MALAYSIA BETWEEN LES MAJESTE & TREASON

By Admin

If you are a Malaysian and you truly love your country, what would you feel when you read the following excerpts below:

There appears to be a growing possibility that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak could be indicted in France for complicity in the case. Central to the inquiry is alleged illegal commissions that were paid out to Malaysian officials and politicians, which have been deemed illegal and categorized as bribes, after France became a signatory to the OECD convention.



So far, the case has gained precious little traction in Malaysia despite nearly six years of sensational revelations involving bribes of hundreds of millions of euros to Malaysian politicians including Najib when he served as defense minister, and the murder for hire by two of Najib’s bodyguards of a 28-year-old Mongolian woman named Altantuya Shaariibuu. Najib has maintained consistently favorable poll ratings and runs well ahead of the United Malays National Organization, the country’s biggest political party, which he heads.



Malaysia’s mainstream news media, which are wholly owned by the component parties of the national ruling coalition, have worked assiduously to bury the story although it has been reported extensively by the country’s ferociously active internet press and bloggers. With the press conference being held in Bangkok, and expected to be attended by journalists from the international press, it remains to be seen if Najib’s luck holds out.



The revelations have picked up in recent months with the appointment of investigating magistrates Roger Le Loire and Serge Tournaire at the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance, Asia Sentinel reported in April that investigators believe that at least some of €36 million funneled from a DCNS subsidiary through a Hong Kong-based company called Terasasi Hong Kong Ltd. ended up in the pockets of Najib. A handwritten note found in DCNS files said “Razak” wanted the money paid quickly. Najib, of course, is known by his first name. But there are questions whether French defense officials would have known that in a country where people are often addressed by their family names.

A highly-classified document - the Royal Malaysian Navy's evaluation of the Scorpene-class submarines to be purchased by the government - were allegedly "bought" by a French defence company.



French lawyer Joseph Breham, who is acting on behalf of human rights NGO Suaram, revealed that the company paid 36 million euro (RM142 million) to Terasasi (Hong Kong) Ltd, ostensibly for "commercial engineering" works.

And this a Report by Social Scientist Ong Kian Ming in MALAYSIAKINI:

The Election Commission (EC) produced a booklet entitled ‘The Truth Behind the Accusations and Lies towards the Election Commission' on its website. In this booklet, the EC tried to defend itself against 12 allegations made with regard to the electoral roll.



I have written here and here to show that:


1) The EC has not been consistent in its boundary ‘correction' exercise.


2) That the EC had deleted 14,577 names in Quarter 2, 2011 because the records of these voters were not active in the National Registration Department (NRD).


3) That the EC should be greatly concerned by the fact that 56 out of the 57 voters registered in the past year in Kampung Melayu Majidee in Johor Bahru did not have house numbers or street names and were foreign-born, meaning the 7th and 8th digits in their IC number is ‘71'.


In this article, I want to show that the EC cannot reassure us that there are no foreigners/non-citizens in the electoral roll because it is the NRD which issues the ICs and not the EC...Despite all the above concerns that point to TREASON by the BN/Umno Regime of Prime Minister Najib Razak, the Malaysian Royalty has chosen to remain silent but yet demand loyalty from the Rakyat despite the fact that they (the Royalty) say nothing about these acts of TREASON by the Regime and instead have the Rakyat be tried and be imprisoned on grounds of LESE MAJESTE for insulting the royalty.

The Royals instead of being the Protector of the Rakyat are silent when their loyal subjects are brutalized by their own Royal Malaysia Police under the instruction of the BN/Umno Regime.

It is time for the Royals to step up to the plate and be the Defenders of the Rakyat rather then to be seen as apologetics of the Regime.

Happy Birthday, Your Majesty. DAULAT TUANKU!

Azmingate: Has YM Raja Petra Set a Trap For Umno?

By Admin

It appears that YM Raja Petra' 'Deep Throat' on PKR's Azmin Ali's allege corruption corruption expose has resulted in BN/Umno going into a stage of ecstasy that can only be found in Karma Sutra. Call it the 'Missionary Experience' or the 'G-Spot Experience', the sexually depraved BN/Umno through their media TV3 and Utusan Malaysia have even cooked up another sex scandal to whip up their lustful appetite with this time around linking YB Anwar Ibrahim with an affair with the wife of his deputy in PKR, Shamsidar. TV3 being a garbage TV station brings along what some people consider to be a suspected LGBT, former PKR Wanita Penang Chief Aminah Abdullah (pic above) to demand both Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah and Shamsidar to break their silence (like we all are so eager to hear what they have to say) about this yet another Umporno production.

What is interesting about all this is the timing of this expose. Why is it BN/Umno took no action to nail both YB Anwar and YB Azmin when the file has been with ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency), now MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission). It is hard to believe that former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, current premier Najib Abdul Razak and his BN/Umno goons did not take any action. Why resort to such flimsy charges as in Sodomy I and II, and the equally flimsy and stupid video expose by Datuk Trio?

Has YM Raja Petra set a trap for the MACC, considering the speed they moved in this case compared to those involving BN/Umno? Everybody knows that the MACC like the Police is an extension of the BN/Umno Regime. Will the MACC act the same way if YM Raja Petra's 'Deep Throat' comes up with an expose on BN/Umno personalities? Whatever the case, events unfolding in Bangkok and Paris may turn out to be the Waterloo for Najib and the BN/Umno Regime Read here http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/razak-bagindas-firm-sold-malaysian-naval-secrets-to-french-says-lawyer 

PERKASA MUST BE BANNED BEFORE SOMEONE DIES !!!!

By Admin


Umno linked PERKASA must be banned as it has turned out to be a threat to society. It is also rather disturbing that the BN/Umno subservient Police are turning a blind eye to the gangster like actions of PERKASA.


With the 13th General Elections around the corner, people are afraid to attend opposition talks for fear of their own safety even though it is their democratic right to do so. The Scribe hold the ruling BN/Umno Regime solely responsible for the undemocratic and barbaric actions of PERKASA and their thugs.


PERKASA is now a threat to civil society and as such,the onus is upon the Registrar of Societies to strike out PERKASA. In a latest incident, PERKASA Thugs gatecrashed SUARAM's rally in Penang to mark Bersih 3.0’s one month anniversary. In this incident, the Umno linked PERKASA Thugs tried to attack a participant Dalbinder Singh. And when a DAP member came to his aid, he was instead arrested by the Umno subservient Police.


The following report is Courtesy of Malaysiakini

Chaos erupted at Suaram’s rally in Penang to mark Bersih 3.0’s one month anniversary, after a group of men started shouting at a state assemblyperson.

Trouble started when the unidentified group started heckling the gathering at the Esplanade today, challenging Pantai Jerejak assemblyperson Sim Tze Tzin to a debate.
Despite the provocation, no one responded and participants of the rally who were already dispersing, tried to distance themselves from the venue at the Speaker’s Square.

The noisy group however persisted, shouting at a participant Dalbinger Singh who was speaking at another corner, challenging him to debate with them.

The rowdy group approached him at 7.30pm, and a fracas broke out.
Several plainclothes policemen intervened and tried to separate the group from the participants.
Several people, however, continued to chase Dalbinder around the field despite some senior citizens trying to protect the latter.
Later, Georgetown OCPD Gan Kon Meng confirmed that two men have been arrested for being involved in a fight, and are being investigated under section 160 of the Penal Code.

One is Perkasa Penang exco member, a 32-year-old factory technician from Pantai Jerejak who was amongst the hecklers.
The other is a 51-year-old DAP member who had tried to protect Dalbinder from being physically abused.

The Day Lee Kuan Yew Screwed The Catholic Church In Singapore

Contributed by Jeff Goh 


The Roman Catholic Archbishop Gregory Yong must have felt terrified after his meeting with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on 2 June 1987. It led him to take immediate action against his own priests and abandon his full time workers namely, Vincent Cheng, Ng Bee Leng, Kevin de Souza and Tang Lay Lee. Just a week ago, on 27 May 1987, 6 days after 16 people were arrested, he had concelebrated a 90 minute mass with 23 priests at the East Coast parish of the Church of Perpetual Succour. Family members of the four church workers gave moving testimonies of the detainees to a packed church. Never in the history of the Church had there been a mass concelebrated by 23 priests and the Archbishop and a congregation of more than 2,500 praying for 16 people who were suddenly removed from society and dumped into the cold rooms of the Whitley Detention Centre. 


It led the Archbishop to say in his homily that this “is one great moment in the history of the local Church”. He predicted that the present situation could “polarise” the Church causing “divisions, disunity and factions.” Why then, after having considered the likely consequences of his support for his workers did he change his view subsequently? The well attended church service called at a day’s notice, must have sent alarm bells ringing. Until then, the prime minister was happy to leave the unpleasant task of finishing off his critics by his ministers, Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong, S Jayakumar and S Dhanabalan. 


The report of 2,500 thronging the church and 23 priests concelebrating mass with the Archbishop had to be dealt with. A man who would not take risks (even though he proclaims otherwise) and who would nip even buds that would not bloom, he was not going to let the organisers of the mass and the families of the detainees to gain support from the public. 


He had to prevent the support from getting out of hand. He had to show his young subordinates how to put down a powerful organisation like the Catholic Church. And so he entered the fray. In the Vatican, the Pope receives heads of state to his house. The prime minister was not going to see the Archbishop in his house. He was not even going to contact the Archbishop directly and request to see him. According to Edgar D’ Souza, he asked Dr Ee Peng Liang, a lay Church leader to deliver the message to the Archbishop that he would like to see him and a church delegation. He required a list of Church delegates, not that he wanted to hear their views but just to show the public that he had met and consulted a Church delegation. 


Then he deleted nine names from the list of 19. Of course, Edgar D’ Souza who was the spokesperson and who was one of the four courageous priests who dared to stand up for what they believed was right had to be removed from the list. On 2 June, the prime minister met with the Archbishop and his delegation. He then dismissed the delegation and retained the Archbishop. As if treating the Church in the above shabby manner was not sufficient, the prime minister had a master stroke. I think he wanted the Archbishop to have the impression that he had consulted Rome with regard to the further imprisonment of the detainees. He had invited the nuncio, Fr Giovanni D’Aniello from Bangkok to his palace. 


Again according to Edgar, even the Archbishop was unaware of his presence in Singapore, what more to find him in the palace! After a short meeting with the nuncio, the Archbishop was ushered into a room to meet the local press. Naturally, His Grace was totally unprepared for the press conference. As Edgar in his interview with Public House (21 May 2012) said, the Archbishop was a “Church leader and not astute in political matters.” Reading the report in The Straits Times of 3 June 1987, I agree that the Archbishop was not astute. How could he anticipate that his 10 man delegation supposedly arranged to discuss the detention of his church workers would result in his being left alone in the istana and meeting the nuncio? 


How could he anticipate that he would have to meet the local press and answer prepared and approved questions from them? One intriguing question posed by the Straits Times journalist was: “What was it, Archbishop, that you read in those documents that convinced you? Archbishop: “That the man himself (Vincent Cheng) admitted that he was using the Church … I think this is one of the biggest reasons why I have to accept the Government’s statement saying that he acted … Prime Minister: It’s an admission of his intention. I mean, he thought that using the Church as a cover, he had sanctuary. …” I do not know how much time the Archbishop and his delegation spent at the istana reading Vincent Cheng’s voluminous statements. Did he and his delegation read the documents carefully? Did they have photographic memory? 


The Archbishop’s was naturally overwhelmed with fear for he was all alone facing the press with the prime minister by his side. It was totally unexpected. He could have responded that he did not have the time to read the documents carefully. But what would the prime minister do to him after such a response? Not wanting the Church to have a conflict with the government, the Archbishop did what he did. He suspended the four priests from preaching, withdrew the circulation of The Catholic News containing his pastoral letter and ordered the closure of the Geylang Catholic Centre. Needless to say, the Archbishop’s actions caused untold misery and hardship to the Catholic workers and their families which until today, remained unresolved. At least two of them have left Singapore

Carrying The Cross & Speaking The Truth Shall Set Malaysia Free!

By Admin

Christians must be aware that there are Judas' in their midst. These so-called Christians who continue to support a despotic Muslim Regime (BN/Umno) eventhough the Regime continues o persecute Christians. Any Christian who is a member of or is a supporter of this Satanic Regime will have to answer to their God come Judgement day. God have mercy on their souls.

Courtesy of Malaysiakini

Penang government staff Chan Lilian was subjected to another round of questioning by the police yesterday, wanting to know what her “private thoughts” were on her controversial Twitter message.





In a 90-minute session, Chan (left in photo) was asked many questions, which included whether she worked as a blogger; if she had any social media websites like blogs, Facebook or Twitter accounts.




“Then they asked me to elaborate what my private thoughts were when I tweeted, which got me into trouble, but I told them that I will answer that question in court,” she told reporters after her questioning session with the police ended about 6pm.




“They also asked me to explain what had been done to us (Christians) when I tweeted: ‘I think all Christians shud march for all the persecution they had done to us and our Lord. Don't you think so? I go sleep now, bye-bye. :)’.




“There seems to be no closure yet to my case, and the police have yet to return my iMac and modem, which I continued to ask them to do,” stressed the former Malaysiakini citizen journalist.




Chan has remained under investigation for sedition and illegal assembly since last year, following a police report lodged by Blog House secretary Tony Yew, who accused her of urging Christians to participate in the July 9 Bersih rally via a tweet.




Chan, who lamented that the police sessions have been “tiring and exhausting”, faces a jail term of up to three years, a fine of not more than RM5,000 or both, if found guilty.




Denying the charge, Chan said she did not mention anything about Bersih in her message nor had she taken part in the coalition for clean and fair elections rally in Kuala Lumpur.


Chan's iMac seized


Yew’s report resulted in Chan’s 21-inch iMac and modem being carted away by police last year, and they have yet to return the equipment despite a legal letter issued to the force last month.




The report had also elicited fierce response from Malay rights pressure group Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali who accused Chan in a statement published in Utusan Malaysia of harbouring “ill intentions”.




Her boss, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, has described Chan’s situation as a “targeted prosecution against anyone close to me, including my family and staff”.


Meanwhile, Chan said the police questioned her at the Bahagian Siasatan Wanita and Kanak-Kanak, where victims of sexual crimes are usually dealt with.


She said she felt “embarrassed and like a criminal” to be subjected to several “interrogating sessions” without any certainty of when the matter would be resolved.




She related rather sadly how her youngest, a nine-year-old son, had asked her before she left for the police station: “Mummy, will you be back?”




“I felt tears in my eyes because I did not know how to answer him. Before arriving at the police station, I wondered if I would be arrested and if so, how am I going to tell my family?” she asked.




Chan, who was questioned at the Penang police headquarters on Dickens Road, was accompanied by a lawyer, who requested anonymity.




When contacted, investigating officer ASP Ridzuan Ibrahim declined to comment beyond saying: “I have nothing more to say, hopefully everything will be okay.”




Asked when the case would end, Ridzuan merely replied, dalam masa terdekat (soon).

Simon Wiesenthal Center Condemns Anti Semitic Malaysia

By Admin

The Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned a sermon delivered at mosques in Malaysia that said Jews "are the main enemy of Muslims as proven by their egotistical behavior and murders performed by them."


The Jewish group based in Los Angeles said the oration prepared by the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department (JAWI) and distributed in and around the capital of Kuala Lumpur put the few Jews living in the country and those visiting in danger.

“This sermon...makes a mockery of Malaysia’s Constitution which promises that religions other than Islam may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in a press release.

Since its establishment in 1957, Malaysia has rejected formal diplomatic relations with Israel and has kept contacts on a low flame at best. Reasons include Malaysia‘s desire to cultivate ties with the Arab countries and the power of domestic Islamic trends. Malaysian animus toward Israel grew during the 1960s, although a certain level of commercial activity between the two countries was tolerated. In 1981 the openly anti-Semitic Dato Mahathir bin Muhamad was elected Malaysia‘s prime minister, and he continued his public condemnations of Israel and Jews while strengthening Malaysia‘s support for the PLO. Although during the Oslo era he somewhat moderated his statements, he ended his tenure in October 2003 with an anti-Semitic diatribe at a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Since then Malaysia has remained cool toward Israel, claiming that relations depend on a solution of the Palestinian problem.



During Mahathir Mohamed’s years as prime minister he made extreme anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic statements, some of which achieved wide resonance. Mahathir nurtured anti-Semitism in a Malaysia that was without Jews. On 27 January 1981, in a speech in Saudi Arabia, he urged regaining the Palestinian lands by force since Israel was not invincible. He also, as will be discussed, vilified Israel at major venues.



In June 1983, Mahathir issued a statement attacking Israel for its incursion into Lebanon and calling it “the most immoral country in the world.” In October 1983, at the OIC’s Sixth Conference on Palestine held in New York, Malaysia expressed concern about Israel’s renewed activities in Africa and called for their immediate halt. Malaysia opposed establishing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and supported the resolution at the Jerusalem Conference of the OIC (New York, April 1984) to sever ties with any country that moved its ambassador to Jerusalem.


Malaysia supported the PLO more strongly than did any other Southeast Asian country. In 1969, Malaysia was the first Asian country to permit Fatah to open an office in its capital, which in 1974 became a PLO office. In August 1982, under Mahathir, this office was given full diplomatic recognition. Malaysia’s foreign minister claimed that Israel should recognize the PLO before demanding that it recognize Israel. In May 1983, Malaysia hosted a conference on the Palestine question with UN funding and expressed anti-Israeli propaganda in its media. Yasser Arafat, paying an official visit to Malaysia in July 1984, was received by the king and spoke to a large audience.14


In August 1984, a visit to Kuala Lumpur by the New York Philharmonic was canceled because of the Malaysian information minister’s demand that a work by the Swiss Jewish composer Ernst Bloch be removed from the program. The minister’s statement on the matter included anti-Semitic expressions.


From 1983 onward, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published and disseminated in Malaysia. On 12 August 1983, Mahathir asserted in a speech to the Malaysian Press Club that Jews and Zionists controlled the international media. He repeated this charge four days later and added that the journalists working for foreign newspapers under Jewish control were trying to destabilize Malaysia through distorted reports. He called the Wall Street Journal a Jewish tool.


In a speech in September 1986 at the summit of the Nonaligned Nations in Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare, Mahathir complained that the Jews’ exile two thousand years ago and their persecution under the Nazis had not taught them anything. On the contrary, these persecutions had turned them into the very monsters they vilified in their own propaganda; they had become the gifted students of Goebbels.


In another speech to the Malaysian parliament on 10 October 1986, Mahathir referred to attempts by Zionists to use Malaysian individuals and groups to damage the country’s economy. He also blamed the “Zionist press” in Western countries for the low level of American investment in Malaysia. He often attacked the New York Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal as Zionist publications.15

Israeli president Chaim Herzog’s visit to Singapore in November 1986 evoked harsh Malaysian reactions including bitter condemnations of Israel and Zionism. There were calls to cut off Singapore’s water supply and burn its flag.16


Mahathir and Malaysian diplomatic representatives made constant belligerent speeches about Israel, often condemning it for causing suffering to the Palestinians. In 1992, Malaysia denied entry to a delegate from Israel’s El Al airlines for the International Flight Conference in Kuala Lumpur. In December that year, it denied entry to an Israeli football player on the Liverpool team, and the team canceled its visit to Malaysia.


In March 1994, Mahathir prohibited the screening of Steven Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List on the ground that it was an anti-German propaganda film aimed at winning support for Jews and contained too much violence. When this evoked protests in the United States and Australia, the Malaysia cabinet canceled the prohibition against the film but required that seven scenes with violence or sex be cut. Spielberg, however, insisted that the film be shown in its entirety or not at all. In the end, it was decided to remove all his films from Malaysia.17


Early in 1992, Israel began normalizing its relations with China, India, and other Asian countries. This drew its Foreign Ministry’s attention to the Muslim countries in Asia. The view regarding Malaysia was that Mahathir was an anti-Semite and there was no chance of changing his country’s hostile policy so long as he was prime minister.

Malaysian Deputy Police Chief Says Dataran Merdeka Sit In NOT Against The Law?!

This is the face of the arrogant MCE Grade 3 qualified Deputy IGP Khalid Abu Bakar. What an imbecile!

By Admin

In an apparent stupid attempt by Deputy IGP Khalid Abu Bakar to justify the protest by Umno backed petty traders outside of BERSIH co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan's residence, he is now saying that we can have sit in's where ever we want as long as it does not disrupt other. If this is the case, then he must also be saying that there was nothing wrong for the People to have the SIT IN at Dataran Merdeka during BERSIH 3.0.


From Malaysiakini

Deputy police chief Khalid Abu Bakar said that the police will not act against petty traders for having mounted a protest outside the house of Bersih co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan because it was not an offence.


"Well, there is no offence. What offence? If you want to sit in front of her house without disrupting other people, there is no offence," he told a press conference in Kuala Lumpur this afternoon. When it was pointed out that Ambiga had complained that the protest invaded her privacy, he replied: "Which privacy? They didn't enter her house, they were in public space.” He added that "under the spirit of the Peaceful Assembly Act", everyone should be allowed to conduct a gathering.

Asked if police will act on Ambiga’s police report against the protest where petty traders set up burger stalls outside her house, he said: “No, unless there is an offence being committed then we will move in. “As long as they don’t commit any offence such as trespassing on private property, we will not take action." In clarifying the matter further later, Khalid said it is not a criminal offence but it could be an offence under the local council laws. “Personally, I do not agree with intrusions of personal privacy,” said Khalid.

The petty traders had protested outside Ambiga’s house on May 10 over claims that the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 in Kuala Lumpur had affected their income. However, Ambiga had condemned the protest as a violation of her privacy and said the protesters should instead file a claim in court. Petty traders' group Ikhlas which organised the protest, has promised a bigger demonstration outside Ambiga's house on May 24.

ONLY BN/UMNO CAN UNITE MALAYSIANS

By Admin

If there was anything that was inspiring about BERSIH 3.0, it must have been the common hatred that Malaysians irrespective of race, religion, social status or gender had and still have for the BN/Umno Regime. We must give credit where and when it is due and The Scribe must admit that the actions of Najib Razak's BN/Umno, the Police and the BN controlled Mainstream Media has surely realized Najib's own coined up slogan of 1Malaysia. BERSIH 3.0 has seen the coming together of Malaysians from all walks of life as the following article from Bridget Welsh, an  associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University would attest to.

The path ahead for Malaysian politics




With well over 100,000 people gathering last week for electoral reform in the largest street protest in the nation’s history – and the event marred by violence by both state and non-state actors alike – Malaysian politics has reached an important impasse.



The Bersih 3.0 rally and its aftermath reveal that the path ahead for Malaysian politics will grow even more contentious and complex. As the different ‘Bersih stories’ pour in, ranging from ‘ordinary’ heroism to the darker accounts of beatings and abuse of power, the move of Malaysian politics outside of the realm of elite to the streets and social media is both empowering and scary.


Prime Minister Najib Razak’s decision not to accommodate the concerns of the protesters last week, and even to demonise their actions, now prods Malaysia further along the road to its day of destiny, where the political fate of Malaysia’s 54-year government will be determined. So far, the routes chosen are one of confrontation rather than compromise, making resolution to differences even more difficult.


Before the rally, I argued that four actors would shape politics around Bersih 3.0 – the youth, the middle class, the police and East Malaysians. Of these, three were decisive on rally day itself (the latter will grow more so as elections approach).


The youth and the middle-class attended the rally in large numbers, marking a new generation’s engagement with politics and transforming a largely apathetic middle class into a more engaged electorate.


Those wearing yellow and green included Malaysia’s soccer moms, the shopping mall princesses, disgruntled students, retirees and usually reticent professionals.


These individuals comprised those who had for years enjoyed the air-conditioned comfort of Malaysia’s success, yet with different levels of concern and angst chose to brave Kuala Lumpur’s hot and humid conditions on April 28. It was uncomfortable, but overwhelmingly, this embrace of discomfort shows how engaged Malaysians are with hot-button political issues and their willingness to stand up and be counted.


They were there because they see the country moving in the wrong direction and wanted to make it right. At the very least, the Bersih rally revealed the shortcomings of the country’s leaders in addressing the concerns of a large, important and increasing number of its citizens.


Much of the attention focused on the third actor, the police, whose over-the-top actions in the use of tear gas and their attacks on journalists have permanently stained their reputation among those connected to the rally.


For those not at the rally, the picture is less clear as the mainstream media has manipulated the event in an attempt to snatch the moral high ground, with the government going as far as censoring the international media and destroying cameras. Often the characterisation of police action has been one of black and white, where in actual fact there is much more gray, and views are evolving as more and more stories are shared.


Questions will remain about the breaching of the barricade, and unless a truly independent party investigates, the ‘he said, she said’ dynamic will be rife with conspiracy theories that breed confusion and suspicion rather than promote genuine respect for the rule of law.


Ultimately, Malaysian voters will decide on who ordered what and why, as the truth cannot be censored with over 100,000 Malaysians from all walks of life sharing their experiences back inside their air-conditioned homes through a social network that directly and indirectly touched over half of the electorate.


Different narratives


Bersih 3.0 was a nationalistic event, a moment of patriotism. What is striking to see are two conflicting ‘Save Malaysia’ narratives that have emerged. The first is one that is shared by rally attendees and its supporters as those who braved the tear gas decided to come out to ‘save’ the country.


This vision is one in which the event becomes a turning point towards greater freedom and empowerment. The symbolism of Dataran Merdeka runs deep as this nationalist narrative is one of rights and fairness.


The core of electoral reform involves guaranteeing that the voice of the people is heard fairly and freely. As such, for Bersih supporters attending the rally, it was about this democratic image for the country as it hopes to move towards a stronger system based on integrity and inclusion.


This stands in stark contrast to the alternative image based on a more reactionary nationalism, one in which the threat is defined as the protesters, ordinary people, who are challenging the status quo. They were portrayed as attacking the country, first on the police force and then later the incumbent system as a whole.


This government-linked ‘image building’ has attempted to showcase the protesters as national security threats (needing barbed wire), immoral actors who are ‘dirty’ rather than clean. Embedded in this narrative is the image that the protestors are anti-Malay, initially as attackers of the Malay police force and later as supposedly immoral individuals.


It is hate-speech that is reminiscent of regimes that feed on fear and hold onto power through exclusion. Also weaved into this narrative is the image of destabilising reformasi proponent fighting for power in the form of Anwar Ibrahim, who is ironically attacked even further in what can be seen as an effort to bring back the Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s base of supporters into Najib’s political fold.


The efforts to stoke hatred of the Bersih movement and its supporters, especially opposition leaders, are extensive, involving the manipulation of the foreign media and threats against journalists and observers, such as Australia’s Senator Nicholas Xenophon.


This narrative is about using racism and fear, hoping to tap into underlying conservatism and relying heavily on state power to hold onto power. This is all couched in an alternative narrative of patriotism, where Dataran Merdeka is portrayed as the place where challengers to power are putting the country governed by the BN under attack.


For the democratic nationalists in this equation, Bersih 3.0 was a mass rebellion. It was attacked, put down and described in such a manner that will build anger. The calls for Bersih 4.0 are already being voiced among supporters.

For the reactionary nationalists, Bersih 3.0 represents a revolutionary event that they have chosen to demonise, not fully realising that in doing so they are sowing the seeds of further discontent.


Supporters on this pole are demanding for arrests, with Bersih leaders and opposition activists top of the list, as they are blinded by authoritarian tools used in the Mahathir era that are outdated in Malaysia’s more mature polity.

Four fundamental mistakes


The reason that these narratives are so different is a continued misreading of Bersih 3.0. There are four fundamental mistakes that the reactionary nationalists made about the Bersih rally. First of all, they continue to equate the movement with the opposition.


This stems from a deep-seated fear of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. While both Pakatan Rakyat and the civil society-led Bersih movement share some common interests in reform, as do the overwhelming majority of Malaysians from across the political divide, they are not the same. Bersih represents a broad social movement that goes beyond opposition political leaders, and arguably even the Bersih leaders themselves.


It is about reform in governance and better representation, including on the part of opposition parties. This expansion of civil society into places such as Kota Kinabalu and Ipoh, as well as broadening within Kuala Lumpur itself, illustrates the new people-oriented politics of Malaysia. Elites on both sides will have to accommodate a more active and engaged public.


The days when people blindly follow the leaders or go to the streets for personalities alone are gone. Attacks on individual politicians in the wake of the rally just reveal a complete misunderstanding of the movement.


The second mistake of the reactionary nationalists is that Bersih 3.0 is about separate groups of Malaysians divided by ethnicity, organised by clearly ethnically divided groups. While ethnic identity remains important for Malaysian politics, for rally goers this was not about race, but about the country. The consistent theme is one of Malaysian identity, where one of the rally’s theme songs was ‘Negaraku’.


The impact of this public move to embrace non-ethnic politics is profound. In March 2008, voting across ethnic lines was largely private. The reality of common purpose came when the results came out.


Many of the motivations of March 2008 – Hindraf, religious rights and more – were ethnic in nature. Bersih 3.0 was markedly different. It was about a common purpose, where ethnicity was put aside in favour of community building. Bersih 3.0 was arguably the largest trust-building event in Malaysia’s history after Merdeka.


Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans and more met each other, shared laughter, water, sweets, salt… and tears. (The spillover is that it helps build trust among many opposition supporters who came to the rally, as well as the middle-ground Malaysians who met die-hard opposition members for the first time. For PAS in particular, perhaps the biggest success was its Amal security units, which were seen protecting rally-goers across races.)


After years of movement towards differences, towards less understanding, this was put aside on a hot afternoon. Bersih 3.0 has set in place conditions where trust building among ordinary people can grow stronger.


Ironically, the reactionary nationalists have underestimated the dissipation of fear in Malaysian politics. This is their third mistake. The bravery among Malaysians is growing. You do not need to look at the numbers of the crowd, although this should not be ignored.


You do not need to even look at the leaders of the movement or the examples of police officers who offered helping hands to rally goers while some of their peers were abusing their positions. Malaysians are increasingly willing to take ownership of their future and are willing to do so again.


Conservatively, the size of Bersih 3.0 doubled in less than a year. The authorities are fooling themselves if they think that these people will not stand up again. Bersih conservatively directly touched over 20 percent of the electorate and indirectly much more. The large participation of young people is especially important as they are traditionally the strongest risk-takers.


One student remarked to me afterwards how the taste of the tear gas the second time was sweeter and she was ready for more. Yes, a she. This is a less fearful Malaysia, and a more angrier one.


Finally, the reactionary nationalists appear to be mistakenly ignoring the issue behind the rally – electoral reform. Polling conducted in late 2011 shows before Bersih 3.0 that only a third of citizens think the electoral process is fair and free – very much in line with the Umno hardcore.


Whatever people think about the tactics and individuals in Bersih – and views differ – the overwhelming majority of Malaysians see a problem with the electoral system.


The government should bear in mind that globally, the single most important event that triggers political transitions is a fraudulent election. If the BN goes to the polls under the circumstances that are already widely seen to be unfair and lacking integrity, they are miscalculating the underlying sentiments of a growing number of people about the core issue of the rally.


They will be seen to be illegitimate by a large share of the population. This size of the rally should be sending clear signals to leaders to properly engage in electoral reform. Anything else will be seen by many as a desperate measure to hold onto power rather than a genuine mandate of a leader.


No compromises, only confrontation


Attention has centred on the timing of the polls. It looks more and more likely that these will occur as early as next month. Najib, over the past week, has embraced a hardline position, with an attempt to unite his base and papering over the divisions within Umno.


The media inundation of a turned-over car and the resultant violence aims to bring the rural base back into the BN fold. To add onto this, the hardline efforts involving personal attacks – with bizarre photos bordering on pornography on the front-page of national newspapers and complete fabrications of speeches – reflects the beginnings of an assault on the opposition and international observers.


These tactics coupled with the embedded advantages in the electoral system and support from East Malaysia appear to form the strategy that is perceived to bring a BN victory, albeit one that will be highly contentious.


To follow the path of confrontation rather than compromise is very risky. First of all, it ignores the elephant in the room associated with elections, the need for the elections to be seen as legitimate.


To date, the government’s outreach to Bersih is missing and genuine avenues for electoral reform remain unexplored. While Bersih faces the challenge of illustrating the need for reforms and moving the movement forward, its central message has resonated among many Malaysians. The greater the demonisation and distancing away from Bersih, the harder compromise is possible.


Second, it assumes that Najib can control the actors who are carrying out hardline manoeuvres. Already the Umno-linked New Straits Times has been internationally shamed. How many other institutions will have to compromise themselves in this battle for power, in which more authoritarian measures are adopted?


What makes the current environment complex for the current leadership is that even its own actors on the BN side have become more non-state in nature and are increasingly mobilised, making this move toward legitimising hardline approaches even more risky.


Letting this sort of politics rule reflects on the leadership. Physics teaches us that with every action there is another reaction. Hardline options provoke hardline responses. This dynamic will serve to polarise the electorate into political camps and harden positions in these camps. The days of polarisation of families post-1999 reformasi are coming again, but with even greater intensity given the mobilisation of the young.


Finally, this apparent choice by Najib to embrace the hardline political path will make it even harder to bring about any reform in any realm. To de-link economic reform from political change is unviable. There is a need to implement the rule of law fairly to promote the economy, and this involves a fair and unbiased investigation.


To give in to the hardline political position will undermine economic reform and contribute to the bad practices of using resources to win political allies rather than in building a sustainable and inclusive economy.


Indeed, the miscalculations of a growing social movement by reactionary nationalists will make Najib’s national leadership even more vulnerable.


The header was inspired by a Bersih 3.0 protester, whose remarks on BBC was censored by local satellite TV station Astro

More Evidence Of Police Agents Provocateur At BERSIH 3.0!

By Admin

Former inspector-general of police Hanif Omar has been appointed the head of the independent panel to probe incidents of violence during the Bersih 3.0 rally. It is rather strange that the ex-IGP is chosen to lead the probe on the riots started by the UMNO police thugs. Hanif Omar has already made his own conclusions about the communist involvement in BERSIH 3.0 and accepting Najib's take that it is a coup d'état against the UMNO government. How can Hanif be considered as impartial? It's like hiring a known paedophile to work in a kindergarten.

This comes after the BN/Umno Regime of Najib Razak rejected the offer of  United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue to conduct an independent investigation, research and assessment on the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28.



From Malaysiakini:



Student Activist Khalid Ismath is now being investigated by the police over a photo which shows a man attacking a traffic police officer during the Bersih 3.0 rally. Although some mainstream newspapers have accused Khalid as the attacker, however the law student has maintained that he is a victim of mistaken identity. He stressed that the attacker in the photo is a completely different person and that he donned a different coloured shirt that day.


But here something very interesting indeed. The pics above quite conclusively show that the person who aimed the kick at the traffic policeman later donned a police vest and was seen manhandling protesters! He was a police provocateur!

THE IDENTITY OF THE ALTANTUYA KILLERS REVEALED!

There is no perfect crime. The taxi driver hired by Altantuya for the day did not appreciate that his passenger was kidnapped under his eyes without payment for the fare. He took note of the registration plate of the kidnapper’s car and filed a complaint at the local police station. In a few days, the police identified the car and realized that it was a government vehicle.

Courtesy of Sloone


The French Liberation newspaper reveals intriguing details and updates of the Altantuya Shariibuu case (today – 5 march 2009). The writer Arnaud Dubus (a journalist based in Thailand) has visited Ulanbataar and Kuala Lumpur, and returns with several new information regarding the case. I managed to get the English translation of his story. One compelling paragraph states that:


A report from the Malaysian police, written on 19th november 2006 and which has been kept secret until now, reveals dry and precise descriptions as to how this young woman, a member of Asian high society, has been killed. In this document, one of the killers, a policeman of the Malaysian Special Branch named Sirul Omar, replied to the questions of an officer at a police station close to the murder scene. “When the Chinese woman saw that I was taking a gun, she begged me to spare her, saying she was pregnant. Azilah (the commanding officer of Sirul) grabbed her and [threw] her on the ground. I immediately shot the left side of her face. Then Azilah took off her clothes and put them in a black plastic bag. Azilah noticed that her hand was still moving. He ordered me to shoot again, which I did”, said Sirul. This is the first confirmation of Altantuya’s assassins’ identity. “Then we carried her body into the woods. Azilah wrapped the explosives around her legs, her abdomen and her head, and we exploded her. (The copy of the report by Sirul is available on Malaysia Today - in the Malay language).


Inside is the English Version of the report: The Altantuya Shaaribuu’s Case : How and why she was killed? (First published in Liberation French newspaper, 5th of March 2009):


Shaaribuu Setev is a bitter and disappointed man. Yet behind the saddened face of this Mongolian lies a fierce determination. Seated in a sofa in the lobby of an Ulaan Baataar hotel rattled by gushes of a freezing wind, this sixty years old man is ready to fight. His face features, hardened by the suffering and the stern climate, and his intense gaze tell all. “My daughter has been murdered by Malaysians on Malaysian territory. And they did not have even offer a word of apology,” states this professor of psychology at the National University of Mongolia.


The assassination of his daughter, Altantuya Shaaribuu, took place in October 2006. This was a murder unlike others in a region where business conflicts or petty politics are often settled with a gun. Everything in this case, which started in 2002 when the French Spanish company Armaris concluded the sale of three submarines to the Malaysian government for the amount of one billion Euros, is out of the ordinary.


The impact of the “Altantuya case” in France, Malaysia and Mongolia has yet to reach its climax. The murder of the 28 year old Mongolian was the result of a “commission” at the price of 114 million Euros by Armaris to its Malaysian counterpart. This “commission,” which was acknowledged by the Malaysian government in front of the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, has triggered a chain of events that has led to the assassination of Altantuya and the disappearance of several key witnesses in the case.


A report from the Malaysian police, written on 19th november 2006 and which has been kept secret until now, reveals dry and precise descriptions as to how this young woman, a member of Asian high society, has been killed. In this document, one of the killers, a policeman of the Malaysian Special Branch named Sirul Omar, replied to the questions of an officer at a police station close to the murder scene. “When the Chinese woman saw that I was taking a gun, she begged me to spare her, saying she was pregnant. Azilah (the commanding officer of Sirul) grabbed her and [threw] her on the ground. I immediately shot the left side of her face. Then Azilah took off her clothes and put them in a black plastic bag. Azilah noticed that her hand was still moving. He ordered me to shoot again, which I did”, said Sirul. This is the first confirmation of Altantuya’s assassins’ identity. “Then we carried her body into the woods. Azilah wrapped the explosives around her legs, her abdomen and her head, and we exploded her.”


The revelation of this report in the French newspaper Liberation is the latest chapter in this colorful and dramatic saga featuring French weapon sellers, Mongolian Shaman, and Malaysian politicians. This case is explosive not only for the Malaysian government, since the deputy Prime minister Najib Razak (who is scheduled to become Prime minister at the end of March) is suspected of having links to the case, but also because it could embarrass the DCNS, this French company specialising in military shipbuilding. The French Spanish company Armaris, which sold two Scorpène and one Agosta submarines to Malaysia in June 2002, was bought by DCNS in 2007.


With her magnetic beauty and sophistication, Altantuya is reminiscent of the troubling image of a Far East Mata Hari. She grew up in Saint Petersburg (Russia), then studied at the Institute of Economic Management in Beijing. Besides speaking English, she is fluent in Russian, Chinese and Korean. The fateful cycle for Altantuya came into gear when she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Hong Kong in 2004. Baginda is a security expert and the director of the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, a pro-government think tank. The two quickly became romantically involved. Altantuya, nicknamed Tuya by her friends, proved to be a useful assistant, helping Baginda translate from Russian to English.


Whereas Altantuya is young and beautiful, the rich and alluring Baginda is a well known figure of the Kuala Lumpur’s elite, notably because of his proximity to the Malaysian Deputy Prime minister and minister of Defense Najib Razak (he is also his security affairs adviser). Baginda parades in the most exclusive circles of Kuala Lumpur, sometimes accompanied by his legitimate wife.


In March 2005, Altantuya and Baginda departed for Europe, touring France, Germany, Italy and Portugal in the red Ferrari of Baginda, staying in posh hotels and dining in the finest restaurants of the old Continent. This trip, however, was not only for tourism: the contract for the sale of the submarines had been signed in 2002, but important details had yet to be settled. “We knew that Baginda was used by Deputy Prime minister Najib Razak as an intermediary for weapons systems deals, especially the high level ones,” says a regional security affairs expert.


At the end of March 2005 the couple was in Paris, where they met with Najib Razak. A picture shows the threesome in a Parisian private club. “Tuya showed me the pix. She said that one of the men was her boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda, and the other the “big boss”, Najib Razak. I asked her if they were brothers because of the names, but she said no, and that Najib Razak was the ‘prime minister’”, said Amy, Altantuya’s best friend (Najib Razak has sworn on the Koran that he has never met Altantuya). According to a private detective, now in hiding in India, the beautiful Tuya was also the occasional mistress of the deputy Prime minister, who was introduced to her by Baginda at the end of 2004.


The story became dramatic when, in October 2006, Altantuya was informed that the commission paid by the French-Spanish company Armaris had arrived on a Kuala Lumpur bank account. It had been paid to Perimekar, a company owned by Baginda. Altantuya rushed to Kuala Lumpur, in order to claim her share of the commission from Baginda ; she said she was entitled to 500,000 dollars. Baginda and Altantuya broke up prior to this. A jealous Rosmah Mansor, the feared businesswoman and wife of Najib Razak, objected any payment to Altantuya. Altantuya arrived in Kuala Lumpur with two other Mongolian women, one of them was a Shaman responsible for putting a spell on Baginda if he refused to pay. For several days, Altantuya harassed her ex-lover.


On the 18th of October, Baginda could no longer tolerate the daily scenes made by Altantuya in front of his house. He contacted the Director of the Special Branch, Musa Safrie, who happened to also be Najib Razak’s aide de camp. On October 19th, 2006, a little before 9 pm, two police officers of the Special Branch, Azilah Hadridan and Sirul Omar, were sent in front of Baginda’s house where Altantuya was gesticulating and shouting. They had the order of “neutralizing the Chinese woman.” They kidnapped her, and drove her ten kilometers away and shot her several times. Then, they destroyed her body with C 4 explosives, a type which can only be obtained from within the Defense Ministry. Her entry into Malaysia was erased from the immigration records. It would appear that Altantuya had never come to Malaysia, because there is no trace left of her.


There is no perfect crime. The taxi driver hired by Altantuya for the day did not appreciate that his passenger was kidnapped under his eyes without payment for the fare. He took note of the registration plate of the kidnapper’s car and filed a complaint at the local police station. In a few days, the police identified the car and realized that it was a government vehicle.


Events unfolded that even the Deputy Prime minister Najib Razak could not impede. He tried to cover the case. A few hours before the arrest of Baginda, he sent him a SMS : “I will see the Inspector General of Police at 11 am today… The problem will be solved. Be cool”. A few hours after, Baginda was arrested as well as the two police officers of the Special Branch, Azilah and Sirul.


After a trial considered dubious by many observers, Baginda was acquitted with the accusation of having ordered the murder and released in November 2008. Accused of having perpetrated the murder, Azilah and Sirul appeared in front of the Court last month. If convicted, their sentence is death. The verdict is scheduled for the 9th of April.


Thousands of miles from there, in the Mongolian capital city Ulaan Baataar, Shaaribuu Setev, Altantuya’s father, is trying to control his anger. To him and his family, the acquittal and release of Baginda is symbolic of the unfairness of the Malaysian judicial process: “The Malaysian government is not even answering to the letters from the Mongolian Foreign Affairs Ministry,” he says.


When Shaaribuu came to the Malaysian parliament to meet Najib Razak, the Deputy Prime minister had to escape through a back door in order to avoid an embarrassing encounter. The Altantuya case has become a key element of the Malaysian political game between Najib Razak (who is expected to become Prime Minister after the United Malay Nation Organisation (UMNO) Congress in March) and the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. So far, Najib Razak has navigated around the obstacles, but the murder of the young Mongolian remains a sword suspended over his head.


One of the most obscure aspects of the Altantuya case is the role of the Armaris company. In October 2007, the Malaysian Deputy Defense minister, Zainal Abdidin Zin, acknowledged in front of the Parliament that Armaris had effectively paid 114 million Euros in commission to Perimekar. He maintained that it was not a bribe, but a payment for “support and coordination services.”


Was there corruption as in the case of the Taiwanese frigates in which the French DCNS was also implicated ? DCNS, a private company with public financing, has declined our request for a meeting. “Nobody can comment on this case,” was the sober reply of the DCNS Press relations officer in Paris. A document, which could establish a link between Altantuya and the French company is the guarantee letter written by Abdul Razak Baginda so that his mistress could obtain a visa to enter the Schengen zone (of whom France is a member country). The French embassy could not refuse this service to a man decorated with the Legion d’Honneur. But the role of Altantuya in the submarines negotiations is still not clear. Intelligence agencies find her background intriguing and the Russian FSB (ex-KGB) is following closely the case.


In Ulaan Baataar, Mungunshagai, the eldest son of Altantuya, who is 12 years old, is traumatized by the death of his mother. Altanshagai, the youngest, who is five years old and mentally handicapped, has not understood that he will never see again his mother. “He is asking for her all the time and is staying the whole day prostrated on his chair. Every evening, I bring him sweets and I tell him that his mother gave it to me for him”, says Shaaribuu Setev, the grandfather of the two boys. As for Baginda, he settled down in the United Kingdom with his family. He never uttered a word of regret on the deadly fate of the one who shared his life for two years.