, until it is, we must assume that the ‘whispering’ is unfounded. But then, what about Razak’s Affidavit we talked about earlier, which stated that the police officer had admitted to killing six people before this. This would then make Altantuya the seventh victim. Against this backdrop, the ‘whispering’ about the police retrieving the remains of seven or nine people begins to sound like very loud whispers.Many other ‘key issues’ raised by my non-lawyer friends, who all argued as if they were conducting the Altantuya murder trial, were matters such as how Altantuya’s immigration records could be erased from the Immigration computers, the letters Najib wrote to the Malaysian embassy supporting Altantuya’s visa application, the photograph of Altantuya, Najib, Razak and Kalimullah taken during Altantuya’s birthday party in the Mandarin Hotel in Singapore, and much more.Rumour has it, and it remains just that, a rumour, is that all this ‘evidence’ has been given to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Okay, maybe Abdullah is using this information to keep Najib in line -- which appears to be working seeing that he is constantly licking Abdullah’s hand. But this is not about politics and should not be dealt as such. This is about the Prime Minister of Malaysia withholding crucial evidence in a murder trial. Abdullah is an accessory to murder and burying evidence that will affect the outcome of the trial and interfere in seeing justice done renders Abdullah as guilty as those currently on trial and those who also should be on trial but are not.I really wish I could write about all the above which was discussed by those at the dinner table last night. Unfortunately, since the trial is still ongoing, I will not be able to talk about any of these matters. The best I can do is relate what those at the dinner table discussed last night and leave it at that without giving my opinion. And the above is what was discussed by those who are not lawyers and never once in their lives argued any case in court.Of course, since all these people are not lawyers, most of what they said is based purely on logic and not on points of law. It is actually quite ridiculous that people not tutored in matters of law would attempt to dissect and analyse the Altantuya murder trial and pass judgement as if they are trained and certified lawyers. Anyway, as I said, opinions are like assholes and every one has one so we should not take too much notice of what my dinner friends said last night. Meanwhile, read what my friend, Din Merican, e-mailed to me this morning:
******************************************
In ancient times, nations go to war at the slightest provocation. In the 21st century, fortunately, we are more civilised than our progenitors, although there are still exceptions. After all, we are members of the United Nations and, I am told, we subscribe to the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Yet, we in Malaysia, treat foreign nationals with total disregard for compassion and human decency. Are we a bunch of cynics? I wonder.Take the case of the beating-up of the Indonesian karate/judo coach and the brutality towards, and extortion of, Indonesian guest workers by Rela, the murder of a Mongolian national, etc. Is the way we deal with our neighbours and other nation states? I wonder whether we are a nation of laws or a country run on the basis of the law of the jungle.Our Prime Minister, Badawi, and his Foreign Minister (at that time Syed Hamid) did not have the courtesy to reply to the letters from their counterparts in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, seeking a fair trial and justice for the family of the late Altantyua Shaariibuu. Too busy maybe? Surely not!It is going to be tragic for Malaysia’s image if the Altantuya family cannot get justice for the brutal murder of their loved one. How can we blow to smithereens a human being, someone’s loved one, and a mother to two young children, using an explosive which is only utilised in times of war to destroy bunkers, bridges and buildings? This is unheard off anywhere in the world. This case, therefore, has a lot of international implications, especially when the deed was done by ‘servants’ of this country.We are being viewed as arrogant by the Indonesians, Thais, Singaporeans, as well as by many of our neighbours. Now, we add to this list the Mongolians. How indecent and irresponsible of the PM and his Foreign Minister for not even acknowledging the receipt of letters from their Mongolian counterparts. Who are we protecting?There is no point in Badawi trying to convince us that his Administration is keen to restore the image of the judiciary. He cannot even fix his own Police Force and the AG’s Office. Frankly, Malaysians should have sent Badawi and his cohorts in BN out of office in the last general election.The mainstream media is just hopeless in the cause of justice for Altantuya and dignity for Malaysia. Malaysians and civil society movements must now pressure the Badawi government to expose the real culprit behind this murder and bring to closure this long and costly trial. Let justice prevail and let us put an end to the culture of impunity, where the powerful and politically connected are above the Law.As a father of six kids (of whom three are girls, including a 16-year old) and a grandfather, I feel for Dr. Setev Shaariibuu and his family. I was at the press conference on April 24 at the Office of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and I personally saw the agony on Dr. Shaariibuu’s face.It is time for Malaysians to push this issue and not allow the murderers who walk in the corridors of power to get away with this vile and evil deed unscathed. It is time to ‘storm the Bastille’. It is time we sent these sorry excuses for human beings to hell where they deserve to be.
Raja Petra being victimized because of Najib's "guilt"
Raja Perta Being Vicitmized Because Of Najib's "Guilt"
Posted by Super Admin
Sunday, 04 May 2008
I read about the news of Raja Petra's house being ransacked and his personal belongings being taken hostage by gangsters with badges (a.k.a. Polis Diraja Malaysia).
It's funny considering all this happened after Raja Petra replied to a letter from Najib's press secretary Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad. Not only that, Raja Petra also ran a blow-by-blow response to the letter written by Najib's press secretary Tengku Sharifuddin Tengku Ahmad.It's clear to me that Najib has a lot to fear from Petra's expose'. I think the entire shenenigan we have come to know as the "Altantunya trial" is nothing but a charade. A stage-show. All this after considering the Malaysian judiciary as a bunch of whores, serving the interest of the corrupted elites of Malaysia.
Raja Petra has just done that with his article. Since the trust on the Malaysian Judiciary is next to nothing, Raja Pertra's article will result in the majority of the people believing that Najib is guilty despite the courts finding otherwise.
Therefore, in order to prevent this, desperate measures have to be taken. Shaking down Raja Petra is just one of them. Putting Raja Petra behind bars will be another. Next we will find Raja Petra being trialed in a the kangaroo court of Malaysia
Posted by Super Admin
Sunday, 04 May 2008
I read about the news of Raja Petra's house being ransacked and his personal belongings being taken hostage by gangsters with badges (a.k.a. Polis Diraja Malaysia).
It's funny considering all this happened after Raja Petra replied to a letter from Najib's press secretary Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad. Not only that, Raja Petra also ran a blow-by-blow response to the letter written by Najib's press secretary Tengku Sharifuddin Tengku Ahmad.It's clear to me that Najib has a lot to fear from Petra's expose'. I think the entire shenenigan we have come to know as the "Altantunya trial" is nothing but a charade. A stage-show. All this after considering the Malaysian judiciary as a bunch of whores, serving the interest of the corrupted elites of Malaysia.
Raja Petra has just done that with his article. Since the trust on the Malaysian Judiciary is next to nothing, Raja Pertra's article will result in the majority of the people believing that Najib is guilty despite the courts finding otherwise.
Therefore, in order to prevent this, desperate measures have to be taken. Shaking down Raja Petra is just one of them. Putting Raja Petra behind bars will be another. Next we will find Raja Petra being trialed in a the kangaroo court of Malaysia
Raja Petra ordered to surrender
LATEST - Raja Petra Ordered to Surrender
Posted by kasee
Monday, 05 May 2008
Raja Petra Kamarudin @ RPK has been ordered to surrender himself at Jalan Duta magistrate court at 9:30AM tomorrow, Tuesday 6th May. " RPK is expected to be charged for sedition.
Posted by kasee
Monday, 05 May 2008
Raja Petra Kamarudin @ RPK has been ordered to surrender himself at Jalan Duta magistrate court at 9:30AM tomorrow, Tuesday 6th May. " RPK is expected to be charged for sedition.
Raja Petra Kamaruddin is being investigated--Sedition Act
Raja Petra Kamarudin being investigated under the Sedition Act (UPDATED)
Posted by Super Admin
Friday, 02 May 2008
Raja Petra ordered to report to Bukit Aman at 4.00pm TODAY (UPDATED)
At 9.00am today, seven police officers from the Cyber Crime Division, Bukit Aman, went to Raja Petra’s house to confiscate his PC and notebook computer. They left at 11.00am after issuing Raja Petra a notice to report to Bukit Aman at 4.00pm TODAY, 2 May 2008.
According to the police, Raja Petra is being investigated under the Sedition Act with regards to an article he wrote, Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell. It seems a police report has been made against Raja Petra by another police officer.
The Bukit Aman Cyber Crime Division is at Kompleks Perdana, the old office of the Prime Minister behind Bank Negara.
We have no further news but Raja Petra will try to update the latest developments once he can get his hand on a new computer.
My comments:
It will be very interesting to wait for the outcome to see if justice is done to Atantuya! Or do we wait for God to do it on Judgement Day!I sincerely hope our court can do i!
By the way how many people think highly of our judiciary justice! Do you?
Your stand and response:
Posted by Super Admin
Friday, 02 May 2008
Raja Petra ordered to report to Bukit Aman at 4.00pm TODAY (UPDATED)
At 9.00am today, seven police officers from the Cyber Crime Division, Bukit Aman, went to Raja Petra’s house to confiscate his PC and notebook computer. They left at 11.00am after issuing Raja Petra a notice to report to Bukit Aman at 4.00pm TODAY, 2 May 2008.
According to the police, Raja Petra is being investigated under the Sedition Act with regards to an article he wrote, Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell. It seems a police report has been made against Raja Petra by another police officer.
The Bukit Aman Cyber Crime Division is at Kompleks Perdana, the old office of the Prime Minister behind Bank Negara.
We have no further news but Raja Petra will try to update the latest developments once he can get his hand on a new computer.
My comments:
It will be very interesting to wait for the outcome to see if justice is done to Atantuya! Or do we wait for God to do it on Judgement Day!I sincerely hope our court can do i!
By the way how many people think highly of our judiciary justice! Do you?
Your stand and response:
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
What the elected representatives need to do to keep their POWER!
Share the Word
Previous verses
Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
Psalm 82:3-4
Do you think they will be in power for the long haul if they practise the above verse?
Respond:
Friday, April 25, 2008
Find Friends Logout
Home
My Church
Explore
Ministries
Churches
Main
Write
Subscriptions
Photos
Friends
Comments
Wong Fort PIn's blog
New blog entry
Stars:
0
Readers:
0
RSS feed
View all entries
<< Perfection.
Enemies!
star it
leave a comment
April 25, 2008 at 3:53pm
email it
edit
delete
4 reads
He hasn't an enemy in the world - but all his friends hate him.
Eddie Cantor (1892 - 1964)
- More quotations on: [Enemies] 25:2 O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me.
Psalms 25:2 KJV
Comments by LAB:Enemies are those not oppose us, but also God's way of living. We can view temptations-- maney, success, prestige, lust--as our enemies. David asked God to keep his enemies from overcoming him because they oppose what God stood for.My comments:I may be the enemy when I am selfish, or I present any obnoxious behaviours.If we pray this prayer frequently, I am sure we can be a better person. Can't we?
Respond:
star it
leave a comment
subscribe to this blog
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Reform Sloganeering?
Extract from:Abdullah found belated political will or just “reform sloganeering” against Mahathir? By Mr. Lim Kit Siang on April 8th, 2008
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said recently that the reforms promised by Barisan Nasional in its election manifesto will be aggressively pursued.
He said: “I have implemented many things since I became prime minister but I recognize that people are still not happy.”
Abdullah’s claim that he had instituted reforms in the judiciary, the police and to fight corruption do not bear scrutiny.
But it is precisely because Abdullah has nothing to show on all these and other fronts as Prime Minister for more than four years that it precipitated the March 8 political tsunami which caused the end of the two-thirds parliamentary majority of the Barisan Nasional and its loss of five state governments.
Abdullah is right that the problems on the judiciary did not start during his era. Abdullah had lamented two days ago:
“Many countries do not have confidence in our judiciary. And when there are differences between our countries, they do not want to refer the matter to a Malaysian court.
“They would rather take it to a court in Singapore, Hong Kong or Australia so I thought I had to do something about it to restore confidence because the people are hoping for reforms in the judiciary.”
But what did Abdullah do in the past four years to initiate judicial reforms to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary? He did nothing. In fact, public confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary suffered new blows during the first term of the Abdullah premiership with judicial scandals like the fast-track appointment of a long-standing Umno activist, Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi to the bench - the triple jump to become Federal Court judge in September without ever being High Court or Court of Appeal judge and the quadruple jump three months later up the judicial hierarchy to become the Court of Appeal President. Will Zaki make quintuple jump to be appointed Chief Justice of Malaysia in October when Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad steps down from the topmost judicial post?
Seven years ago in January 2001, Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin started his tenure as Chief Justice of Malaysia publicly admitting the “unpalatable fact” that “public confidence in the judiciary has eroded in the last few years” and that this negative perception had held back the country’s development as multinational corporations and foreign investors were reluctant to invest because they perceived there was no level playing field, causing them to prefer arbitration outside Malaysia in the event of dispute.
Seven years later, after being a Prime Minister for more than four years, Abdullah is making exactly the same complaint about the woes of the judiciary as that made by Tun Dzaiddin in 2001! Is Abdullah prepared to accept the responsibility not only for the failure to institute judicial reforms but also for the further slides in public confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary in the past four years?
As for police reforms, is Abdullah now prepared to acknowledge the message of the March 8 “political tsunami” that Malaysians want an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to reduce crime and restore to Malaysians their fundamental rights to be free from crime and the fear of crime?
On the fronts of anti-corruption and media freedom, what reforms could Abdullah boast about in the past four years?
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said recently that the reforms promised by Barisan Nasional in its election manifesto will be aggressively pursued.
He said: “I have implemented many things since I became prime minister but I recognize that people are still not happy.”
Abdullah’s claim that he had instituted reforms in the judiciary, the police and to fight corruption do not bear scrutiny.
But it is precisely because Abdullah has nothing to show on all these and other fronts as Prime Minister for more than four years that it precipitated the March 8 political tsunami which caused the end of the two-thirds parliamentary majority of the Barisan Nasional and its loss of five state governments.
Abdullah is right that the problems on the judiciary did not start during his era. Abdullah had lamented two days ago:
“Many countries do not have confidence in our judiciary. And when there are differences between our countries, they do not want to refer the matter to a Malaysian court.
“They would rather take it to a court in Singapore, Hong Kong or Australia so I thought I had to do something about it to restore confidence because the people are hoping for reforms in the judiciary.”
But what did Abdullah do in the past four years to initiate judicial reforms to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary? He did nothing. In fact, public confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary suffered new blows during the first term of the Abdullah premiership with judicial scandals like the fast-track appointment of a long-standing Umno activist, Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi to the bench - the triple jump to become Federal Court judge in September without ever being High Court or Court of Appeal judge and the quadruple jump three months later up the judicial hierarchy to become the Court of Appeal President. Will Zaki make quintuple jump to be appointed Chief Justice of Malaysia in October when Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad steps down from the topmost judicial post?
Seven years ago in January 2001, Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin started his tenure as Chief Justice of Malaysia publicly admitting the “unpalatable fact” that “public confidence in the judiciary has eroded in the last few years” and that this negative perception had held back the country’s development as multinational corporations and foreign investors were reluctant to invest because they perceived there was no level playing field, causing them to prefer arbitration outside Malaysia in the event of dispute.
Seven years later, after being a Prime Minister for more than four years, Abdullah is making exactly the same complaint about the woes of the judiciary as that made by Tun Dzaiddin in 2001! Is Abdullah prepared to accept the responsibility not only for the failure to institute judicial reforms but also for the further slides in public confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary in the past four years?
As for police reforms, is Abdullah now prepared to acknowledge the message of the March 8 “political tsunami” that Malaysians want an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to reduce crime and restore to Malaysians their fundamental rights to be free from crime and the fear of crime?
On the fronts of anti-corruption and media freedom, what reforms could Abdullah boast about in the past four years?
Saturday, April 12, 2008
How poor?
Can you imagine how poor this family is?What do you think is their daily meals?
Can you imagine there is a group of people that is soo poor?
Will write more another time!
Break in of car reported in Chinese Presses.
All major Chinese papers reported today on the break in of my car.
Nanyang Siang Pau report.
YB Khoo called press conference at my clinic yesterday.
New window glass was being replaced by Mr. Teoh, Ah Wai and assistant at Esso Station, Bukit Baru.
Nanyang Siang Pau report.
YB Khoo called press conference at my clinic yesterday.
New window glass was being replaced by Mr. Teoh, Ah Wai and assistant at Esso Station, Bukit Baru.Friday, April 11, 2008
Security is bad, real bad, what to do?
Went to Pasar Malam yesterday at Taman Harta Pertama, Bukit Baru, Melaka at 5.10pm. Bought some fruits,eggs and tau fo, within 10 minutes, we were back at the car, Melody, my daughter first noticed the window of the car was broken. My computer bag with no valuable to the thief (I have valuable documents) was gone . However, 2 other bags with valuables were around!
Went to the Police Station immediately, thinking, at least a detective with a gun can come to search the place. The police did not do that.
As fast as I could, without completing the report, I went back to the scene of crime. Start asking the car washing boys around if they see any one with the black computer bag. Went to the mosque, the Abang told me last week, the Tabung Derma in the mosque was stolen. Even the mosque is not spared! Went round the area, look at all the rubbish bins to see if my bag was there. Expecting the thief to chuck the bag as soon as he did not find what he wanted, the computer! Told some friends around the area to look out for my bag!
Went back to the Bukit Baru Police Station to complete my report. After spending 1 hour, was told that I need to report to Sjn Subri at Melaka Tengah, he is not free to come to Bukit Baru, I have to go. Spent at least another hour there!
By the time I finished my report, while driving home, I looked at my watch, it was already 8.30pm. I asked myself, what is the use of reporting?
Can any one give me some feedback?
This is not my first report at the Station. The Mercedes Logo in front of the car had been stolen 3 times! wasting a lot of time reporting!
Do you think so?
In fact the police ladies in the police station at Bukit Baru told me last Thursday, there was a similar case of car window breaking at the same Pasar Malam! Did the police take any action?
I felt like going next Thursday, during the Pasar Malam to watch over the place (ambush! the culprit.) Do you think I should do the detective job? Seriously, I am thinking of doing it! Who will provide me with a gun?
Lo and behold, broken window!
Broken window, the broken glass on the car floor.
Broken car window.
Broken window was covered with plastic sheet to prevent rain water from getting into the car.
My blue car was parked beside the main road.
You can see my blue car on the left, the mosque nearby on the right.
On the same side of the road where the car was parked.
Opposite side of the road where Pasar Malam was located.
Position where my car was parked.
See Sjn. Subri in his office.
Went to Melaka Tengah.
Reported to the police at Bukit Baru. Got the report. Was told to see the detective at Melaka Tengah.
Good samaritan, Mr Yap Hon Chong found the bag in the drain out side of RHD Bank in Bukit Baru! Thank God for him. All the things in the bag are intact. He brought the bag at 12 noon. He noticed my name cards in the bag, that led him to my clinic.
Went to the Police Station immediately, thinking, at least a detective with a gun can come to search the place. The police did not do that.
As fast as I could, without completing the report, I went back to the scene of crime. Start asking the car washing boys around if they see any one with the black computer bag. Went to the mosque, the Abang told me last week, the Tabung Derma in the mosque was stolen. Even the mosque is not spared! Went round the area, look at all the rubbish bins to see if my bag was there. Expecting the thief to chuck the bag as soon as he did not find what he wanted, the computer! Told some friends around the area to look out for my bag!
Went back to the Bukit Baru Police Station to complete my report. After spending 1 hour, was told that I need to report to Sjn Subri at Melaka Tengah, he is not free to come to Bukit Baru, I have to go. Spent at least another hour there!
By the time I finished my report, while driving home, I looked at my watch, it was already 8.30pm. I asked myself, what is the use of reporting?
Can any one give me some feedback?
This is not my first report at the Station. The Mercedes Logo in front of the car had been stolen 3 times! wasting a lot of time reporting!
Do you think so?
In fact the police ladies in the police station at Bukit Baru told me last Thursday, there was a similar case of car window breaking at the same Pasar Malam! Did the police take any action?
I felt like going next Thursday, during the Pasar Malam to watch over the place (ambush! the culprit.) Do you think I should do the detective job? Seriously, I am thinking of doing it! Who will provide me with a gun?
Lo and behold, broken window!
Broken window, the broken glass on the car floor.
Broken car window.
Broken window was covered with plastic sheet to prevent rain water from getting into the car.
My blue car was parked beside the main road.
You can see my blue car on the left, the mosque nearby on the right.
On the same side of the road where the car was parked.
Opposite side of the road where Pasar Malam was located.
Position where my car was parked.
See Sjn. Subri in his office.
Went to Melaka Tengah.
Reported to the police at Bukit Baru. Got the report. Was told to see the detective at Melaka Tengah.
Good samaritan, Mr Yap Hon Chong found the bag in the drain out side of RHD Bank in Bukit Baru! Thank God for him. All the things in the bag are intact. He brought the bag at 12 noon. He noticed my name cards in the bag, that led him to my clinic.Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Bantu Bersihkan Bandaraya Melaka!
This morning on my way to my clinic, I met the rubbish truck and workers emptying the rubbish near my clinic. the stench was horrible! You could smell the reek of decayed flesh! What can we do? Please give your feedbacks. Please observe the road near the dump site. See the stale liquid below the truck that emit the offensive smell!
Puff up- Enlargement of prices
Reported in all the major Chinese newspapers today Tuesday April 8, 2008. Details, please read yesterday post on Inflation.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Inflation! People going to suffer!
Mr. Lim Joo Leong, the owner of the Hard Ware shop, complained to me that his licence fee for selling herbicides had been raised by the Jabatan Pertanian Malaysia from RM20.00 to RM250.00 per 3 years. The increase is more than 1000%. Will that cause inflation?He told us, it is even worst for the whole saler, they have to pay RM750.00 for the licence fee! 
Mr Lim is holding up the Licence he paid for 2005 to 2008 which was RM20.00. The other man is YB Khoo.
Closed up photo of his licence.
Chinese reporters taking down notes during the press conference today, Monday March 7, 2008 at 12.30 noon.
Mr. Lim, sitting at his shop counter.
I was at his shop, getting more details of his complaint. He told me long ago, of course that was very long ago during his father's time there was hardly any fee. Now, you not only need fees for so many things, eg. cement, iron rods, chemical. Different licence fee for different items you sell! He also complained that he cannot place his goods at the corridor, for which he had been fined by the Majalis Perbandaran. Reason? that space is for pedestrians. Yet, he compained that now you can pay a fee, then you can use the corridor, or 5 foot way to display your goods." What sort of rule is it? Is all up to them! What they want is money!" he lamented.
Eventually, the cost will all be passed down to you and me, the consumers. The farmer buy herbicide at a ver high price, he surely has to charge more for his vegetables that you buy. Mr Lim had stopped selling the herbicide for a few months now. Why? he told us for a 10 litres herbicide, used to cost him RM165.00 last year, this January cost RM240.00 and now, the latest is costing him, his price is RM428.00! He will not sell now! Why? "the customers will scold me! they will not understand" he said.
What do you think the Government should do?What can we do? Thank you for your feedbacks!
Pak Lah said he had heard the message of March 8, note taken. When I told Mr. Lim, he said it is no use hearing, we want to see what you do! Hopefully, all the Pak Lah kaki will take note of the complaint.
Mr Lim is holding up the Licence he paid for 2005 to 2008 which was RM20.00. The other man is YB Khoo.
Closed up photo of his licence.
Chinese reporters taking down notes during the press conference today, Monday March 7, 2008 at 12.30 noon.
Mr. Lim, sitting at his shop counter.
I was at his shop, getting more details of his complaint. He told me long ago, of course that was very long ago during his father's time there was hardly any fee. Now, you not only need fees for so many things, eg. cement, iron rods, chemical. Different licence fee for different items you sell! He also complained that he cannot place his goods at the corridor, for which he had been fined by the Majalis Perbandaran. Reason? that space is for pedestrians. Yet, he compained that now you can pay a fee, then you can use the corridor, or 5 foot way to display your goods." What sort of rule is it? Is all up to them! What they want is money!" he lamented.Eventually, the cost will all be passed down to you and me, the consumers. The farmer buy herbicide at a ver high price, he surely has to charge more for his vegetables that you buy. Mr Lim had stopped selling the herbicide for a few months now. Why? he told us for a 10 litres herbicide, used to cost him RM165.00 last year, this January cost RM240.00 and now, the latest is costing him, his price is RM428.00! He will not sell now! Why? "the customers will scold me! they will not understand" he said.
What do you think the Government should do?What can we do? Thank you for your feedbacks!
Pak Lah said he had heard the message of March 8, note taken. When I told Mr. Lim, he said it is no use hearing, we want to see what you do! Hopefully, all the Pak Lah kaki will take note of the complaint.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
"Political tsunami" is for change to restore justice, freedom, democracy and good governance. Not for Islamic state or hudud laws!
By Mr. Lim Kit Siang
March 8 “politic al tsunami” is for change to restore justice, freedom, democracy and good governance and not for Islamic state or hudud laws
At the joint media conference on April 1 to announce PKR, DAP and PAS decision to take the next logical step to the March 8, 2008 political tsunami with the three parties tentatively agreeing to establish a Pakatan Rakyat (a proposal and term subject to confirmation by the three respective parties), I said that March 8 general election results were a clear and unmistakable message from the people that they want the three parties to work together to bring about changes in the country to restore justice, freedom, democracy and good governance – and not for an Islamic state or hudud laws.
I was asked by a reporter today whether my statement that the March 8 political tsunami was a demand for change to restore justrice, freedom, democracy and good governance and not for an Islamic state and hudud laws applied only to non-Muslims and non-Malays.
I replied in the negative, as I believe that it is not only the non-Malays and non-Muslims but also the Malays and Muslims who voted solidly on March 8 for justice, freedom, democracy and good governance and not for Islamic state and hudud laws - producing for the first time in 50 years of Malaysian electoral history the national phenomenon of cross-race and cross-religion voting - DAP voters voted for PAS candidates and PAS voters voting for DAP candidates.
Just as it was a great mistake after the 1999 general election to regard its results as a vote for Islamic state and hudud laws (resulting in the DAP leaving the Barisan Alternative in 2001), it will be an equally cardinal error to interpret the March 8, 2008 general election result as a mandate for Islamic state and hudud laws.
It is pertinent to revisit the reasons why DAP had to pull out of Barisan Alternative in 2001. The following is an extract from a statement I made on 30th June 2001, entitled: “BA at crossroads and no more tenable”:
Barisan Alternative is at the crossroads as it is no more tenable with PAS leaders openly flouting the BA common manifesto for “A Just and Democratic Malaysia” and disregarding the opposition of the other three component parties towards an Islamic State.
The Barisan Alternative would not have been formed in the first place to take on the Barisan Nasional as one united front in the 1999 general election if PAS was not prepared to respect the opposition of DAP, Keadilan and PRM to an Islamic State, focussing on the common objectives of restoring justice, freedom, democracy and good governance in Malaysia.
Barisan Alternative leaders should face up to the unpalatable fact that in the next general election, whether 2003 or 2004, if the voters are faced with the choice between an Islamic State and a sixth term of Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as Prime Minister, the choice would be the latter as Mahathir would already be close to eighty and cannot remain at the helm of government for long while voting for an Islamic State would be the start of a journey which could not inspire confidence and hope from the experience of other countries.
Before the 1999 general election, PAS leaders were at pains to help the other Barisan Alternative parties and leaders to assure the people that the Opposition Front was founded purely on the common objectives of restoring justice, freedom, democracy and good governance and was no agreement on an Islamic State. PAS leaders even went out of their way to explain that there was no basis to worry about an Islamic State as PAS was fielding less than one-third of the parliamentary candidates and could not have the two-thirds parliamentary majority necessary to alter the Constitution for the establishment of an Islamic State.
Of late, however, PAS leaders have decided to openly and publicly disregard the opposition of the other component parties of the Barisan Alternative to an Islamic State and flout the Barisan Alternative Manifesto “Towards A Just and Democratic Malaysia” by publicly reiterating its commitment to an Islamic State.
For instance, the Selangor Bar Journal May 2001 in an exclusive interview with the PAS deputy president Abdul Hadi bin Awang said that at the top of the agenda of a PAS-led Federal Government once it is returned to power is to commence implementing Islamic law, starting with the amendment of Article 4 of the Malaysian Constitution to enable Islamic enactment which are in conflict with laws passed by Parliament to prevail, such as the death sentence for apostasy.
Hadi said that if Malaysia came under Islamic rule an act against the religion would be construed as an act against the State, which would be tantamount to treason for which the sentence was death.
He said: “The laws on apostasy only bind Muslims and do not affect non-Muslims but a non-Muslim should be aware of the consequences of apostasy before converting because then he would come under the purview of Islamic law.”
PAS leaders should not expect Malaysians, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to be unconcerned about such a position, not only from the human rights principles of freedom and justice, but also because of the raging controversy among Muslims including a significant body of opinion among the ulama from the earliest Islamic history that apostasy is not a capital crime as the Qu’ran is completely silent on the death penalty for apostasy.
PAS president Datuk Fadzil Noor from Manchester yesterday urged the DAP not to make a hasty decision by leaving the opposition front over the Islamic state issue or the DAP will be walking right into the Barisan Nasional trap.
DAP will not take the “easy way out” or “walk right into the Barisan Nasional trap” and this was why the DAP had insisted immediately after the last general election that there should be Barisan Alternative leadership dialogues to iron out our ideological differences over an Islamic State. I must say, however, that the dialogue held on June 16, 2001 to deal with the issue had been most unsatisfactory.
The issue confronting the Barisan Alternative is whether the PAS leaders are prepared to respect the DAP’s opposition to an Islamic State in Malaysia not because of anti-Islam sentiments but because an Islamic State in multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia is not compatible with parliamentary democracy, power-sharing in a plural society, human rights and individual freedoms, women’s rights and social tolerance.
DAP respects PAS for its ideological position on the Islamic State, but in a modern, multi-racial and multi-religious society where non-Muslims comprise some 40 per cent of the population, and where it is not only non-Malays but Malays who oppose the establishment of an Islamic State, is PAS prepared to be realistic and concede that its Islamic State concept is not a practical or feasible proposition or option for Malaysia?
The rest is history. Can we larn from the lessons of history?
March 8 “politic al tsunami” is for change to restore justice, freedom, democracy and good governance and not for Islamic state or hudud laws
At the joint media conference on April 1 to announce PKR, DAP and PAS decision to take the next logical step to the March 8, 2008 political tsunami with the three parties tentatively agreeing to establish a Pakatan Rakyat (a proposal and term subject to confirmation by the three respective parties), I said that March 8 general election results were a clear and unmistakable message from the people that they want the three parties to work together to bring about changes in the country to restore justice, freedom, democracy and good governance – and not for an Islamic state or hudud laws.
I was asked by a reporter today whether my statement that the March 8 political tsunami was a demand for change to restore justrice, freedom, democracy and good governance and not for an Islamic state and hudud laws applied only to non-Muslims and non-Malays.
I replied in the negative, as I believe that it is not only the non-Malays and non-Muslims but also the Malays and Muslims who voted solidly on March 8 for justice, freedom, democracy and good governance and not for Islamic state and hudud laws - producing for the first time in 50 years of Malaysian electoral history the national phenomenon of cross-race and cross-religion voting - DAP voters voted for PAS candidates and PAS voters voting for DAP candidates.
Just as it was a great mistake after the 1999 general election to regard its results as a vote for Islamic state and hudud laws (resulting in the DAP leaving the Barisan Alternative in 2001), it will be an equally cardinal error to interpret the March 8, 2008 general election result as a mandate for Islamic state and hudud laws.
It is pertinent to revisit the reasons why DAP had to pull out of Barisan Alternative in 2001. The following is an extract from a statement I made on 30th June 2001, entitled: “BA at crossroads and no more tenable”:
Barisan Alternative is at the crossroads as it is no more tenable with PAS leaders openly flouting the BA common manifesto for “A Just and Democratic Malaysia” and disregarding the opposition of the other three component parties towards an Islamic State.
The Barisan Alternative would not have been formed in the first place to take on the Barisan Nasional as one united front in the 1999 general election if PAS was not prepared to respect the opposition of DAP, Keadilan and PRM to an Islamic State, focussing on the common objectives of restoring justice, freedom, democracy and good governance in Malaysia.
Barisan Alternative leaders should face up to the unpalatable fact that in the next general election, whether 2003 or 2004, if the voters are faced with the choice between an Islamic State and a sixth term of Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as Prime Minister, the choice would be the latter as Mahathir would already be close to eighty and cannot remain at the helm of government for long while voting for an Islamic State would be the start of a journey which could not inspire confidence and hope from the experience of other countries.
Before the 1999 general election, PAS leaders were at pains to help the other Barisan Alternative parties and leaders to assure the people that the Opposition Front was founded purely on the common objectives of restoring justice, freedom, democracy and good governance and was no agreement on an Islamic State. PAS leaders even went out of their way to explain that there was no basis to worry about an Islamic State as PAS was fielding less than one-third of the parliamentary candidates and could not have the two-thirds parliamentary majority necessary to alter the Constitution for the establishment of an Islamic State.
Of late, however, PAS leaders have decided to openly and publicly disregard the opposition of the other component parties of the Barisan Alternative to an Islamic State and flout the Barisan Alternative Manifesto “Towards A Just and Democratic Malaysia” by publicly reiterating its commitment to an Islamic State.
For instance, the Selangor Bar Journal May 2001 in an exclusive interview with the PAS deputy president Abdul Hadi bin Awang said that at the top of the agenda of a PAS-led Federal Government once it is returned to power is to commence implementing Islamic law, starting with the amendment of Article 4 of the Malaysian Constitution to enable Islamic enactment which are in conflict with laws passed by Parliament to prevail, such as the death sentence for apostasy.
Hadi said that if Malaysia came under Islamic rule an act against the religion would be construed as an act against the State, which would be tantamount to treason for which the sentence was death.
He said: “The laws on apostasy only bind Muslims and do not affect non-Muslims but a non-Muslim should be aware of the consequences of apostasy before converting because then he would come under the purview of Islamic law.”
PAS leaders should not expect Malaysians, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to be unconcerned about such a position, not only from the human rights principles of freedom and justice, but also because of the raging controversy among Muslims including a significant body of opinion among the ulama from the earliest Islamic history that apostasy is not a capital crime as the Qu’ran is completely silent on the death penalty for apostasy.
PAS president Datuk Fadzil Noor from Manchester yesterday urged the DAP not to make a hasty decision by leaving the opposition front over the Islamic state issue or the DAP will be walking right into the Barisan Nasional trap.
DAP will not take the “easy way out” or “walk right into the Barisan Nasional trap” and this was why the DAP had insisted immediately after the last general election that there should be Barisan Alternative leadership dialogues to iron out our ideological differences over an Islamic State. I must say, however, that the dialogue held on June 16, 2001 to deal with the issue had been most unsatisfactory.
The issue confronting the Barisan Alternative is whether the PAS leaders are prepared to respect the DAP’s opposition to an Islamic State in Malaysia not because of anti-Islam sentiments but because an Islamic State in multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia is not compatible with parliamentary democracy, power-sharing in a plural society, human rights and individual freedoms, women’s rights and social tolerance.
DAP respects PAS for its ideological position on the Islamic State, but in a modern, multi-racial and multi-religious society where non-Muslims comprise some 40 per cent of the population, and where it is not only non-Malays but Malays who oppose the establishment of an Islamic State, is PAS prepared to be realistic and concede that its Islamic State concept is not a practical or feasible proposition or option for Malaysia?
The rest is history. Can we larn from the lessons of history?
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Shabery Cheek's admission of ISA abuses
By Mr. Lim Kit Siang
Shabery Cheek’s admission of ISA abuses - immediate release of Hindraf 5 and Inquiry Commission into 1987 Ops Lalang?
The present Umno Cabinet and leadership have admitted that in the past there had been gross abuses of the Internal Security Act (ISA) against dissent.
In a new series of attacks against former Umno President and Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad by Umno Ministers the new Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek said that during Mahathir’s leadership “many were detained under the ISA supposedly because they were a threat to national security when in actual fact they were a threat to his leadership…” in response to Mahathir’s charges that Umno leaders have become “yes-men”.
Shabery Cheek was clearly referring to the Operation Lalang mass ISA detentions in 1987, where 106 people were arrested, representing parliamentarians, politicians, civil/human rights leaders and social/religious activists.
Although a few low-level Umno, MCA and Gerakan political leaders were among the 106 persons detained in the initial crackdown of Operation Lalang in October 1987 – which included the closure of four newspapers - none of them were among the 40 who were formally served with two-year detention orders after the 60-day interrogative custody and dispatched to Kamunting Detention Centre – which included seven serving DAP MPs at the time, viz: Karpal Singh, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw, Lim Guan Eng, Lau Dak Kee, the late P. Patto, the late V. David and myself.
Is Shabery Cheek prepared to represent the present Barisan Nasional Cabinet and leadership to admit that the entire 1987 Ops Lalang ISA crackdown, both against the 106 persons initially detained as well as the 40 persons who were formally detained after the 60-day custody, had been a gross abuse of power by Mahathir, his Cabinet and government; extend a formal government apology to the victims of Operation Lalang – not only the ISA detainees and their families and the closure of the four newspapers but also to the country for promoting a “yes-men culture” for some three decades – and establish a commission of inquiry into the 1987 Operation Lalang to ensure that such gross abuses of power could not recur in Malaysia in future.
However, the most immediate and pressing question is why the new Abdullah Cabinet is not prepared to break from the bad habits of the past and stop using draconian laws like the ISA to clamp down on dissent and promote a “yes-men culture” by unconditionally releasing newly-elected Selangor DAP State Assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah A. Manoharan and four other Hindraf leaders, P. Uthayakumar, V. Ganabatirau, R. Kenghadharan and T. Vasantha Kumar from ISA detention.
The ISA detention of the Hindraf Five is the latest blatant example of the abuse of the ISA to detain persons not because they are a threat to national security but a threat to MIC and Barisan Nasional leadership as they refused to be “yes men” – as happened repeatedly in the past and now admitted by the Information Minister.
Is Shabery Cheek prepared to get the support of other Ministers to raise in the Cabinet on Wednesday for the immediate and unconditional release of the Hindraf Five under the ISA as well as for a Commission of Inquiry into the 1987 Operation Lalang on the mass ISA detentions and the closure of four newspapers to purge the country of the “yes-men culture”?
Share on Facebook
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 5th, 2008 (2 hours ago) at 12: 39.01 (2 hours ago) and is filed under Hindraf
Shabery Cheek’s admission of ISA abuses - immediate release of Hindraf 5 and Inquiry Commission into 1987 Ops Lalang?
The present Umno Cabinet and leadership have admitted that in the past there had been gross abuses of the Internal Security Act (ISA) against dissent.
In a new series of attacks against former Umno President and Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad by Umno Ministers the new Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek said that during Mahathir’s leadership “many were detained under the ISA supposedly because they were a threat to national security when in actual fact they were a threat to his leadership…” in response to Mahathir’s charges that Umno leaders have become “yes-men”.
Shabery Cheek was clearly referring to the Operation Lalang mass ISA detentions in 1987, where 106 people were arrested, representing parliamentarians, politicians, civil/human rights leaders and social/religious activists.
Although a few low-level Umno, MCA and Gerakan political leaders were among the 106 persons detained in the initial crackdown of Operation Lalang in October 1987 – which included the closure of four newspapers - none of them were among the 40 who were formally served with two-year detention orders after the 60-day interrogative custody and dispatched to Kamunting Detention Centre – which included seven serving DAP MPs at the time, viz: Karpal Singh, Dr. Tan Seng Giaw, Lim Guan Eng, Lau Dak Kee, the late P. Patto, the late V. David and myself.
Is Shabery Cheek prepared to represent the present Barisan Nasional Cabinet and leadership to admit that the entire 1987 Ops Lalang ISA crackdown, both against the 106 persons initially detained as well as the 40 persons who were formally detained after the 60-day custody, had been a gross abuse of power by Mahathir, his Cabinet and government; extend a formal government apology to the victims of Operation Lalang – not only the ISA detainees and their families and the closure of the four newspapers but also to the country for promoting a “yes-men culture” for some three decades – and establish a commission of inquiry into the 1987 Operation Lalang to ensure that such gross abuses of power could not recur in Malaysia in future.
However, the most immediate and pressing question is why the new Abdullah Cabinet is not prepared to break from the bad habits of the past and stop using draconian laws like the ISA to clamp down on dissent and promote a “yes-men culture” by unconditionally releasing newly-elected Selangor DAP State Assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah A. Manoharan and four other Hindraf leaders, P. Uthayakumar, V. Ganabatirau, R. Kenghadharan and T. Vasantha Kumar from ISA detention.
The ISA detention of the Hindraf Five is the latest blatant example of the abuse of the ISA to detain persons not because they are a threat to national security but a threat to MIC and Barisan Nasional leadership as they refused to be “yes men” – as happened repeatedly in the past and now admitted by the Information Minister.
Is Shabery Cheek prepared to get the support of other Ministers to raise in the Cabinet on Wednesday for the immediate and unconditional release of the Hindraf Five under the ISA as well as for a Commission of Inquiry into the 1987 Operation Lalang on the mass ISA detentions and the closure of four newspapers to purge the country of the “yes-men culture”?
Share on Facebook
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 5th, 2008 (2 hours ago) at 12: 39.01 (2 hours ago) and is filed under Hindraf
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Speech by Lim Guan Eng
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Speech by Lim Guan Eng
Since election`s coming, and everybody`s acting as if they cared.... so here`s my part. I found this speech a couple of months back, and for some reason, I`ve saved it. Perhaps the idea of having that Malaysia we all dream of, makes this speech sounds so persuasive.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In 1963 together with our brethren from Sabah and Sarawak, we started calling ourselves Malaysians. Our nationhood was based on the 1957 Merdeka social contract that promised us much but delivered little.50 years ago, we were promised democracy. We were promised justice. We were promised equality. We were promised rule of law. We were promised integrity. We were promised to be treated with human dignity and we were promised freedom.We are still awaiting these promises. Why were these promises unfulfilled?First our fundamental human rights, civil and political liberties embodied in the Federal Constitution as the highest law of the land, were slowly but surely emasculated, diminished, diluted and finally rendered meaningless by repeated constitutional amendments. As many as the years Malaysia became independent was far exceeded by the number of times our Federal Constitution was amended.Two, those constitutional provisions that could not be amended was ignored and summarily shoved aside by a unilateral declaration by the Prime Minister on 29 September 2001 that Malaysia is an Islamic state. No heed was paid to the pronouncements made by our first three Prime Ministers prior to the 80s nor to the ruling of the highest court in our land in 1988 that the Federal Constitution clearly defines Malaysia as a secular state.Third, the promulgation of state interventionist economic policies led by the New Economic Policy(NEP) that promoted racial preferential quotas under the pretext of equitable wealth redistribution and sanctioned political patronage and self-aggrandisement under the guise of wealth creation. Whilst the goal of the NEP was also to eradicate poverty regardless of race, the primary focus was the creation of bumiputera millionaires and an accelerated expansion of a bumi business community by all means necessary.This primary focus gave NEP a bad name as a vehicle for corruption, cronyism and abuse of power especially when it was extended beyond its 20-year shelf life in 1990. US finance house Morgan Stanley estimated US$100 billion lost to corruption since the 1980s.The NEP also alienated and angered many non-bumis who could not understand why they had to sacrifice for the wealthy bumis. Non-Malays are not angry with the NEP for helping poor Malays. Neither are Malays incensed with the NEP for helping poor non-Malays. What all Malaysians are furious with the NEP is that the NEP is used as a tool of crony capitalism and patronage to enrich the wealthy.Finally, the insidious erosion of our national psyche by systematically dividing Malaysians by race and religion – bumis and non-bumis, Muslims and non-Muslims. Whilst we can blame the British for introducing this divide and rule policy, the insidious fault lines created has sheared our souls and haunts future generations by creating many nations of different races within a nation-state. Ethnicity and religious beliefs not universal values of justice will shape outcomes.Unlike in America where everyone is an American, here in Malaysia we are either Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans. This is probably the greatest injustice of all in refusing to treat every Malaysian equally. Bangsa, agama dan negara is only directed at one community.We continue to be divided by the colour of our skin or the beliefs in our hearts or our political affiliations even though our blood is of the same colour. Instead of one people, one Bangsa Malaysia in a secular state we have racial dominance and an Islamic state. What is so difficult about accepting Bangsa Malaysia which was described by Mahathir “as people being able to identify themselves with the country, speak Bahasa Malaysia and accept the Federal Constitution”.Until we revert back to Bangsa Malaysia and ketuanan Malaysia, can we reclaim our Merdeka heritage and the promises made. The damage done from such misguided policies is most obvious in the economic sphere. The foreign specialists of Malaysian affairs can not fail to be puzzled at the stubborn refusal of ordinary Malaysians, who are no less educated and intelligent than them, to see through the self-serving economic policies that are detrimental to the common good of the country.Perhaps such inertia explains why the European Union Ambassador to Malaysia Dr Thierry Rommel was moved to severely criticize the NEP as anti-competitive, a lack of a level playing field and an unacceptable cost of doing business in Malaysia. He added, “Together with an inefficient public service, corruption and the questionable and unchecked practices of Malay preferential treatment, it had also dampened the business environment and economy of the country.”Even the government has conceded the defects of the NEP when it exempted investors in the Iskandar Development Region in Johor from the NEP. A million Malaysians who voted with their feet by emigrating overseas for the last 35 years is the strongest indictment of the failure, injustices and discrimination of the NEP. Money lost can be earned back but human resources and brain power is irreplaceable.These are amongst the many challenges we face in realizing the promises of Merdeka 50 years ago. What’s stopped us from overcoming them is the failure of leadership, the absence of moral courage and outrage as well as yes the smallness of our politics.We should look at the big picture. Globalisation is upon us and yet we are so unprepared. Looking at the big picture entails an international global mindset that empowers every Malaysian with equal opportunity and not entraps us with mediocrity and mindless slogans of Towering Malaysian, Life-long Education and Islam hadhari.To lead Malaysia into the 21st century, we need intelligent, rational and unprejudiced Malaysians that respect diversity. There is no room for MPs who are foul-mouthed or disparage minorities and demean women as sex objects. Only decent and competent Malaysians can make Malaysia better.At a time when we are celebrating our 50th Merdeka celebrations, we should be looking forward to one national ideal grounded on democratic principles of justice, respect for human rights, freedom, integrity and human dignity. Let us transform Malaysia through Malaysian First, based on democracy, political equality, equal opportunity and social justice that ensures economic prosperity for all.Let us transform Malaysia into a crime-free neighbourhood, especially for women and children. Malaysians should enjoy the four basic rights of security – to live, work, study and play in a safe and secure environment.Let us transform Malaysia that pursues excellence and values our best and brightest students by rewarding them with university places and scholarships.Let us transform Malaysia that shares our country’s wealth with workers who can live with dignity with a minimum wage.Let us transform Malaysia that is environmentally-friendly with sustainable living consonant as one with nature and all beings created by God where orang utans, hornbills, pygmy elephants, tigers and rhinos roam freely with undisturbed abandon.Let us transform Malaysian sports and football into a team we can take pride in, which is praised rather than pilloried as a top 50 footballing nation instead of the present lowly 150th ranking.Let us transform Malaysia from what it is now to what it should have been as envisaged by our founding fathers by restoring the Merdeka Constitution. The original Malaysian Merdeka Constitution did not allow for preventive laws such as the ISA that sanctioned detention without trail. Neither were there repressive laws such as the Printing Presses & Publications Act and freedom of the press was sacrosanct. Not only was there independence of the judiciary, there was independence of the Elections Commission where no gerrymandering was permitted and variances in voters between constituencies were limited to only 15%. And there were local government elections then unlike now.Let us also transform Malaysia into a civil society that is inclusive. We can no longer rely on the traditional government and business sector to fulfill our expectations and needs. To ensure that every ordinary Malaysian is allowed to participate in the democratic and political process some of the elements of civil society must be evident: free association and expression; regulated, but open and market-oriented economies; aid to the poor, orphaned, elderly, sick, or disabled; and finally, civic cultures that cherish diversity and individual freedoms but also respect human needs for community and shared visions of the common good.Can we discard our diverse ethnic background and different religious beliefs for Bangsa Malaysia? I have faith in the common decency, respect for diversity and proper sense of justice in our fellow citizenry to believe that Bangsa Malaysia Boleh!Only by transforming Malaysia through unification of all our hearts and souls as one Bangsa Malaysia, can we ensure prosperity and fulfill the promises made 50 years ago during those halcyon days when cries of Merdeka Merdeka Merdeka rang throughout the land.Aspirations without accomplishments mean nothing. We must commit ourselves to do our duty with faith and without fear to accomplish our aspirations of political equality, economic prosperity shared by all in a civil society that cherishes democracy, justice and the rule of law.
Speech by Lim Guan Eng
Since election`s coming, and everybody`s acting as if they cared.... so here`s my part. I found this speech a couple of months back, and for some reason, I`ve saved it. Perhaps the idea of having that Malaysia we all dream of, makes this speech sounds so persuasive.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In 1963 together with our brethren from Sabah and Sarawak, we started calling ourselves Malaysians. Our nationhood was based on the 1957 Merdeka social contract that promised us much but delivered little.50 years ago, we were promised democracy. We were promised justice. We were promised equality. We were promised rule of law. We were promised integrity. We were promised to be treated with human dignity and we were promised freedom.We are still awaiting these promises. Why were these promises unfulfilled?First our fundamental human rights, civil and political liberties embodied in the Federal Constitution as the highest law of the land, were slowly but surely emasculated, diminished, diluted and finally rendered meaningless by repeated constitutional amendments. As many as the years Malaysia became independent was far exceeded by the number of times our Federal Constitution was amended.Two, those constitutional provisions that could not be amended was ignored and summarily shoved aside by a unilateral declaration by the Prime Minister on 29 September 2001 that Malaysia is an Islamic state. No heed was paid to the pronouncements made by our first three Prime Ministers prior to the 80s nor to the ruling of the highest court in our land in 1988 that the Federal Constitution clearly defines Malaysia as a secular state.Third, the promulgation of state interventionist economic policies led by the New Economic Policy(NEP) that promoted racial preferential quotas under the pretext of equitable wealth redistribution and sanctioned political patronage and self-aggrandisement under the guise of wealth creation. Whilst the goal of the NEP was also to eradicate poverty regardless of race, the primary focus was the creation of bumiputera millionaires and an accelerated expansion of a bumi business community by all means necessary.This primary focus gave NEP a bad name as a vehicle for corruption, cronyism and abuse of power especially when it was extended beyond its 20-year shelf life in 1990. US finance house Morgan Stanley estimated US$100 billion lost to corruption since the 1980s.The NEP also alienated and angered many non-bumis who could not understand why they had to sacrifice for the wealthy bumis. Non-Malays are not angry with the NEP for helping poor Malays. Neither are Malays incensed with the NEP for helping poor non-Malays. What all Malaysians are furious with the NEP is that the NEP is used as a tool of crony capitalism and patronage to enrich the wealthy.Finally, the insidious erosion of our national psyche by systematically dividing Malaysians by race and religion – bumis and non-bumis, Muslims and non-Muslims. Whilst we can blame the British for introducing this divide and rule policy, the insidious fault lines created has sheared our souls and haunts future generations by creating many nations of different races within a nation-state. Ethnicity and religious beliefs not universal values of justice will shape outcomes.Unlike in America where everyone is an American, here in Malaysia we are either Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans. This is probably the greatest injustice of all in refusing to treat every Malaysian equally. Bangsa, agama dan negara is only directed at one community.We continue to be divided by the colour of our skin or the beliefs in our hearts or our political affiliations even though our blood is of the same colour. Instead of one people, one Bangsa Malaysia in a secular state we have racial dominance and an Islamic state. What is so difficult about accepting Bangsa Malaysia which was described by Mahathir “as people being able to identify themselves with the country, speak Bahasa Malaysia and accept the Federal Constitution”.Until we revert back to Bangsa Malaysia and ketuanan Malaysia, can we reclaim our Merdeka heritage and the promises made. The damage done from such misguided policies is most obvious in the economic sphere. The foreign specialists of Malaysian affairs can not fail to be puzzled at the stubborn refusal of ordinary Malaysians, who are no less educated and intelligent than them, to see through the self-serving economic policies that are detrimental to the common good of the country.Perhaps such inertia explains why the European Union Ambassador to Malaysia Dr Thierry Rommel was moved to severely criticize the NEP as anti-competitive, a lack of a level playing field and an unacceptable cost of doing business in Malaysia. He added, “Together with an inefficient public service, corruption and the questionable and unchecked practices of Malay preferential treatment, it had also dampened the business environment and economy of the country.”Even the government has conceded the defects of the NEP when it exempted investors in the Iskandar Development Region in Johor from the NEP. A million Malaysians who voted with their feet by emigrating overseas for the last 35 years is the strongest indictment of the failure, injustices and discrimination of the NEP. Money lost can be earned back but human resources and brain power is irreplaceable.These are amongst the many challenges we face in realizing the promises of Merdeka 50 years ago. What’s stopped us from overcoming them is the failure of leadership, the absence of moral courage and outrage as well as yes the smallness of our politics.We should look at the big picture. Globalisation is upon us and yet we are so unprepared. Looking at the big picture entails an international global mindset that empowers every Malaysian with equal opportunity and not entraps us with mediocrity and mindless slogans of Towering Malaysian, Life-long Education and Islam hadhari.To lead Malaysia into the 21st century, we need intelligent, rational and unprejudiced Malaysians that respect diversity. There is no room for MPs who are foul-mouthed or disparage minorities and demean women as sex objects. Only decent and competent Malaysians can make Malaysia better.At a time when we are celebrating our 50th Merdeka celebrations, we should be looking forward to one national ideal grounded on democratic principles of justice, respect for human rights, freedom, integrity and human dignity. Let us transform Malaysia through Malaysian First, based on democracy, political equality, equal opportunity and social justice that ensures economic prosperity for all.Let us transform Malaysia into a crime-free neighbourhood, especially for women and children. Malaysians should enjoy the four basic rights of security – to live, work, study and play in a safe and secure environment.Let us transform Malaysia that pursues excellence and values our best and brightest students by rewarding them with university places and scholarships.Let us transform Malaysia that shares our country’s wealth with workers who can live with dignity with a minimum wage.Let us transform Malaysia that is environmentally-friendly with sustainable living consonant as one with nature and all beings created by God where orang utans, hornbills, pygmy elephants, tigers and rhinos roam freely with undisturbed abandon.Let us transform Malaysian sports and football into a team we can take pride in, which is praised rather than pilloried as a top 50 footballing nation instead of the present lowly 150th ranking.Let us transform Malaysia from what it is now to what it should have been as envisaged by our founding fathers by restoring the Merdeka Constitution. The original Malaysian Merdeka Constitution did not allow for preventive laws such as the ISA that sanctioned detention without trail. Neither were there repressive laws such as the Printing Presses & Publications Act and freedom of the press was sacrosanct. Not only was there independence of the judiciary, there was independence of the Elections Commission where no gerrymandering was permitted and variances in voters between constituencies were limited to only 15%. And there were local government elections then unlike now.Let us also transform Malaysia into a civil society that is inclusive. We can no longer rely on the traditional government and business sector to fulfill our expectations and needs. To ensure that every ordinary Malaysian is allowed to participate in the democratic and political process some of the elements of civil society must be evident: free association and expression; regulated, but open and market-oriented economies; aid to the poor, orphaned, elderly, sick, or disabled; and finally, civic cultures that cherish diversity and individual freedoms but also respect human needs for community and shared visions of the common good.Can we discard our diverse ethnic background and different religious beliefs for Bangsa Malaysia? I have faith in the common decency, respect for diversity and proper sense of justice in our fellow citizenry to believe that Bangsa Malaysia Boleh!Only by transforming Malaysia through unification of all our hearts and souls as one Bangsa Malaysia, can we ensure prosperity and fulfill the promises made 50 years ago during those halcyon days when cries of Merdeka Merdeka Merdeka rang throughout the land.Aspirations without accomplishments mean nothing. We must commit ourselves to do our duty with faith and without fear to accomplish our aspirations of political equality, economic prosperity shared by all in a civil society that cherishes democracy, justice and the rule of law.
Arrest warrant
Zoomed in version of Sin Chew report.
My press statements appeared in Sin Chew today. The Chinese Newspapers are much more friendly and interesting. My press conference had 4 reporters, all four reported my case in their papers.
Zoomed in version of the police's letter.
The full letter sent by the Police.
Photo: I took this photo at 11.30am on 2.4.2008 outside of Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Melaka (IPK, Melaka).
I received a letter from the Police on 1.4.2008 12.20pm in my clinic (send by a Policeman) that I need to go to IPK, Melaka, the next day at 10am. to help in giving statements on a case of blind man voting.
If I don't appear, they are going to send an arrest warrant to get me! I was told in the letter that is a command!
Notice the word: diperentahkan in paragraph 2 and WARAN TANGKAP in paragraph 3.
Why are they so arrogant?
Anything to do with 50 years rule 0f BN?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Pakatan Rakyat- logical next step of March 8 political tsunami
By Lim Kit Siang
Pakatan Rakyat – logical next step of March 8 political tsunami
Leaders of DAP, PKR and PAS met in Petaling Jaya today and took the logical next step of the March 8 political tsunami – proposing the establishment of new front of the three political parties to be tentatively known as PAKATAN RAKYET.
A joint statement issued after the meeting reads:
The leaders of KeADILan, DAP and PAS met today in furtherance of the meeting held on the 18th of March 2008.
Today’s meeting was attended by, among others, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, YB Lim Kit Siang, YB Dato’ Seri Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang and YB Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.
In today’s meeting, we have proposed to consolidate the cooperation between the three parties under the name “PAKATAN RAKYAT”. This name has been proposed pending confirmation by the respective parties.
Pakatan Rakyat pledges to uphold the rights and interests of all Malaysians, regardless of religion or race, as enshrined in the Constitution.
With the results of the recent elections, the state governments of Kelantan, Kedah, Pulau Pinang, Perak and Selangor will be known as Pakatan Rakyat state governments. The policies of these governments will be conducted in accordance with the policies of Pakatan Rakyat.
To further mutual understanding regarding such policies, a convention of all Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives of Parliament and State Assemblies will be held on the 27th of April 2008.
We have developed and strengthened the structure of Pakatan Rakyat by creating under the Leadership Council, consisting of the leaders of the three parties, a Joint Secretariat consisting of three leaders from each of the three parties. This joint Secretariat will be tasked with building the foundation and framework of the Pakatan Rakyat for ratification by the Leadership Council.
Pakatan Rakyat – logical next step of March 8 political tsunami
Leaders of DAP, PKR and PAS met in Petaling Jaya today and took the logical next step of the March 8 political tsunami – proposing the establishment of new front of the three political parties to be tentatively known as PAKATAN RAKYET.
A joint statement issued after the meeting reads:
The leaders of KeADILan, DAP and PAS met today in furtherance of the meeting held on the 18th of March 2008.
Today’s meeting was attended by, among others, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, YB Lim Kit Siang, YB Dato’ Seri Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang and YB Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.
In today’s meeting, we have proposed to consolidate the cooperation between the three parties under the name “PAKATAN RAKYAT”. This name has been proposed pending confirmation by the respective parties.
Pakatan Rakyat pledges to uphold the rights and interests of all Malaysians, regardless of religion or race, as enshrined in the Constitution.
With the results of the recent elections, the state governments of Kelantan, Kedah, Pulau Pinang, Perak and Selangor will be known as Pakatan Rakyat state governments. The policies of these governments will be conducted in accordance with the policies of Pakatan Rakyat.
To further mutual understanding regarding such policies, a convention of all Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives of Parliament and State Assemblies will be held on the 27th of April 2008.
We have developed and strengthened the structure of Pakatan Rakyat by creating under the Leadership Council, consisting of the leaders of the three parties, a Joint Secretariat consisting of three leaders from each of the three parties. This joint Secretariat will be tasked with building the foundation and framework of the Pakatan Rakyat for ratification by the Leadership Council.
Blind man votes
Let me write briefly on the above since there are friends asking me about the pursuing drama.
If you just type "blind man votes" in the YOU Tube, you will see the video taken by me on March 8th. 2008, yes on the voting day, itself at around 10am.
My friend, Steven Ho, who was the candidate for Dun Bemban, made a police report on the same day.
The police instead of catching the culprit, they are harrasing us. I have all the conversations recorded. Those who like to hear, may ask me.
At one point, I was afraid that they may confiscate my video cam., thus, my evidence in the video, I told the China Press reporter, whom I just met to bring my video cam. away. He did a good job. Thanks to him.
K/ASP Mohd Khairiel Bin Mohd Arif, came to my clinic to investigate the case of "Blind man votes" a few days ago at my clinic. I invited him in and shaked his hands. Just being curious, I asked him of his "tujuan" of seeing me. He could not answer me. Subsequently, he sid that "awak mengarut". So, I ask him what is mengarut. We ended up arguing for he refused to tell me what is mengarut. Of course, I looked up the dictionary on it- "talk nonsense" I demanded an apology, he did. When I asked him why he "minta maáf". He said for taking my time...
He ended up, walking out from my consultation room,threatening to arrest me with a warrant.
Today, I received a letter sent by a police asking me to see Khairiel tomorrow 10am in his office, but rather, I am "diperintahkan"
Want to come along? Need support lah.
Will be there 9.45 am.
Will scan the letter so that you can read how he "perintah" me.
Consulted Demian Yeo, a lawyer, he advised me to go before he send the warrant of arrest! My friends, YB Tey and Damien Yeo was jokingly telling me that if I can get into the prison even for a day, I would be baptised into the political arena.
No, no, no. I am not wanting to do that!
If you just type "blind man votes" in the YOU Tube, you will see the video taken by me on March 8th. 2008, yes on the voting day, itself at around 10am.
My friend, Steven Ho, who was the candidate for Dun Bemban, made a police report on the same day.
The police instead of catching the culprit, they are harrasing us. I have all the conversations recorded. Those who like to hear, may ask me.
At one point, I was afraid that they may confiscate my video cam., thus, my evidence in the video, I told the China Press reporter, whom I just met to bring my video cam. away. He did a good job. Thanks to him.
K/ASP Mohd Khairiel Bin Mohd Arif, came to my clinic to investigate the case of "Blind man votes" a few days ago at my clinic. I invited him in and shaked his hands. Just being curious, I asked him of his "tujuan" of seeing me. He could not answer me. Subsequently, he sid that "awak mengarut". So, I ask him what is mengarut. We ended up arguing for he refused to tell me what is mengarut. Of course, I looked up the dictionary on it- "talk nonsense" I demanded an apology, he did. When I asked him why he "minta maáf". He said for taking my time...
He ended up, walking out from my consultation room,threatening to arrest me with a warrant.
Today, I received a letter sent by a police asking me to see Khairiel tomorrow 10am in his office, but rather, I am "diperintahkan"
Want to come along? Need support lah.
Will be there 9.45 am.
Will scan the letter so that you can read how he "perintah" me.
Consulted Demian Yeo, a lawyer, he advised me to go before he send the warrant of arrest! My friends, YB Tey and Damien Yeo was jokingly telling me that if I can get into the prison even for a day, I would be baptised into the political arena.
No, no, no. I am not wanting to do that!
Soaring food costs
The Star reports
Tuesday April 1, 2008
Soaring food costs
From rice in Peru to miso in Japan, food prices are rising. By KATHERINE CORCORAN.
Food is increasingly getting beyond reach for the poorest nations as consumers worldwide grapple with the spike in prices of basic commodities.
IF YOU’RE seeing your grocery bill go up, you’re not alone. From subsistence farmers eating rice in Ecuador to gourmets feasting on escargot in France, consumers worldwide face rising food prices in what analysts call a perfect storm of conditions.
A rice seller pricing rice for sale at Phnom Penh market. Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen announced a ban on rice exports for two months, to stabilise the cost of the country’s staple food.
Freak weather is a factor. But so are dramatic changes in the global economy, including higher oil prices, lower food reserves and growing consumer demand in China and India.
The world’s poorest nations still harbour the greatest hunger risk. Clashes over bread in Egypt killed at least two people recently, and similar food riots broke out in Burkina Faso and Cameroon earlier this month.
But food protests now crop up even in Italy. And while the price of spaghetti has doubled in Haiti, the cost of miso is packing a hit in Japan.
“It’s not likely that prices will go back to as low as we’re used to,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, economist and secretary of the Intergovernmental Group for Grains for the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). “Currently if you’re in Haiti, unless the government is subsidising consumers, consumers have no choice but to cut consumption. It’s a very brutal scenario, but that’s what it is.”
No one knows that better than Eugene Thermilon, 30, a Haitian day labourer who can no longer afford pasta to feed his wife and four children since the price nearly doubled to the local equivalent of US$0.57 (RM1.85) a bag. Their only meal on a recent day was two cans of corn grits.
“Their stomachs were not even full,” Thermilon said, walking toward his pink concrete house on the precipice of a garbage-filled ravine. By noon the next day, he still had nothing to feed them for dinner.
Their hunger has had a ripple effect. Haitian food vendor Fabiola Duran Estime, 31, has lost so many customers like Thermilon that she had to pull her daughter, Fyva, out of kindergarten because she can’t afford the US$20 (RM65) monthly tuition.
Cheaper substitute: In a shanty town in Manila, Gelyn Poso feeds her children with shredded cassava as a rice substitute. Philippine farmers warned of a worsening rice crisis and said prices were expected to soar about 222% amidst a lean harvest.
In the long term, prices are expected to stabilise. Farmers will grow more grain for both fuel and food and eventually bring prices down. Already this is happening with wheat, with more crops to be planted in the United States, Canada and Europe in the coming year.
However, consumers still face at least 10 years of more expensive food, according to preliminary FAO projections.
Among the driving forces are petroleum prices, which increase the cost of everything from fertilisers to transport to food processing. Rising demand for meat and dairy in rapidly developing countries such as China and India is sending up the cost of grain, used for cattle feed, as is the demand for raw materials to make biofuels.
What’s rare is that the spikes are hitting all major foods in most countries at once. Food prices rose 4% in the United States last year, the highest rise since 1990, and are expected to climb as much again this year, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
As of last December, 37 countries faced food crises, and 20 had imposed some sort of food-price controls.
For many, it’s a disaster. The United Nations’ World Food Programme says it’s facing a US$500mil (RM1.6bil) shortfall in funding this year to feed 89 million needy people.
In Egypt, where bread is up 35% and cooking oil 26%, the government recently proposed ending food subsidies and replacing them with cash payouts to the needy. But the plan was put on hold after it sparked public uproar.
“A revolution of the hungry is in the offing,” said Mohammed el-Askalani of Citizens Against the High Cost of Living, a protest group established to lobby against ending the subsidies.
In China, the price hikes are both a burden and a boon. Per capita meat consumption has increased 150% since 1980, so Zhou Jian decided six months ago to switch from selling auto parts to pork. The price of pork has jumped 58% in the past year, yet every morning housewives and domestics still crowd his Shanghai shop, and more customers order choice cuts.
At the same time, increased cost of food staples in China threatens to wreak havoc. Beijing has been selling grain from its reserves to hold down prices, said Jing Ulrich, chairwoman of China equities for JP Morgan.
“But this is not really solving the root cause of the problem,” Ulrich said. “The cause of the problem is a supply-demand imbalance. Demand is very strong. Supply is constrained. It is as simple as that.”
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says fighting inflation from shortages of key foods is a top economic priority. Inflation reached 7.1% in January, the highest in 11 years, led by an 18.2% jump in food prices.
Meanwhile, record oil prices have boosted the cost of fertiliser and freight for bulk commodities – up 80% in 2007 over 2006. The oil spike has also turned up the pressure for countries to switch to biofuels, which the FAO says will drive up the cost of corn, sugar and soybeans “for many more years to come.”
In Japan, the ethanol boom is hitting the country in mayonnaise and miso, two important culinary ingredients, as biofuel production pushes up the price of cooking oil and soybeans.
Italians are feeling the pinch in pasta, with consumer groups staging a one-day strike last September against a food deeply intertwined with national identity.
In decades past, farm subsidies and support programmes allowed major grain exporting countries to hold large surpluses, which could be tapped during food shortages to keep prices down. But new liberal trade policies have made agricultural production much more responsive to market demands – putting global food reserves at their lowest in a quarter century.
Without reserves, bad weather and poor harvests now have a bigger impact on prices.
“The market is extremely nervous. With the slightest news about bad weather, the market reacts,” said economist Abbassian.
That means that a drought in Australia and flooding in Argentina, two of the world’s largest suppliers of industrial milk and butter, sent the price of butter in France soaring 37% from 2006 to 2007.
Food costs worldwide spiked 23% from 2006 to 2007, according to the FAO. Grains went up 42%, oils 50% and dairy 80%.
Economists say that for the short term, government bailouts will have to be part of the answer to keep unrest at a minimum. In recent weeks, rising food prices sparked riots in the West African nations of Burkina Faso, where mobs torched buildings, and Cameroon, where at least four people died.
But attempts to control prices in one country often have dire effects elsewhere. China’s restrictions on wheat flour exports resulted in a price spike in Indonesia earlier this year, according to the FAO.
Ukraine and Russia imposed export restrictions on wheat, causing tight supplies and higher prices for importing countries. Partly because of the cost of imported wheat, Peru’s military has begun eating bread made from potato flour, a native crop.
Poorer countries can speed up the adjustment by investing in agriculture, experts say. If they do, farmers can turn high prices into an engine for growth. – AP
My comment:
Malaysia has vast idling lands for agricultural purposes.
We should make them available for food production.
When I was in Taiwan, I noticed that there is not a single piece of land that is idling. All were being productively cultivated. I saw so many fruit trees and vegetables being planted all around when I travelled by bus or train.
In contrast, Malaysia, you would notice every where, the lands are idling.
What do you think?
Like to hear from you. Please write in if you in suggestions on lands for agricultural purposes.
Or you have experience cultivating crops that you like to share with us.
Tuesday April 1, 2008
Soaring food costs
From rice in Peru to miso in Japan, food prices are rising. By KATHERINE CORCORAN.
Food is increasingly getting beyond reach for the poorest nations as consumers worldwide grapple with the spike in prices of basic commodities.
IF YOU’RE seeing your grocery bill go up, you’re not alone. From subsistence farmers eating rice in Ecuador to gourmets feasting on escargot in France, consumers worldwide face rising food prices in what analysts call a perfect storm of conditions.
A rice seller pricing rice for sale at Phnom Penh market. Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen announced a ban on rice exports for two months, to stabilise the cost of the country’s staple food.
Freak weather is a factor. But so are dramatic changes in the global economy, including higher oil prices, lower food reserves and growing consumer demand in China and India.
The world’s poorest nations still harbour the greatest hunger risk. Clashes over bread in Egypt killed at least two people recently, and similar food riots broke out in Burkina Faso and Cameroon earlier this month.
But food protests now crop up even in Italy. And while the price of spaghetti has doubled in Haiti, the cost of miso is packing a hit in Japan.
“It’s not likely that prices will go back to as low as we’re used to,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, economist and secretary of the Intergovernmental Group for Grains for the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). “Currently if you’re in Haiti, unless the government is subsidising consumers, consumers have no choice but to cut consumption. It’s a very brutal scenario, but that’s what it is.”
No one knows that better than Eugene Thermilon, 30, a Haitian day labourer who can no longer afford pasta to feed his wife and four children since the price nearly doubled to the local equivalent of US$0.57 (RM1.85) a bag. Their only meal on a recent day was two cans of corn grits.
“Their stomachs were not even full,” Thermilon said, walking toward his pink concrete house on the precipice of a garbage-filled ravine. By noon the next day, he still had nothing to feed them for dinner.
Their hunger has had a ripple effect. Haitian food vendor Fabiola Duran Estime, 31, has lost so many customers like Thermilon that she had to pull her daughter, Fyva, out of kindergarten because she can’t afford the US$20 (RM65) monthly tuition.
Cheaper substitute: In a shanty town in Manila, Gelyn Poso feeds her children with shredded cassava as a rice substitute. Philippine farmers warned of a worsening rice crisis and said prices were expected to soar about 222% amidst a lean harvest.
In the long term, prices are expected to stabilise. Farmers will grow more grain for both fuel and food and eventually bring prices down. Already this is happening with wheat, with more crops to be planted in the United States, Canada and Europe in the coming year.
However, consumers still face at least 10 years of more expensive food, according to preliminary FAO projections.
Among the driving forces are petroleum prices, which increase the cost of everything from fertilisers to transport to food processing. Rising demand for meat and dairy in rapidly developing countries such as China and India is sending up the cost of grain, used for cattle feed, as is the demand for raw materials to make biofuels.
What’s rare is that the spikes are hitting all major foods in most countries at once. Food prices rose 4% in the United States last year, the highest rise since 1990, and are expected to climb as much again this year, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
As of last December, 37 countries faced food crises, and 20 had imposed some sort of food-price controls.
For many, it’s a disaster. The United Nations’ World Food Programme says it’s facing a US$500mil (RM1.6bil) shortfall in funding this year to feed 89 million needy people.
In Egypt, where bread is up 35% and cooking oil 26%, the government recently proposed ending food subsidies and replacing them with cash payouts to the needy. But the plan was put on hold after it sparked public uproar.
“A revolution of the hungry is in the offing,” said Mohammed el-Askalani of Citizens Against the High Cost of Living, a protest group established to lobby against ending the subsidies.
In China, the price hikes are both a burden and a boon. Per capita meat consumption has increased 150% since 1980, so Zhou Jian decided six months ago to switch from selling auto parts to pork. The price of pork has jumped 58% in the past year, yet every morning housewives and domestics still crowd his Shanghai shop, and more customers order choice cuts.
At the same time, increased cost of food staples in China threatens to wreak havoc. Beijing has been selling grain from its reserves to hold down prices, said Jing Ulrich, chairwoman of China equities for JP Morgan.
“But this is not really solving the root cause of the problem,” Ulrich said. “The cause of the problem is a supply-demand imbalance. Demand is very strong. Supply is constrained. It is as simple as that.”
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says fighting inflation from shortages of key foods is a top economic priority. Inflation reached 7.1% in January, the highest in 11 years, led by an 18.2% jump in food prices.
Meanwhile, record oil prices have boosted the cost of fertiliser and freight for bulk commodities – up 80% in 2007 over 2006. The oil spike has also turned up the pressure for countries to switch to biofuels, which the FAO says will drive up the cost of corn, sugar and soybeans “for many more years to come.”
In Japan, the ethanol boom is hitting the country in mayonnaise and miso, two important culinary ingredients, as biofuel production pushes up the price of cooking oil and soybeans.
Italians are feeling the pinch in pasta, with consumer groups staging a one-day strike last September against a food deeply intertwined with national identity.
In decades past, farm subsidies and support programmes allowed major grain exporting countries to hold large surpluses, which could be tapped during food shortages to keep prices down. But new liberal trade policies have made agricultural production much more responsive to market demands – putting global food reserves at their lowest in a quarter century.
Without reserves, bad weather and poor harvests now have a bigger impact on prices.
“The market is extremely nervous. With the slightest news about bad weather, the market reacts,” said economist Abbassian.
That means that a drought in Australia and flooding in Argentina, two of the world’s largest suppliers of industrial milk and butter, sent the price of butter in France soaring 37% from 2006 to 2007.
Food costs worldwide spiked 23% from 2006 to 2007, according to the FAO. Grains went up 42%, oils 50% and dairy 80%.
Economists say that for the short term, government bailouts will have to be part of the answer to keep unrest at a minimum. In recent weeks, rising food prices sparked riots in the West African nations of Burkina Faso, where mobs torched buildings, and Cameroon, where at least four people died.
But attempts to control prices in one country often have dire effects elsewhere. China’s restrictions on wheat flour exports resulted in a price spike in Indonesia earlier this year, according to the FAO.
Ukraine and Russia imposed export restrictions on wheat, causing tight supplies and higher prices for importing countries. Partly because of the cost of imported wheat, Peru’s military has begun eating bread made from potato flour, a native crop.
Poorer countries can speed up the adjustment by investing in agriculture, experts say. If they do, farmers can turn high prices into an engine for growth. – AP
My comment:
Malaysia has vast idling lands for agricultural purposes.
We should make them available for food production.
When I was in Taiwan, I noticed that there is not a single piece of land that is idling. All were being productively cultivated. I saw so many fruit trees and vegetables being planted all around when I travelled by bus or train.
In contrast, Malaysia, you would notice every where, the lands are idling.
What do you think?
Like to hear from you. Please write in if you in suggestions on lands for agricultural purposes.
Or you have experience cultivating crops that you like to share with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)