mahathir under fire from hindraf leader.

Ahti Veeranggan Jun 21, 08 7:12pm Malaysiakini

 

Dr Mahathir Mohamad came under fire today for suggesting that the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) was made up of Tamil racists.

 

Exiled Hindraf leader P Waytha Moorthy slammed the former premier’s racist attack as “typical of Mahathir trying to erase all his wrongdoings during his 22-year dictactor-like rule as the country’s fourth prime minister.”All Malaysians, he said, know that Mahathir was single handedly responsible for wiping out the impartiality of the legislative, judiciary and executive powers through widespread abuse or power, corruption, nepotism and cronyism as well as destroying racial harmony in multi racial Malaysia.

“We are disappointed but not surprised by Mahathir’s remarks. He is bent to safeguard his personal agenda rather than Malaysian interests”,Waytha Moorthy added.

In a blog post this week, Mahathir chided MIC president Samy Vellu for campaigning alongside DAP chairperson Karpal Singh and former UN special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy in calling him (Mahathir) a racist.

 

 

 

He criticised Samy Vellu for requesting the government to release the five Hindraf leaders detained under the Internal Security Act despite the fact that Hindraf represented Tamil racists, whose motives were akin to Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and were seeking their former British colonial masters to protect them and did not believe in Malaysian institutions.“Hindraf speaks not just of Indians but of Tamils as a separate race. Hindraf and its apologists are racist to the core,” Mahathir wrote.

“His racial sling shots hurled at others will not undo the damage he had done to the country, nor will it address his failures as premier to provide equal and fair education, business, economic and religious opportunities to all, especially Malaysian Indians,” said Waytha Moorthy in his online posting to his Makkal Sakti supporters, as Hindraf is popularly known now.

 

 

 

Indians conveniently ignoredPointing out that Hindraf represents the oppressed and suppressed Malaysians of Indian origin, so systematically marginalised over the years, he stressed that the struggle for equality and fairness goes beyond race, religion, creed and skin colour.The administrations under both Mahathir and current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Waytha Moorthy said, have conveniently ignored and swept under the carpet the plight and grievances of Indian Malaysians raised by Hindraf over the years.

“However, Mahathir will continue with his usual antics to divert attention from his wrongdoings which are all being uncovered now,” said the exiled Hindraf chairperson.

 

 

 

Waytha Moothy’s brother Uthayakumar, Kota Alam Shah state rep M Manoharan, R Kenghadharan, V Ganabatirau and T Vasantha Kumar are being detained in Kamunting Detention Centre, Taiping since last Dec13 last after organising a mammoth rally in Kuala Lumpur on Nov 25 against perceived marginalisation and discrimination of Malaysians of Indian origin.MIC deputy president G Palanivel has rebuked Mahathir’s wrong perception on Hindraf and reminded the former premier “to remember his own roots” before making such statements, obviously referring to the former premier’s forefathers, who are from South India.

It is an open secret that Mahathir’s father, a school teacher, migrated to Malaysia from the southern Indian state of Kerala and subsequently married a Malay woman.

Waytha Moorthy likened Mahathir’s continuous political and racial bickering as ‘a broken record’ failing to seek solutions on the grievances of the oppressed and suppressed Indian Malaysians.

Hindraf’s goal, he pointed out, was to defend and protect Indian Malaysians in their quest for equal and fair participation in the educational, religious and economic spheres, and to set themselves free from the current oppressive system practiced by the ruling administration that clearly defied basic human right and freedom.

 

POLICE INSULT THE YANG DIPERTUAN AGONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oFe8J425Q8

 

POLICE INSULT THE YANG DIPERTUAN AGONG

 

On 14^th June 2008 HINDRAF  organised an appeal to His Royal Highness the Yang Dipertuan Agong  for the release of all ISA detainees from Kamunting camp.

 

70 children carrying teddy bears made their way to the palace but their peaceful march to the palace was interrupted by the police. The Police refused to allow HINDRAF officials to contact the palace authorities for purposes of delivering the symbolic gift.

 

Kudos to Tanendran and Jayathas who faced the challenge of handling the police who threatened them with arrest and violent attack with tear gas and chemical laced water.

 

Unfortunately the teddies had to be left on the pavement in front of the palace as police refused permission to contact palace authorities. THE POLICE CONDUCT IS AN INSULT TO THE KING. 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8NYD_4Ul8Q

 

Earlier in the day 3 parliament members were arrested in front of the palace gates before the arrival of the children. The Police have proven once again that this is a police state. Their orders are rule of the day. WHERE IS THE RESPECT FOR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. DIDN’T ARTICLE 10 GIVE US A RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY.

 

The police conduct is clearly disgusting and they are continuously losing public confidence.

Source : Internet

 

Former 'spam King' Must Pay MySpace $6 Million

Robert McMillan, IDG News ServiceMon Jun 16, 9:20 PM ET

A Colorado man has been ordered to pay US$6 million in damages and legal fees for spamming thousands of MySpace.com users.

Scott Richter of Westminster, Colorado, must pay MySpace $4.8 million in damages and $1.2 million in legal fees, a court-appointed arbitrator ruled on Thursday.

Richter, who was once accused of pumping out more than 100 million spam messages per day, had been sued by MySpace in January 2007 in connection with an August 2006 campaign in which MySpace members were hit with unsolicited messages promoting a Web site calledConsumerpromotionscenter.com. The messages were sent from phished MySpace accounts, according to the findings of Philip Boesch, the court-appointed arbitrator in the case.

The messages were sent to a MySpace community that was ill-equipped to deal with any security problems. At the time, "MySpace only employed two relatively junior staff employees to deal with these issues," Boesch wrote. The company's security staff has now grown to about 40, he added.

MySpace had been seeking a court ruling in the case, but in August 2007, U.S. District Judge George King of the Central District of California granted Richter's request to assign the matter to arbitration. Terms of the award were made public on Monday.

In a statement, Richter said that he and his company, Media Breakaway, were happy to have this matter behind them, noting that the arbitrator's award was 95 percent less than the amount sought by MySpace.

"We respect the decision of the arbitrator and we're not going to appeal it," said Steven Richter, the president and general counsel of Media Breakaway and father of Scott Richter. "We're going to pay the money he awarded."

This is not the first time a Scott Richter company has had to cough up millions of dollars to fight spam charges. In 2005, his previous company, Optinrealbig.com, paid $7 million to settle similar charges brought by Microsoft.

Scott Richter was removed from anti-spam organization Spamhaus' list of known spammers that same year.

Media Breakaway, which has no other spam cases pending, is doing everything it can to build a compliance team and make sure it is acting within the law, Steven Richter said.

MySpace said the Richter award was the latest in a series of steps it has taken to combat abuse on its Web site. In May, the company was awarded a $230 million antispam judgment against Sanford Wallace and Walter Rines.

"This award reflects MySpace's continued momentum and holistic approach to ridding the site of spammers and phishers," MySpace said in a statement. "We will continue to do our part in cleansing the Internet of this invasive onslaught of spam."

Who Owns Blog Comments?

By Jason Lee Miller - Mon, 06/16/2008 - 1:02pm.

It's a harder question than you think

Here's a head-scratcher with a deceptively obvious answer: When a person comments on a blog or website, who owns, or owns the rights to, that comment? Is it the commenter or the blog/website publisher? It's a trickier question than you might think. 

The intuitive answer, an opinion shared by some prominent bloggers, is that once a commenter comments, they submit the comment with the knowledge they've lost control of that comment forever. Of course, there's more than one way to look at it, but there is also more than one platform (or publishing model) to consider, and at least a couple of legal aspects to explore. 

A newspaper or magazine editor, for example, elects to publish response letters from readers. Not all responses are published, and thanks to some legal language, letter-writers are often informed they lose, to some extent, ownership of those letters.

In a sense, blog comments are similar. A blogger can elect not to publish a comment at all, or she can edit or delete a comment for various reasons. But there are stark differences, too. Most of the time, there is no written agreement about comments as there is with submitted letters. Another difference: Once a print publication publishes, the content can't be unpublished. Along some (strong) lines of logic, though this hasn't been fully tested in the legal system, this sense of permanency subjects print publishers to greater liability than digital publishers.

That, and the Communications Decency Act (so far) has protected bloggers from being liable for third party comments. Though they've tried, lawyers have had a tough time in court going after bloggers for something a commenter said. They have had more success in going after the commenter, if they can force identifying information from the blog host. This commenter liability would suggest a definite ownership of comments. 

However, it could be argued also that a commenter no more owns his comment than a person quoted in an article "owns" his quote. (Quotation ownership, though, is perhaps a different animal altogether, and one that walks lines of ethics—or even attribution etiquette—more than legal ones.) 

The idea of comment ownership reached the foreground last week in the form of a blogger spat between famed blogger Robert Scoble and Texas-based consultant and blogger Rob La Gesse. An argument that may have been unlikely a year or two ago came about because of microblogging/Web-conversation platform FriendFeed. 

La Gesse, upon discovering his membership with FriendFeed meant Scoble's comments were transferred from his blog to a new location on FriendFeed where a new conversation could begin, deleted his FriendFeed account in order to keep the conversation closer to home. Upon doing so, Scoble's comments disappeared from FriendFeed altogether, a consequence La Gesse appears not to have intended. Scoble, offended by the deletion, protested by claiming he owned his comments and La Gesse didn't have the right to delete them from FriendFeed. 

Though this case appears to be an issue with FriendFeed's user interface rather than La Gesse's defacto censorship, Scoble presented an entirely new debate about comment ownership. This prompted A-listers and new blogging platform pundits alike to weigh in. 

Self-described original blogger Dave Winer decided both parties own the comments. "I decided that it's a mutual thing. I own the collection of comments on my blog, and you own the comments you've placed on my blog and all others. I should be able to back up a complete set of comments on my blog, and also back up a copy of all comments I've placed on all blogs."

Daniel Ha, founder of Disqus, a web platform that stores blog comments and allows commenters to edit, save, and collect their comments on personal websites for their own use, concurs with the mutual ownership angle. Ha writes, "Comments are, in some way, the currency in which bloggers are paid for their posts. Bloggers want to encourage active discussions on their site. A way to encourage discussion is to give the participants more control of their contributions." 

You'd be right to note his business model depends on participants having more control of their contributions. Nevertheless, Ha penned a commenter's bill of rights, which includes the right to edit, remove, access, reuse, and transfer their comments, even in the event a blog ceases to exist. Ha's Commenter's Bill of Rights, obviously, are more of a proposal than legal mandate, and the issue of all those commenter-owned comments being stored on Disqus servers enters into the same pitfalls Google faces with its immense databases of content—again, a whole other branch of the conversation.  

In light of all the uncertainty, WebProNews sought some legal advice about this issue from a legal scholar at one of the nation's cutting edge law schools. Tyler T. Ochoa, law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law's High Technology Law Institute, rests on both the rights of the commenter and the rights of the blogger before posing a third, more difficult question. 

From Ochoa's viewpoint, a commenter owns his comments for copyright purposes. This means that if a blogger wanted to publish a best-of collection of comments, as Winer suggested, the blogger would likely need permission from the commenter. But just like a magazine or newspaper doesn't have to publish letters, a blogger doesn't have to publish comments. As far as the "right to withdraw or depublish" comments, Ochoa says this may be a more difficult matter for the blogger under European law than US law. In the US, absent of Europe's notion of "moral rights," without some kind of contractual agreement between blogger and commenter, the blogger can pretty much do what he wants with comments on his blog despite not having actual ownership. 

"An interesting question might be whether, by posting the submission to begin with, the blogger has 'agreed' to distribute it, such that the blogger has a continuing obligation to continue to display it," said Ochoa. Ochoa doubts this is the case, however, without some kind of written contract. 

It's a complicated issue, for sure, and one that probably won't be solved in the immediate future. 

WHY NO ACTION ASKS BAR COUNCIL - malaysiakini

WHY NO ACTION ASKS BAR COUNCIL - malaysiakini

Monday, June 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM Posted by jatt

Malaysian Bar president S Ambiga has questioned whether it was right of the government to not act on the shocking revelations made by Sabah and Sarawak High Court judge Ian Chin.

In a statement today, Ambiga stressed that inaction was not an option by the government because this would be against the interest of the public and judges "who work tirelessly, honestly and quietly to uphold their oaths of office".

"Are we just going to ignore what the judges have said and pretend the incidents never happened?

"Are we to allow this matter to be swept under the carpet without giving all those concerned a fair chance to be heard?

"Should we not be alarmed by the chilling disclosure of a ‘boot camp' which strikes at the very heart of the independence of the judiciary and separation of powers?

"Should we not be interested to find out if there were any other improprieties and what we can learn from the mistakes of the past?" she raised.

She was responding to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim's refusal to probe into allegations of executive interference into the judiciary.

Chin on Monday sent shock waves through the legal fraternity when he implicated former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former chief justice Eusoff Chin in having interfered with judicial decisions.

The senior judge said Mahathir had issued a veiled threat that judges could be removed if they issued rulings against his administration.

While the Bar Council has called for thorough investigations into Chin's allegations, other quarters have remained silent on this.

A complaints mechanism needed

Ambiga opined that despite the fatigue and fear being felt by judges on the judicial quagmire, everybody should find the strength to deal with this issue.

She said that the people owed it to those who have shown the courage to come forward to create an environment so they and others can serve without fear or favour.

"We must all appreciate that it takes courage to step forward to reveal the misdeeds or improprieties.

"To do so is to risk one's career but such revelations are the driving force behind reform and accountability," she stressed.

Ambiga noted that the Judicial Appointments Commission mooted by the government should now include a mechanism for judges to complain against any party that seeks to interfere with the performance of their duties.

She then called for investigations to be carried if potential offences are disclosed, a fact-finding effort, a royal commission to investigate and resolve judicial issues, mechanism for public and judges to make complaints and all parties be given a fair opportunity to state their case.

The judiciary has come under close scrutiny since a video recording was made public last year, showing lawyer VK Lingam brokering the appointment of ‘friendly' judges with then chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

A royal commission of inquiry confirmed the authenticity of the clip and recommended action against six key individuals including Mahathir, and the creation of a judicial appointments commission.

Petronas Accounts - Who is the External Auditor

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2008

Petronas Accounts - Who is the External Auditor

Recently, news were made about "baring all" of Petronas Accounts next week. E.g. see the Malaysia Today article here, where Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said "Petronas will explain its accounts next week".

http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/8866/1/

But I find this personally very, very puzzling.

You see, accounts are only as good and trustworthy if they are audited. Or put another way - if the accounts are not audited, then, one cannot trust that the accounts give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company.

Make sense?

So, it is critical to find out first, who is Petronas External Auditor.

Do they have one?

If so, who is the Auditor?

If any of you knows the answer, I would be grateful to know. Thanks-in advance.

________________


As I mentioned in my chatbox last week. I googled "Petronas Annual Report" and managed to find the online Annual Report from this site which appears to belong and maintained by Petronas -http://www.petronas.com.my/internet/corp/centralrep2.nsf/Src/WebDoc*Investor+Relations+Default/?Open

I downloaded both 2007 and 2006 Annual Report, like a young boy expecting to get free candy!

I then read the Report.

And to my horror, it was a MOST DISSAPPOINTING report.

In more ways than one!

And to keep this article short, I will just highlight 2 Problems I have with this 2007 Annual Report.

1. The 2007 Report only goes up to Page 80 and is incomplete.Page 81 onwards are Missing!Unfortunately, they are the meat of the Report since they contain the important Financial Statements.

Can you imagine my dissappointment?

An Annual Report without the Financial Pages is just like a Marketing Leaflet. 

They can say all sorts of things, make all sorts of claims.

But without the numbers, it is meaningless.

So, where are the Financial Pages??

2. There is no mention WHO is the External Auditor for Petronas.

The 100% accurate PDF search yields nothing!

I even use my own eye searching for this word. "Audit". It can be in any case - lower case or upper case or combination - it doesn't matter. It can be full word or partial word - doesn't matter. But Zilch!

So, I don't know if Petronas have or don't have an External Auditor!

In short, a MOST DISSAPPOINTING 2007 Annual Report that I have ever downloaded online.

I have never seen such a lousy quality Annual Report in my entire life!

Despite the glossy photos, the smiling Board of Director faces, etc.

In my book, it is a TERRIBLE quality Annual Report!

_______________

A third issue.

Those of you who followed my cbox last week knows that I am pissed off at a statement made by the President and CEO of Petronas - Tan Sri Hassan Marican - which in my opinion, is not only inaccurate, but misleading and does not inspire trust. 

Here is what he is reported to have said in the Star, with over 1 million readership.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/6/nation/21470681&sec=nation

His actual statement is this: "Asked about criticisms that Petronas' accounts and profits were not transparent, Hassan said the corporation published a very detailed annual report which was deposited in the Parliament library."

“For all intents and purposes,Petronas is a public-listed company because we are rated by agencies like Standard and Poors, and Moody. We do not hide anything,” he added.

Now, I find his statement really, really strange.

Why?

1. It is a self-proclaimation. 

If I say my blog is the best investing blog in Bursa Malaysia, would you believe me?

Anyone can say anything they like.

So, forgive me if I don't believe you.

2. Here's a suggestion for you. If it is for all intent and purposes Petronas is a listed company, then why don't you list Petronas in Bursa? Then, I guarantee you, you will have no critics whatsoever.

Ok. Perhaps you can quote technical reasons why you cannot list. Such as you want Petronas to remain 100% owned by Malaysia government.

Yes, technical reasons are the best excuse.

After all, it shows that you are just following the law, like everyone else.

So, let's close one eye on this point shall we?

That the fact is Petronas is not listed in Bursa at all. 

After all, Malaysia Boleh!

3. Ok. Here's a second suggestion for you.

How about getting the 2nd best thing? 

Why not get Bursa Malaysia to certify your statement, that for all intent and purposes, Petronas Reporting is like a listed company?

How's that?

Shouldn't be too hard right?

After all, the CEO of Bursa Malaysia is Datuk Yusli and he is such a nice person.

I'm sure he would find a way to certify this.

Or still cannot?

Why not?

Never thought of it?

Oh, okay. Perhaps, one day, you will think of it. That's right. Malaysia Boleh!

4. Since you can't do either #2 and #3, perhaps I should inform you of some salient differences.

Do you know that in the Bursa website, it is not allowed for Companies to hide their Financial Statement pages in their Annual Reports?

5. Yet you say you don't hide anything. To quote you "We do not hide anything". 

So, you called that Not Hiding is it? 

How do you seriously expect anyone who knows the truth to trust you?

Oh, of course. Silly Me! Just make sure others don't know the truth!

6. Furthermore, do you know that all Bursa listed Annual Reports must state the name of the external auditor, together with an Independent Auditor's Report. Yet, I can't find the name of the External Auditor in Petronas 2007 Annual Report. Worse, I can't even find the Independent Auditor's Report. So, I question whether there exist even an Independent Auditor. 

If you say there is an Independent Auditor, why can't I find the Independent Auditor's Report in your 2007 Annual Report?

Is there really an Independent Auditor?

If there isn't an Independent Auditor, is it true to say that "for all intent and purposes", Petronas is a Public Listed Company?

7. You mentioned you keep it in the Parliament Library.

I ass-u-me this is the full hard-copy report without the missing pages?

Why do you not make the full report available online, where Rakyat like me who don't live next door to the Parliament can access it easily?

Why make the access so difficult?

You think it's easy for 25 million Rakyat to access the Parliament Library?

8. Bottom line - I will tell you Tan Sri - with all due respect - thatyour statement is a grave insult to Bursa, and all Bursa listed companies.

The frequency, level and degree of reporting which listed companies must provide is much, much higher than Petronas.

It is - in my opinion - an insult to say that "for all intent and purposes, Petronas is a public listed company" when it is not - in either actual form or substance or anything that could come close to resembling that.

And where is Datuk Yusli - the defender of Bursa and all listed Bursa companies - in all this?

Oh, I forget! No one - not even a journalist - sends him the article for his comment! And of course, he doesn't have to read every single article in the Star does he?

How silly me!

To contradict the highly esteemed Tan Sri is not a good thing for one's career. 

Some call it "CLB" - Career Limiting Behaviour.

Others probably call it clearer - Suicidal.

So, my conclusion is that in this country, any Tom, Dick and Harry can say that they are "for all intent and purposes" a public listed company!

Sigh! I would really like to see the first journalist and the first Opposition MP to grill Yakcop with these questions as well as Petronas CEO!

That would really make my day!

Happy Reading!

Openness

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2008

Openness

After I stepped down there was a lot of talk about the Malaysian Government being more open. The foreign press gleefully reported that after I left UMNO, there would be even greater freedom in everything.

I would not be able to make a comparison between my “dictatorial regime” which a certain former judge described in his book as comparable to that of Idi Amin of Uganda with the present freely elected Government. But I would like to point out certain things that people and journalists seem to ignore, which seems to belie the impression of “openness”.

If people care to study the mainstream papers and all the Malaysian television stations, they may notice that until lately the reports were exclusively about the Government’s achievements in managing the economy, the stability of the country and the well-being of the people. The Gross Domestic Product Growth is high and all the different communities seem very happy with the Government.

At least four pages in the mainstream newspapers are devoted to the activities of the Prime Minister and his advice to the people on what they should do and how they should live. It is the same with the television stations.

Random interviews with members of the public show unfailing support and appreciation of all the policies of the Government and of the Prime Minister.

There are no reports of dissent or criticisms of the Government or the Prime Minister in particular. The spontaneous welcome of the people to his visits clearly showed the general love for the leader and support for him. The eagerness to shake his hand was touching.

Criticism if any came only from the alternative media, the Internet websites and the bloggers. This is only to be expected in an open society.

Then came a bombshell in the form of the disastrous General Election. The "popular" Government parties fared very badly indeed, losing five states, one federal territory and failing to get the usual two-thirds majority in the Federal Parliament. 

How could a Government with such openness and popularity do so badly, be so obviously rejected by the people?

The answer is very strange. It is because there is really no openness. The policy of the Government was and is to shut things up very tightly, so tightly that people, especially the liberal western media failed to detect the lack of openness.

It began with the sacking of many of the editorial staff of the party-owned newspapers and their replacement with hand-picked journalists whose main qualification is their hatred of the previous Prime Minister.

Then there is the unofficial "supremo" who would phone editors, including those not owned by Government parties to tell them what to write and how to write.

The spin doctors would be busy spinning every report to make them look good for the Government.

It is the same with the electronic media. All the television stations are either owned by the Government or those close to the Government and understandably chose not to criticise the Government.

UMNO members at all levels were not allowed to be critical of the Government. 

Mostly only those supportive of the Prime Minister would be allowed to attend the UMNO General Assembly. If they have to be bribed in order to extol the virtues of the leader then so be it.

A sense of fear has been instilled among UMNO supporters so that they would desist from voicing critical opinions of the Government even between themselves in case they would be reported and might lose something or might be deprived of some goodies.

Any forum that was not by the Government authorities or by the party where criticisms of the Government might be heard were out of bounds to party members. In particular if the speaker was the former Prime Minister UMNO members must stay away from them.

The Government was very successful in blacking out news or talks about its failures. So good was the spin that even the leaders of the Government believed in the doctored information that they had allowed to be circulated.

Everything seemed to go the Government way. Everything seemed under control. Such was the impression created by the censored news that Government leaders in particular the Prime Minister were convinced that in any election, at any time with any candidates the Government party would sweep clean and would romp to victory as in 2004.

But the results proved otherwise. Having muzzled the Press and the people, having doctored all information, the Government leaders fell into their own trap. They so believed in their doctored information that they failed completely to detect disaffection and the antagonism of the people including their traditional supporters over their lack of openness and the behaviour as well as the policies of the Government.

And so, unable to express their opposition openly, the traditional supporters of the Government parties voted for the opposition or deliberately spoilt their voting slips or simply refused to vote. The results of the March 2008 elections tell the whole story.

There is really no openness just as there is no transparency in this Government. You can deceive all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time but you cannot deceive all the people all the time.

Malaysiakini:Anwar: MCA MPs will defect to Pakatan

Posted on June 16, 2008 by jfakuantan

Athi Veeranggan | Jun 16, 08 10:54am

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has dropped the clearest hint yet of impending crossovers to Pakatan Rakyat. “I can safely say that several MCA MPs will join us soon,” he told journalists yesterday, after opening a service centre in Bayan Baru, Penang. However, as with previous assertions of the same variety, that was all he was prepared to reveal. Anwar has been keeping the public on tenterhooks since the general election on March 8, with repeated claims of crossovers by Barisan Nasional (BN) parliamentarians, especially those in Sabah. He said that discreet meetings have been held in Hong Kong, Manila and Singapore, to avoid scrutiny, and that “even a cabinet minister met me”. At a rally held last night in City Stadium, George Town, the former deputy premier worked up the crowd with similar promises. “It’s about time that we take over. It’s only a matter of time for us to take over. We are so close to Putrajaya,” he said to roars from some 30,000 people. “It’s very soon. I will not say how (soon). But it will happen soon.” He stressed that defecting MPs would have to accept the Pakatan tenets of good governance. Anwar used the rally to obtain a ‘referendum’ on replacing the federal BN government and taking over as premier from Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. He and other Pakatan speakers exploited the escalating cost of living triggered by the fuel price hike, to bombard the BN government and raise the tempo of a disenchanted crowd. “I can guarantee you all today that if Pakatan Rakyat were to form the federal government today, we will bring down the oil price tomorrow,” said Anwar. Salvoes against BN Penang Chief Minister and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, DAP advisor and Ipoh Timor MP Lim Kit Siang and PAS leader Mohamad Sabu also spoke at the rally. Anwar said the BN government is still in a state of denial over the electoral debacle and that it has remained arrogant. It has further betrayed the people’s trust with an unreasonable and inhumane fuel price hike, he said, although it has contributed to this through economic and financial mismanagement. Anwar also wondered aloud as to why BN partners are supporting Umno’s weak political leadership and wrongdoing. Saying that BN has run out of ideas in overcoming inflation, he said only Pakatan could save the country. “Let’s join force to topple this irresponsible and arrogant government. If enough numbers support us (in Parliament), we will form the next government. The people of Penang must lead others in backing us for change to a better life,” said Anwar. Hinting that Abdullah could dissolve Parliament in a sudden move to “save his skin”, he cautioned Pakatan leaders and members to be ready for a snap election. “We must fight to win till the end,” he said.

PM: I’ll defend my post!

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has reiterated that he will defend his Umno presidency in the party elections in December.

Even though he has announced his plans for his deputy Datuk Seri Najib Razak to take over, he has not decided precisely on the date of handover.

“Anytime doesn’t mean two or three months,” he said at a briefing on Sunday to media leaders attending the World Economic Forum on East Asia here.

Abdullah denied that political uncertainty had negatively impacted foreign investments and he had, in fact, received many enquiries from the Middle East.

On the economy, he said a growth of 5.5% was achievable and that some mega projects could be adjusted while those people-centric projects with immediate impact would be implemented under the Ninth Malaysia Plan.

“This will be after the midterm review when we will also introduce new areas of ‘soft development’,” he said, referring to the corridor developments especially in Sabah and Sarawak.

On the criticism that some of the reform measures were still weak steps, he said: “Reform has to be gradual. I will continue my work and it is not my attitude that just because you do not support me, I say forget it.”

His priorities would be to strengthen the Anti Corruption Agency, judiciary and police force while ensuring quality opportunities in the development corridors to address the issue of equitable income distribution.

On the proposal to repeal the Internal Security Act, he said there could be some aspects to be reviewed and amendments. He would not be “completely doing away with preventive detention” although ensuring justice was equally important.

In the case of the Hindu Rights Action Force leaders under detention, he said he knew how the people felt, but he had studied the reports and viewed that it was not an issue of politics.

Rather, it was a case of people resorting to activities that undermined national security, he said.

Abdullah said he was aware of Opposition-led protests against high prices.

“They can continue but I will do what is best for the people.

“They are furious (at the high prices including fuel prices) but they have been getting things cheap. The rate of increase and size (of subsidy payments) has become untenable and unsustainable in view of the amount we have to set aside for the annual development budget.”

STATEMENT BY LIM BOO CHANG AND HIS 350 SUPPORTERS JOINING PKR

A group of us numbering 351 people of all races and from different trades and different strata of Penang have decided to join Parti KeADILan Rakyat after careful evaluation of the present political scenario of our country and a deeper understanding of the political objectives of PKR.

Our applications to join PKR as members had been accepted by the party as announced by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the de facto leader of the Party, in Bayan Baru, Penang, last night.

We felt that a two-party system has emerged after March 8th, 2008, and it is healthy for Malaysia not to be dominated by any single party as before, if our aim is to achieve a true parliamentary democracy and a free society.

There are a few important reasons as to why we chose PKR:

Firstly, it is truely multi-racial in its set-up and is steadfastedly and consistently against racism, chauvinism and religious extremism.

Secondly, it practises politics of moderation, accountability and transparency and has proclaimed a war on corruption, croynism and nepotism.

Thirdly, its stance for social juistice made it more relevant to the middle and lower strata of our society which cut across race while it is pro-business and progress.

Fourthly, its fight for democracy, justice and freedom such as the exposure of Lingam’s video clip have contributed to a helthier growth of our judiciary system to become more independent and trusworthy.

Fifthly, it is very important to strenghten PKR and hence Pakatan Rakyat to assist them in their adminitration of the 5 states under their charge as popularly decided by the people on March 8th, and to ensure that Pakatan Rakyat is always a viable and credible alternate government to the Barisan Nasional.

We collectively and strongly beleive that our decision to join PKR is a matter of public interests and we should inform the public of our move. We also hope that more people could join the PKR in the process of causing constant social change which has been stepped up lately through the reform movement.

Some of us had been involved in politics but some are new blood in politics. However, all of us sincerely wish to see a better tomorrow for Malaysia as championed by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his team as comprehensively laid out in the New Malaysian Economic Agenda.
.
We look forward to the society’s support to carry out our political struggle so as to make Malaysia a better and safer place for everyone to live in.

Former Chief Judge Of Malaya Does Not Remember Attending Conference

KUALA LUMPUR, 13 June (Bernama) -- Former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor cannot remember whether he attended a Judges Conference on April 24, 1997 during which former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was alleged to have issued a thinly-veiled threat to the judges.

"I can't remember", he said to the media after launching the Direct Access Malaysian Bar MasterCard at a hotel here Friday.

When asked whether he was shocked to hear the allegations made by Sarawak High Court judge Datuk Ian HC Chin, Haidar who is the chairman of CIMB Bank, said "tak apa" (never mind).

Chin had on Monday revealed that the former prime minister had threatened judges with removal and that he and selected judges were sent to a boot camp to be indoctrinated to hold the view that the government's interest was more important when considering their judgments.

Chin made the revelations before hearing an election petition challenging the results of the Sarikei parliamentary seat which was won by the Barisan Nasional candidate by 51 votes in the March 8 general election.

The judge also disclosed that he was threatened by Dr Mahathir over a high-profile case so that he would decide in favour of a friend of the former prime minister.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the government did not see it fit to set up another royal commission to investigate the alleged threats by the former prime minister.

He said this was because the government had already decided to introduce reforms in the judiciary.

-- BERNAMA