The Truth That Refuses To Surface

Thursday, 05 March 2009 08:34

In my sedition trial, Superintendent Gan Tack Guan just refuses to reply to YB Gobind Singh Deo’s questions as to how and why Altantuya Shaaribuu was killed and whether someone had paid Azilah and Sirul to kill her. Gan also refuses to confirm whether C4 was used to blow up her body after she was killed. Gan, in fact, says it was not C4 and he does not know what type of explosive was used. Today, Malaysia Today will reveal the truth that Gan refuses to reveal in my trial.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Altantuya Shaaribuu’s case: how and why she was killed
Published in the Liberation French newspaper on 5th March 2009

This is the English translation of the Liberation French article:

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 (can be read below), 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 colourful 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 “neutralising the Chinese woman.” They kidnapped her, and drove her ten kilometers away and shot her several times. Then, they destroyed her body with C4 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 realised 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 traumatised 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.

Arnaud Dubus (in Kuala Lumpur, Ulaan Baataar and Paris)

Arnaud did extensive research into this story and travelled the world in search of the truth. I met him in Kuala Lumpur soon after my release from ISA detention after he returned from Mongolia.

This is the original cautioned statement that Sirul Azhar Omar made in the interrogation by the police on 19 November 2006 that confirms not only how and why Altantuya was killed but also that they were hired to kill her:

Source : Malaysia-Today

Malaysia’s Mongolian Murder Mystery Continues

By Kim Quek (Asia Sentinel) - The acquitted Abdul Razak Baginda does little to dispel suspicions over Deputy Prime Minister Najib’s involvement

There appears to be only one motive in Abdul Razak Baginda’s press conference on November 20 in the wake of his acquittal for murder in the case of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was executed in October of 2006 in a case with connections to the top of Malaysia’s power structure.

The press conference was designed to alleviate the mounting pressure on Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor, who have found themselves irretrievably entangled in the murder case.  These entanglements spring from two sources: a judicial process bruised by numerous irregularities and dubiety that are widely perceived as motivated by the desire to protect the real culprits; and the suffocation and dubious response to incriminating new evidences.

In the 40-minute press conference, Razak Baginda only delivered two solid points: one, Razak himself is innocent; and two, Najib & Rosmah are also innocent, as Razak claimed that the latter never met Altantuya, and that all allegations against them were lies.  Beyond these two assertions, Razak did not yield even one inch of facts that might have thrown some light on the numerous puzzles that have found no answers in the one year old trial. 

And since the court has already acquitted Razak of the charge, why should he bother to hold a press conference to perform the redundant act of once again declaring himself innocent, if it is not meant to help out his close friend and benefactor?  (Some view this as a quid pro quo, saying Razak deliberately cancelled a previous press conference on Nov 6 so that it could be held after the end of the allowable appeal period, which fell on Nov 14, just to make sure that the prosecutor would not appeal against his acquittal.)

But if Razak and the intended recipients of this supposed reciprocal gesture think that Razak’s declaration of Najib’s innocence is of any help, they are mistaken.

How Did Razak Know?

It was interesting to observe that when Razak was asked how he knew that Najib never met Altantuya, Razak was stunned and speechless for a moment, before he found his composure to emphatically utter: “I know …. I know”, without explaining how he knew. 

Stacked against this simple answer of “I know, I know” is of course a mountain of facts and events that point to the contrary of Razak’s claim of innocence.

The first event that strikes the mind is the mysterious disappearance of private investigator P. Balasubramaniam (Bala) after implicating Najib in the case.   On 4th July 2008, Bala disclosed an explosive affidavit revealing the existence of the alleged Najib-Altantuya-Razak triangle of relationship – in direct contradiction to Najib’s repeated vows that he never met Altantuya - in addition to furnishing other details that helped to make sense of this otherwise puzzling case.  The next day, under apparent coercion, Bala signed another affidavit retracting every paragraph in the first affidavit with links to Najib; and immediately after that he and his entire family disappeared, never to reappear until this day. 

In the first affidavit, Bala said he wanted to prevent a miscarriage of justice, as many details with links to Najib given by him to the police had been left out in the police statement and also never raised in court.  He therefore sought to appear in court to provide these missing links.  Regrettably, he never had that chance.

Upon disclosures of these two affidavits, the police promised to investigate them.  They later claimed to have located Bala and his family in a foreign country (the identity of which the police refused to divulge), and they also claimed to have taken a statement from Bala.  However, to this day, the police have remained silent on these investigations as well as the whereabouts of Bala and family.

Critical Evidence Blocked

Meanwhile, Karpal Singh, the lawyer for the family of Altantuya and the Mongolian government, applied to have Bala’s affidavit included in the trial, but was blocked by the concerted objections from all the participating players in the trial – the judge, prosecutors and defense. This instance of blockade of evidence to the trial is only one in a series of similar blockades that appear to fit into a pattern whereby critical evidence that was deemed important leads to this murder mystery was blocked, apparently to prevent the truth from surfacing. 

Important examples of these court incidences were the mysterious erasure of immigration records of Altantuya and her female companions at the material times of the crime, and the mention in court of a photo allegedly showing Najib having a meal at a round table with Altantuya and Razak.

In the latter case, Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg (called Amy) testified on 29 June 20007 that Altantuya had shown her the photo in Hong Kong when the former returned from a trip to France.  However, before Karpal Singh could lead the witness further, he was stopped by the judge, upon strong protest from the prosecutor, enjoined by defense lawyers. 

According to Amy’s testimony, the photo was taken after August 2005, and she considered it an indication that her cousin’s love affair with Razak had not ended by then.  This testimony clearly contradicted Razak’s claim that his affair with Altantuya ended in August of that year.  That brings us to the question of the reliability of his statements.

Emotional Outbursts

In fact, Razak was found wanting in honesty in his replies to questions on the two emotional outbursts – one by himself in mid-trial in February 2008 and one by his wife when he was first charged in 2006.

On Razak’s outburst in court on 20 February 2008, this is what the New Straits Times reported: Before proceedings began, Razak’s father Abdullah Malim Baginda whispered something to his son who was in the dock.  Razak’s demeanor changed and he walked back to the holding cell, turned to face his father and angrily shouted: “Shall I shout it out?”   His father pointed his finger at him and indicated no.

Then Razak loudly said “I am innocent! I am innocent!” before going into the cell.

When the trial judge adjourned proceedings for lunch, Abdullah walked up to his son and again whispered something into his ears.  Razak jumped up from his seat and in an animated way shouted : “Oh no, oh no.”  He then kicked the dock gate angrily as he walked out and banged on the lock-up door and looked terribly upset.  He was in tears.

And what was Razak’s explanation during the press conference for this outburst?  He said he was only venting his anger as he was upset with the postponement of the case.  That answer did not sound very convincing, did it?  So, what is the secret that Razak is hiding from us?

On the second outburst when he was charged in Nov 2006, his wife shouted hysterically “Why charge my husband? He does not want to be the prime minister.”  Razak explained that his wife was then under stress as she had not seen him for some time.

That certainly didn’t sound like an honest answer. A more reasonable guess is that she was angry that her husband was made the scapegoat for someone who was aspiring to be the next prime minister.  The identity of this person is so obvious that it needs no further elaboration.

Finally, with regards to Razak’s claim that allegation of Altantuya’s involvement with the submarine deal was a lie because the contract was signed in June 2002 while he first met the deceased at end 2004, my answer is this: whose words are to be believed – Bala’s or Razak’s?  If Bala told the truth, then there is no credibility gap in the two dates, as according to Bala, Altantuya was passed on from Najib to Razak, as Najib did not want her to harass him since he was then the deputy prime minister (Najib became DPM in 2004).

If Bala did not tell the truth, why wasn’t he sternly dealt with?  Why should the authorities be so fearful of him that he was forced to retract his statement, made to disappear and his affidavit barred from court?

Nothing but a Red Herring

Posted by Super Admin

Sunday, 31 August 2008 13:56

What I am doing -- amar maaruf, nahi munkar; which means to uphold truth and oppose evil -- is mandatory in Islam. What I am doing is what Islam stipulates. I am more Islamic than that Arab pretending to be a descendant of the Prophet.

NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Kolonel Norhayati is not my ADC, explained Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s wife. She just handles my appointments. Well, I suppose this is akin to someone saying she is not my typist. She just types my letters. And now Syed Hamid Albar says that they are not censoring Malaysia Today. They are just blocking access to Malaysia Today.

Would you expect any less from people who argue that Umno is not a racist party? We just think that Malays are the Lords of this land and the non-Malays are all immigrants who can’t be allowed the same rights and privileges as the Lords of this land. But this is not racism. This is the Merdeka ‘social contract’ being honoured.

Yes, Happy Merdeka, Malaysians. And may the Merdeka ‘social contract’ be given the ‘honour’ it deserves and be placed as supreme.

Syed Hamid says they have sent Malaysia Today many warning letters but all these letters have been ignored. That is why Malaysia Today was not censored but the government only blocked access to it. However, Syed Hamid could not offer any details of how many letters were sent, when they were sent, and what were the contents of these letters. And this is because no such letters exist. The government, at no time at all, has ever sent Malaysia Today any warning letters.

Syed Hamid also did not offer any examples to support the allegation that Malaysia Today has insulted either Islam or Prophet Muhammad. Malaysia Today has insulted Prophet Muhammad and Islam, he said. And that is good enough. It is not necessary to explain in what way Islam and Prophet Muhammad were insulted or to support the allegation with examples or specific incidences.

Anwar Ibrahim has been chided for refusing to swear on the Quran that he is innocent of the allegation of sodomy. The government-owned media went to town in the run-up to the Permatang Pauh by-election to run Anwar down on his refusal to swear on the Quran.

Do I take it that if I too swear on the Quran that I have never insulted Islam or Prophet Muhammad then the matter is resolved? Would the government then unblock Malaysia Today since I have proven my innocence by swearing on the Quran? A hint from Syed Hamid, Pusat Islam or the Religious Department would be most welcome.

I will give the Malaysian government one week to come back with a response. I, Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin, am now offering to swear on the Quran that I have never insulted Islam and/or Prophet Muhammad. I, Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin, take up the challenge they have thrown to Anwar Ibrahim and which they chide Anwar Ibrahim for because he has refused to take up the challenge. Come back to me within one week and indicate that you are prepared to witness my oath on the Quran or forever hold your peace and never mention this matter again.

Want to make a small wager, however un-Islamic that may be? I bet they will not be able to offer any examples or evidence of incidences where I have insulted Islam and/or Prophet Muhammad and they will never accept my challenge that I swear on the Quran. The one-week will come and go and nothing will happen. They will ignore my challenge and will not respond. And this is because there are no incidences where I have ever insulted Islam or Prophet Muhammad.

This is nothing but a Red Herring. They are using an excuse that works well with most Muslims. If Muslims think you are insulting Islam or Prophet Muhammad they will go berserk. So what better excuse to offer than you are insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad. And since it is the government that is saying so, then this must be true, because would the government ever lie to the people?

Yes, they demand that Anwar Ibrahim swear on the Quran that he has never sodomised Saiful. And when Anwar refuses to do so they go to town with the issue and say that this proves Anwar’s guilt. Well, I too challenge them to demand that I swear on the Quran that I have never insulted Islam or Prophet Muhammad. And if they refuse to demand that I do so, then I too will go to town with the issue and declare them guilty of lying just like how they have declared Anwar guilty.

I remember back in April 2001 when the government detained ten of us under the Internal Security Act. Except for Tian Chua and Gobalakrishnan, the rest of us were put through a three-day Islamic rehabilitation program. For three days an ustaz was asked to sit with us from morning till evening to discuss Islam so that we could be ‘guided’ and ‘led back to the right path’ from which we have strayed.

It was a three-day rehabilitation program. But the ustaz did not give me my three days. On the second day he did not turn up. The excuse they gave me was that the ustaz ‘had something to do’. After we were released from detention, I checked with the others and they all confirmed that they had to go through the full three days, even Ustaz Badrulamin, an ex-UIA lecturer, and Saari Sungib, the ex-President of JIM, an Islamic movement.

Why did they ‘abandon’ me after the first day? Why were all the others subjected to the full three days except for me? Did they discover me beyond rehabilitation and thought that it was therefore futile to continue to try to rehabilitate me? Or did they give up on me, not because I was a lost cause, but because I out-debated the ustaz and they felt, instead of the ustaz rehabilitating me, I might end up rehabilitating him?

If they are still not satisfied and still feel I need to be rehabilitated, then I will throw an open challenge to any ustaz in Malaysia to sit down with me and prove that I am wrong or that I am a deviant. Come on, surely there is at least one ustaz, Tok Guru, Mufti, etc., who dares take me on. Come debate with me. Show me I am wrong. Then I will stop writing about Islam for the rest of my life. Surely this offer is too good to refuse.

Allow me to reveal some points of the ten-hour or so non-stop debate that I had with the ustaz during my Internal Security Act detention back in 2001. Ten hours is a long debate so I will certainly not be able to reproduce the entire thing. But some of these points will probably demonstrate why the ustaz ‘abandoned’ me after the first day and never came back the following day.

*************************************************


Pak Engku, today there will be no interrogation. For the next three days this ustaz will sit with you and talk about Islam.

He is supposed to rehabilitate me is it?

No, not rehabilitate. Just to talk to you about Islam so that we can get a better understanding of your thoughts on Islam.

The Special Branch officer walks out of the room and leaves me alone with the ustaz.

Before the ustaz can open his mouth I kick off the debate with my ‘opening speech’.

Ustaz, I am not as well versed in Islam as you are. I went to an English school and do not speak Arabic. I have also not memorised the Quran like you have. So my knowledge on Islam is very shallow. Forgive me, therefore, if what I say might not be right because I am speaking as a jahil (ignorant person) and not as a learned person.

The ustaz just nods without saying a word and I continue.

Tell me, ustaz, is amar maaruf, nahi munkar compulsory (wajib) or optional (sunat)?

He opens his mouth but before anything can come out of it I quickly continue.

Let me answer that myself. It is wajlb right? Amar maaruf, nahi munkar is as wajib as praying, fasting, performing the Haj and so on. It is an obligation. It is compulsory for all Muslims to perform amar maaruf, nahi munkar. It is not something you can choose whether to do or not. It is something you must do. It is mandatory in Islam.

The ustaz nods but says nothing.

So tell me, ustaz. Tell me I am wrong in performing amar maaruf, nahi munkar. Tell me it is not wajib, just like praying, fasting and so on. Tell me I should not perform amar maaruf, nahi munkar. Then I shall stop performing amar maaruf, nahi munkar.

The ustaz no longer even nods.

I challenge you, ustaz. (I point to the ceiling). Before Allah and with Allah as our Witness, tell me I have erred in performing amar maaruf, nahi munkar. Tell me amar maaruf, nahi munkar is not an obligation and compulsory in Islam. Tell me it is not wajib. Then let us all stop performing amar maaruf, nahi munkar. And let us also stop praying and fasting plus all those other rituals that are equally wajib and as much an obligation just like amar maaruf, nahi munkar.

The ustaz shuffles uncomfortably in his seat but before he can respond I charge in again.

I am doing only what is wajib in Islam. If you can before Allah and with Allah as our Witness tell me that amar maaruf, nahi munkar is wrong and that I should not be performing it, then let us now, before Allah and with Allah as our Witness, also declare all those others which are equally wajib as wrong.

I do not expect any response from the ustaz and do not wait for one.

I am prepared to stop performing amar maaruf, nahi munkar if you, ustaz, before Allah and with Allah as our Witness, declare it wrong. If you dare do that, then I will also stop performing all those others such as praying and fasting, which, therefore, should be declared equally wrong since they share the same wajib status as amar maaruf, nahi munkar.

This time I want him to respond so I stop to force a response out of him.

Yes, you are right, of course it is wajib.

That is all I wanted him to say.

Then what am I doing here, ustaz? Why am I under Internal Security Act detention? If I am only performing what Islam makes mandatory, what crime have I committed? Amar maaruf, nahi munkar is compulsory. All Muslims are obligated to perform it. I am being detained for doing what Islam forces us to do. I am being detained for obeying Allah. If obeying Allah is a crime then should I also be performing my prayers and fast? Are these also crimes in the eyes of the Malaysian government? What difference is praying and fasting compared to amar maaruf, nahi munkar? All are mandatory in Islam. If one is wrong then all should be wrong. If amar maaruf, nahin munkar is a crime then praying and fasting are also crimes. If I must stop performing amar maruf, nahi munkar then I must also stop praying, fasting, and all those others. Tell me, ustaz. Tell me that amar maaruf, nahi munkar is wrong. Tell me what Islam makes mandatory is a crime. Tell me the government is right in detaining me for performing amar maaruf, nahi munkar. Then, today, now, I will stop performing amar maaruf, nahi munkar, plus all those others that Islam makes mandatory as well. And, from today, now, you and I shall stop performing all those other obligations such as praying and fasting which, just like amar maaruf, nahi munkar, should also be classified as wrong.

*************************************************


This debate continues till the end of the day. But it is not really a debate as much as it is a monologue. I barrage the ustaz with him nodding and hardly opening his mouth. The following day he does not turn up either because he has given up on me and realises he can’t guide me back to the right path or because the Special Branch is worried that I would instead ‘lead him astray’.

Syeds are supposed to be descendants of the Prophet. I take it that Syed Hamid is, therefore, also a descendant of the Prophet. But he does not exhibit the proper Islamic qualities.

Syed Hamid is a lawyer who also built up a career as a merchant banker. I take it, therefore, that his English is better than the average Malay. Why can’t he then see that I am insulting Muslims? And this does not translate to insulting Islam or the Prophet.

If I were to call someone a pig, does that mean I am insulting that person or am I insulting pigs? Going by Syed Hamid’s logic, by calling someone a pig, I am insulting pigs.

No, Syed Hamid is not stupid. He does not even have a poor command of English. This is all a Red Herring. They want to block, not censor, Malaysia Today. So they are using the insulting Islam issue as the excuse. That is all.

In fact, what I am doing -- amar maaruf, nahi munkar; which means to uphold truth and oppose evil -- is mandatory in Islam. What I am doing is what Islam stipulates. I am more Islamic than that Arab pretending to be a descendant of the Prophet. And it is they, not me, who are insulting Islam. They use Islam as the camouflage to perpetuate racism and persecution. They perpetuate injustice. And they say this is what Islam is all about.

Shafee Abdullah: sodomologist extraordinaire

In this special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is a whiteboard and on this whiteboard are two names: Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. Below these two names are all sorts of notes, scribblings and etchings.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Very troubling reports have been published, which reveal the existence of a medical report of an examination done by a doctor on Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan a few hours before Saiful lodged a police report that he had been sodomised. The medical report apparently shows that there is no evidence that he had been sodomised by anyone.

Such reports raise some very serious questions that require immediate answers:

(1) Are the police in possession of such a medical report?

(2) Was the doctor concerned interviewed by the police and was he detained for any length of time?

(3) Is the doctor concerned facing any form of intimidation and, if so, by whom?

(4) Is there a medical report by another doctor that either confirms or contradicts the first medical report?

(5) If it is true that the medical report exists showing a lack of prima facie evidence, what then could have been the justification for the vigorous actions taken against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as well as the public call by the authorities for his DNA sample?

The answers to these questions are of paramount importance, as they bring into focus the integrity of our law enforcement system.

These latest disclosures regarding the investigations into the sodomy allegations are not the only ones to raise questions that need answering. There is, for example, also the issue of P. Balasubramaniam's abrupt "disappearance" that has yet to be satisfactorily explained. No one can deny that the circumstances of his first and second statutory declarations are highly unusual. All these show a pattern of events that cause much disquiet to right-thinking members of the public.

The Malaysian people are deeply troubled. A country that truly believes in the rule of law should not be faced with so many disturbing developments and unanswered questions.

The credibility of the Malaysian justice system as a whole is therefore at stake. The integrity of professionals, be they doctors or lawyers, must never be interfered with. The public must be left in no doubt that the criminal justice system in this country will not be misused or abused. There must be nothing less than an open and thorough investigation into these cases. This calls for the courage and professionalism of all those involved to do the right thing no matter the consequences. And those who have shown such courage and integrity must know that they live in a country where it is safe to do so.

Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar

*************************************************


What Ambiga said in her press statement above is certainly true and she has cause for concern. But she would be even more concerned if she knows what we know about this whole matter.

A special police operations centre was set up some time ago to coordinate all activities related to the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy crisis. No, the special police operations centre was not set up AFTER the alleged sodomy act took place on 26 June 2008. It was set up way before 26 June 2008.

Why the need to set up a special police operations centre BEFORE the date of the alleged sodomy act? Are they clairvoyant and did they peep into their crystal ball and ‘see’ the crime happen before it actually happened? Was the special police operations centre set up so that they could solve the crime? Or was the special police operations centre set up BEFORE the date of the ‘crime’ so that they could invent the so-called crime?

Yes, questions and yet more questions. But this is not yet the icing on the cake. The icing on the cake is that this special police operations centre is not located in the police headquarters. It is located in the meeting room of the office of prominent Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah who possesses a notorious reputation for fixing cases such as those involving the people implicated in murdering Altantuya Shaariibuu or those alleged to have pinched the bottoms of cigar girls in the Havana Club in Kuala Lumpur.

Name me any questionable case and you will find the hand of Shafee Abdullah behind that case. And this same person is coordinating the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy allegation from the meeting room of his law office in Kenny Hills.

There are four police officers headed by an officer name Aziz who are based in this special police operations centre in the meeting room of Shafee Abdullah’s law firm. But why are they based in an Umno lawyer’s office instead of in the police headquarters? Is this an official police operation or is this a rogue operation? Yes, we have watched many Hollywood movies about the CIA’s Dirty Tricks Department. Have Shafee Abdullah and the Royal Malaysian Police also seen the same movie? It appears so because the special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm looks like a plot out of these movies.

In this special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is a whiteboard and on this whiteboard are two names: Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. Below these two names are all sorts of notes, scribblings and etchings. There are also charts and strategies on how both Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin can be implicated in various crimes and incarcerated until their teeth fall out of their gums.

Yes, the police report to Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah. And Shafee Abdullah coordinates this special police operation with the IGP and AG. And the purpose of this special police operations centre in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is to explore how to incarcerate Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. And the special police operations centre has to be in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s office and not in the police headquarters because, officially, the IGP and AG are not involved in the Anwar sodomy case, as announced by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Shafee Abdullah is no ordinary man. In fact, he is not even a man; he is a devil. But he is Malaysia’s first and foremost sodomologist, a specialist in crimes of sodomy. And that is why the Pusrawi doctor’s report was rejected. He is just a normal doctor, a GP, argued the government. The prognosis of a normal doctor can’t be accepted as evidence in a sodomy case, never mind if he has been practicing medicine for two decades or more. They need the prognosis of a sodomy specialist, a sodomologist, and Shafee Abdullah is Malaysia’s first and foremost sodomologist.

That is why Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) II Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof did not meet Saiful in the police station or at the police headquarters. The special police operations centre is not in the police station or at the police headquarters. It is in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm. So it would be dangerous to meet Saiful in this law firm lest someone finds out. That is why Rodwan met Saiful in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel.

Okay, so Rodwan met Saiful one day before the alleged crime took place. But then maybe Rodwan is clairvoyant or he has a crystal ball and he ‘saw’ that a crime of sodomy was going to take place the following day. Some people do have this gift of ‘foresight’. Nevertheless, whether the timeline appears a bit out of sync or not, they still have the ‘evidence’ to work on to ‘prove’ that Anwar did sodomise Saiful the day AFTER Saiful met Rodwan in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel.

One such crucial evidence was supposed to be the doctor from Pusrawi’s medical examination of Saiful at 2.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. But then the doctor said that he had examined Saiful and found no evidence of sodomy. This report has since surfaced and the doctor has gone missing so, now, there is no way they can use this evidence.

The next evidence was supposed to be the second medical examination done at the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) at 4.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. But then the outpatient department of the HKL was closed at 4.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. So how could a second medical examination have been done? Yes, that’s right. No second medical examination was done and the doctors at the HKL refuse to doctor a medical report to say that the second medical examination had been done, when none had been done, or to say that they did find evidence of sodomy, when they did not.

Since none of the doctors at Pusrawi or HKL are cooperating with the police, the last piece of ‘evidence’ will have to be Saiful’s underwear. Okay, Saiful’s underwear does not really have Anwar’s semen stains on it. But this is a small matter. As long as someone from the Chemistry Department is prepared to testify that they did examine Saiful’s underwear and they did find Anwar’s semen stains on it, then that would be good enough. They will be able to build their case against Anwar and charge him for sodomy based on this ‘evidence’ from the Chemistry Department.

No, the Chemistry Department has NOT come out with their report yet. There is no report from the Chemistry Department that says they found Anwar’s semen stains on Saiful’s underwear. This is because they first of all need Anwar’s specimen so that they can plant it on the underwear and so that the Chemistry Department can then ‘discover’ it.

But Anwar is being bloody silly. He is being extremely pigheaded and stubborn. He refuses to hand over his specimen. How can they plant Anwar’s semen on Saiful’s underwear when Anwar refuses to let them take his specimen? The Chemistry Department can’t prepare its report saying that it found Anwar’s semen on Saiful’s underwear until the police are able to plant it there. But Anwar does not want to voluntarily hand over his specimen so this plan is being upset a bit.

But never mind. As soon as Parliament convenes later this month they will rush through a new law that will make it mandatory for you to hand over your specimen if the police demands that you do so. Refusing to hand over your specimen when the police demand you do so will soon become a crime and you can be sent to jail. They will try to pass this law before Merdeka Day of 31 August 2008 and they will try to backdate the law and make it retrospective so that any ‘crime’ committed before the passing of this law will also be covered.

Soon they will get Anwar once the DNA Act becomes law and Anwar can no longer refuse to hand over his specimen. Then, once they have obtained Anwar’s specimen, the Chemistry Department will be able to ‘discover’ it on Saiful’s underwear. Then they will be able to arrest and charge Anwar. And, who knows, they might even be able to convict him as well.

Yes, this Shafee Abdullah the sodomologist is good. He has names, charts, notes, scribbling and etchings all over his whiteboard in the meeting room of his law firm. This meeting room has been the special police operations centre for quite a while now. It was set up long before the alleged sodomy crime took place on 26 June 2008. It was set up not to solve the sodomy crime. It was set up to create the crime.

But, thus far, they lack one very crucial piece of evidence. They lack Anwar’s specimen that they need to plant on Saiful’s underwear. But they will get it as soon as the new DNA Act becomes law and they can use this law to force Anwar to hand over his specimen. Then Anwar is finished and they can close down the special police operations centre in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm and once again use this meeting room for fixing legal cases.

*************************************************


Lawyer: Abdul Razak Baginda 'is completely unimplicated'

Abdul Razak Baginda, a prominent political analyst, knew the murdered Mongolian model. His lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, said he wouldn't "go so far to say" that Abdul Razak had a relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu, but would say that "he knows the lady."

He said he met his client Wednesday morning and heard his side of the story. "I am extremely relieved from my conversation ... I am totally convinced of his innocence .. he is completely unimplicated." [Associated Press via International Herald Tribune]

*************************************************


Anwar verdict puts Malaysia's justice system on trial
Report by Tim Lester
ABC Online; 14 April 1999

MAXINE MCKEW: Well, to our own region now and the most publicised trial in Malaysia's history ended today, with Anwar Ibrahim — the man once groomed to lead the nation — jailed for six years, after a judge found him guilty on four counts of corruption.

Asian leaders have joined human rights groups in denouncing the severity of the sentence. In Malaysia, there have been clashes between police and protesters in the wake of the judgment, suggesting widespread scepticism with the verdict. So, did the system succeed in catching a wayward politician, or did it dance to the tune of an opportunistic leader who wants a political enemy behind bars?

TIM LESTER: Conviction day for Anwar Ibrahim.

As his supporters took to the streets around Kuala Lumpur's High Court, few doubted the outcome of the marathon corruption trial. For seven months now, they've watched Anwar battle to keep alive his shot at the country's top job.

They've heard him say repeatedly the system was being used against him. Many Malaysians, perhaps most, believe it. They believe Anwar Ibrahim's conviction was orchestrated to suit the PM and several of his close colleagues.

BRUCE GALE: There is a feeling among a large number of Malaysians that the trial wasn't fair.

TIM LESTER: Singapore analyst Bruce Gale sees this perception — whether right or wrong — as a problem for the Mahathir Government.

BRUCE GALE: If you have large sections of the population believing that somehow the judiciary is not fair or impartial, then this is a very serious situation. It's an undermining of a major national institution.

GURBACHAN SINGH: We could have easily shown by irrefutable evidence the involvement of several top politicians to bring Anwar Ibrahim down politically.

TIM LESTER: Among Anwar's nine defence lawyers, there is deep frustration that many witnesses, documents, even tapes they had ready didn't make it to evidence, because the judge wouldn't allow them.

GURBACHAN SINGH: There was evidence of the involvement of the PM, as well, that he knew this process of political conspiracy was going on — he did nothing to stop it.

MAHATHIR MOHAMAD: I wish he hadn't done this and he should have succeeded me and everything would be fine.

TIM LESTER: Political conspiracy — it was Anwar's claim the moment Dr Mahathir dumped him as Deputy PM and his lawyers say it was vital to their defence of the four corruption charges. But Judge Augustine Paul ruled as irrelevant the suggestion that government ministers and officials cooked up the sex claims to ruin Anwar.

GURBACHAN SINGH: Most of the rulings where the judge could exercise discretion, went against us.

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: When the trial first started, I think at least for the first two months or three, there were often times, I thought, where the judge was giving a lot of leeway to the defence.

TIM LESTER: Former prosecutor Shafee Abdullah praises Judge Paul for refusing to hear Anwar's conspiracy argument in relation to the four corruption charges.

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: Whether or not he committed those sexual offences have got nothing to do with the present charges.

TIM LESTER: So was Anwar's trial fair?

Yes, says Shafee Abdullah. But even he admits Malaysians don't see it that way.

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: There are a lot of individuals out there who feel that the whole trial has gone completely bonkers. Many individuals think that Anwar did not receive a fair trial.

TIM LESTER: The damage from the trial goes beyond perceptions about Government influence over the judiciary to the police force.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: They hit me physically and they stripped me naked and asked me to dance in the room, with my hand handcuffed.

TIM LESTER: Anwar Ibrahim's private secretary of 11 years was among hundreds arrested at the height of anti-government protests last year. He's now making a disturbingly common claim in Kuala Lumpur — that police used brutality and humiliation in the hope of recruiting him as a witness against Anwar.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: Oh, yeah, they asked me to admit that I was sodomised by Anwar.

TIM LESTER: Three of five people cited in sex charges pending against Anwar have now withdrawn their claims and turned on police.

GURBACHAN SINGH: And they were picked up and forced — tortured by the police — to make allegations against Anwar, to admit to sodomy, which they repeatedly said never happened. And they've gone on affidavits, they've gone on statutory declarations to that effect.

TIM LESTER: Add in Anwar's black eye — Malaysia's highest-ranking officer at the time hit him while he was blindfolded and handcuffed. In the process of convicting Anwar, Malaysia's police have earned themselves an image crisis.

Among other claims that didn't make it to court — the Washington limousine driver who says a Malaysian embassy official asked him to accuse Anwar of sexual misconduct while visiting the US.

JAMAL AMRO: Then he asked me — he said "Relax". Then he told me, "Anwar — did you ever bring girls for him, or boys or anything like that?"

I said, "No".

He said "C'mon, if you say 'Yes', we can make some money".

TIM LESTER: Jamal says he was told he could make more than $250,000 by going along with the sex claims against the then Deputy PM. Public anger over Anwar's treatment has helped his wife, Wan Azizah, win backing for a new political party and an opposition alliance to fight Dr Mahathir at the next election.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: The hatred against the present leadership is swelling because they can not believe the manner they handled this issue against Anwar.

TIM LESTER: This trial and the events around it have thrown up challenges the Mahathir Government didn't anticipate. Now, there's the possibility of a united opposition at the next national election due within 12 months.

A powerful threat for Dr Mahathir, but it's still not likely. The groups Anwar's supporters need to bring together would make unusual partners.

BRUCE GALE: It seems extremely difficult for me to believe that post-election, that this alliance could hold. The policies of these parties are so diametrically opposed to one another. Islamic fundamentalists want an Islamic State. To the Chinese, this is an anathema — something they would never accept.

TIM LESTER: Many Malaysians don't like the way their government and judicial system dealt with Anwar Ibrahim. Today's verdict will only fuel their suspicions.

But Dr Mahathir is still in the middle ground of Malaysian politics. His enemies have a giant task — trying to bring together opposition parties into an alliance needed to capitalise on anti-government sentiment.

The Malay unity sodomy conspiracy

Posted by Super Admin
Saturday, 26 July 2008 12:28


The Malay unity talks between PAS and Umno are not something that just sort of happened. They were carefully planned way ahead with the objective of restoring Malay political power and to ensure that the non-Malay ‘immigrants’ would not become the dominant political force in Malaysia.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Actually, there is a lot more sodomising going on in Malaysia than most people realise. The question is: who is sodomising whom? Or are they taking turns to sodomise each other?

The sad thing is, all those involved are Malays who profess the religion of Islam. And some are even from an Islamic political party. They talk about Islam until they foam at the mouth. They say that all Muslims are going to heaven, even bad Muslims who will of course have to serve a short term in hell to pay for their sins before they get transferred to heaven after their ‘sentence’ has been fully served. Good non-Muslims like Mother Teresa, never mind how good they may have been, will all end up in hell because they do not profess the religion of Islam.

Yes, this is the Malay mindset. Do good and you go to heaven. Do bad and you still go to heaven. And if you do bad all your life and repent a day before you die then you will go to heaven. Just make sure you repent at least a day before you die. Then you can escape hell.

Everything about the Malay mind revolves around heaven and hell. They will have this ‘little book’ like a weight-watcher’s book of calories and they measure their deeds with debits and credits. Sure, you can do bad. But just make sure you ‘balance’ your bad deeds with some good deeds. You do a bad deed and you get one debit. But if you know how to work your way around the system, then your good deeds can earn 27 credits. So one good deed can wipe out 27 bad deeds, depending on the degree and ranking of these good-bad deeds.

Yes, it’s all about balancing. And it’s all about punishment and rewards. Malays will avoid bad and do good only if there is a reward system. And the good is done only so far as it can help balance or wipe out the bad deeds. Conscience does not come into play here. In fact, there is no proper or precise word in the Malay vocabulary that is equivalent to the word ‘conscience’. The closest ‘description’ to conscience would probably be hati kecil or suara hati. Even then this is more a description rather than a translation because hati kecil or suara hati can describe other things as well and may not necessarily refer to conscience.

And that is why, of late, we have seen many acts perpetuated by people without any conscience and who feel that one bad deed is not a big deal when one can always go to Mekah to pray in front of the Kabah after the deed is done and this will wipe out all traces of the bad deed. An atheist is good because he or she is good by nature. A ‘religious’ person is good not necessarily because he or she is good by nature but because he or she is a coward and is too scared of hell or he or she wishes to be ‘bribed’ with heaven.

The Malay unity talks between PAS and Umno are not something that just sort of happened. They were carefully planned way ahead with the objective of restoring Malay political power and to ensure that the non-Malay ‘immigrants’ would not become the dominant political force in Malaysia. Part of this plan involved ensuring that PAS would lose confidence in Anwar Ibrahim to the point they would see that their future lies with Barisan Nasional rather than with Anwar.

Anwar is, after all, a traitor to the Malay race (he espouses Ketuanan Rakyat instead of Ketuanan Melayu and he is opposed to the New Economic Policy and wishes it to be replaced with a new, more-equitable, policy) and an American agent (reinforced with the US’ recent statements condemning Malaysia on this latest sodomy allegation against Anwar). So Anwar, the traitor that he is, needs to be destroyed for the good of the Malays.

Did it not make you wonder why it was Saiful’s uncle (or was it his auntie?) and not his father who called the press conference asking Anwar to swear on the Quran that he never sodomised the young man? Why the uncle/auntie? Why not the father? Anyway, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak too swore in front of 900 Umno national and grassroots leaders that he never met and does not know Altantuya. Are the people convinced that since Najib has sworn an oath then he is telling the truth? Or has his oath not changed the people’s minds one bit?

Actually, Saiful hardly knows his father. His father abandoned his mother soon after he was born and the mother remarried. When his mother died, his stepfather also disappeared and Saiful was subsequently brought up by his uncle (or was it his auntie?). And one important aspect in this whole episode is that Saiful’s ‘God Mother’ is Mumtaz Jaafar -- who is Rosmah Mansor’s nominee and ‘bag lady’ in all their clandestine business deals.

Now does that explain why Najib agreed to meet Saiful? Many just could not understand why a busy and important Deputy Prime Minister would want to waste time meeting a university dropout. It is because Saiful is Mumtaz’s ‘God Son’. That was why Najib met him.

Looking at Saiful’s uncle, who looks and acts like his auntie, you can now begin to understand what makes that young man tick. Did the doctor find Saiful’s uncle’s semen specimen in the young man’s sorry butt and that is why the police are not able to charge Anwar? That may explain why the police released Anwar on police bail after the dramatic Hollywood-style arrest just a day earlier.

Saiful’s father is a member of the Malay unity ad hoc committee that was set up to engineer the PAS-Umno talks. Another committee member is the Sapura Managing Director, Rameli Musa, an Anwar ‘crony’. Yes, little did Anwar realise that his ‘best friend’ was setting him up for a fall. Heading this committee is someone from Military Intelligence who I shall not name at this stage.

Yeap, Military Intelligence again. Now can you see why Military Intelligence leaked the information about the official report on Rosmah Mansor’s involvement in the Altantuya murder? It was meant to bring Najib down. And these same people are involved in the PAS-Umno unity talks, which has, amongst its ranks, committee members like Saiful’s father and Anwar’s so-called best friend, Rameli Musa.

Okay, recently, Saiful’s father, who had abandoned the young man way back when he was born, came back into his life. Why, after riding off into the sunset 20 years or so ago, does this father suddenly appear on his son’s doorstep? Simple. He wanted to send his son to meet Najib. Yes, that’s right. Najib thought he was sending Saiful to Anwar as a Trojan Horse. What Naijb did not know is that, in the first place, this young man was sent to him as a plant. Najib thought the young man was God sent and the weapon he could use to destroy Anwar. Actually, he was not God sent. He was sent by the committee to engineer the PAS-Umno Malay unity talks. Najib swallowed the bait -- hook, line and sinker.

And that is why Saiful’s father did not want to appear in public, especially on camera. If his face were to appear on TV then many would probably remember seeing him all over the place. He is not employed of course. His job is ‘brokering’. He is what we would call a Mister Fixit. If you want something fixed, if you want to win a government contract, if you want to set someone up, if you want to meet a Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, then call Mister Fixit and he will fix it up for you.

The deal is simple. Conjure new sodomy allegations against Anwar. This will get PAS worried and they will start having second thoughts about Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat. Get PAS and Umno to sit down and talk about Malay unity. Let PAS see that their political future lies with Umno and not with PKR, which is going to be brought down by the latest sodomy allegation against Anwar. Tell PAS that Umno agrees to the implementation of Islamic laws in the states they control and that Umno agrees PAS shall be the Menteri Besar (whereas PKR is oppose to Islamic laws just like their other partner in Pakatan Rakyat, DAP).

The architects and engineers of the PAS-Umno Malay unity talks realise that offering PAS the Menteri Besar post and agreeing to the implementation of Islamic laws alone is not enough. They need to also destroy Anwar’s credibility to prove to PAS that its future lies with Umno and not with PKR. Is it any surprise then that the ad hoc committee for the PAS-Umno talks is also the ‘committee to get Anwar’ and that Saiful’s father together with the Military Intelligence are crucial players in this whole thing?

As I said, Malays don’t have a conscience. There is no precise word in Malay that means conscience. Anything goes as far as Malays are concerned. Okay, so they commit the sin of fixing Anwar up on sodomy charges and they sell out the voters who voted for them. But these sins can be washed clean by just going to Mekah to pray in front of the Kabah. And if you repeat these sins after your return to Malaysia you can always make another trip to Mekah and repeat the repentance scam in front of the Kabah.

Sigh…..I just wonder why those Indian Muslims are insisting that the government recognises them as Malays.

Source : Malaysia-Today

So...this is Malaysia !!

This is ludicrous !!

That reminds me…….
Written by Super Admin
Monday, 30 June 2008


The Umno State Assemblywoman from Sungai Rapat, Hamidah Osman, revealed the attitude of these Umno women last week when she insinuated that if you see an Indian and a snake, you kill the Indian first. Yes, that is what she meant.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"The police are the ones who will determine whether the report is true or not. It is not something that we can determine. He will definitely deny it. That is common for someone who has been accused," said Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

No, Abdullah Badawi was not talking about the people named in the Statutory Declaration (read it here). He was referring to the latest sodomy allegation against Anwar Ibrahim. “He will definitely deny it. That is common for someone who has been accused." Yes, but is this common only to Anwar Ibrahim? Would not Abdullah Badawi, his son-in-law, Najib, Rosmah, Col. Aziz and Col. Norhayati not also do the ‘common’ thing and also deny what was alleged in the Statutory Declaration?

Thus far, everyone named in that Statutory Declaration has denied what has been alleged. But, as Abdullah Badawi said, “He will definitely deny it. That is common for someone who has been accused." And, as Abdullah Badawi further said, “The police are the ones who will determine whether the report is true or not. It is not something that we can determine.”

Hmm….but did not Abdullah Badawi also say last week that he believes his Deputy Prime Minister Rosmah Mansor and her husband, Najib, are innocent? Well, he said this at least as far as Rosmah and her husband are concerned. But when it comes to Anwar Ibrahim he says, "The police are the ones who will determine whether the report is true or not. It is not something that we can determine. He will definitely deny it. That is common for someone who has been accused."

Why did Abdullah Badawi open his mouth and profess Rosmah’s and Najib’s innocence even before the police started their investigation? Will the police now dare announce the opposite to what Abdullah Badawi said, thus embarrassing the Prime Minister and making him a liar, at worse, or stupid, at best?

Abdullah Badawi has already ‘locked’ the police investigation and this will force the police to arrive at only one verdict. It is now impossible for the police to rule any other way other than declaring that the Statutory Declaration is false. That would be the only way to save the Prime Minister’s face and insulate him from controversy, or worse, from criminal charges.

In fact, the move to declare the Statutory Declaration false started very early in the day. The Statutory Declaration was signed on Wednesday, 18 June 2008, and handed to the prosecutors in the Altantuya murder trial the following day. On Friday, 20 June 2008, the Attorney-General lodged a police report on the basis that I had made a false declaration.

How did the Attorney-General know it is false? Again, the Attorney-General ‘locked’ the police. Since the police report was based on a false declaration and since the Attorney-General has said thus, the police will now have to concur or else the Attorney-General too would lose face.

We must remember that even before the Altantuya murder trial started the Attorney-General had announced that only three people and no others are involved in the murder. The Attorney-General had pre-judged the case and effectively ‘locked’ the judge. If evidence surfaces in the course of the trial which points to the possibility that more than three people are involved, the Attorney-General would look very stupid and would probably open himself to allegations of trial-rigging, which is a criminal act.

But then this will not be the first time that the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney-General have been accused of trial-rigging. According to Anwar Ibrahim, he has evidence that the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney-General had fabricated evidence during his 1998-1999 trials. In 1998, the Inspector General of Police and Attorney-General were the investigating officer and prosecutor respectively. Anwar was about to give this evidence to Malaysia Today so that we can expose it when, suddenly, the latest sodomy allegation exploded. Is this fantastic timing and a mere coincidence or something more sinister?

Have no fear, Malaysia Today is here, and once we get our hands on the evidence we will certainly reveal it to prove that the Inspector General of Police and Attorney-General conspired to fabricate evidence in Anwar Ibrahim’s 1998-1999 trials -- unless they get Anwar or me first of course. Anyway, if anything happens to Anwar or me then you will know why we were silenced. But the evidence will definitely not be silenced. It will still surface, with or without Anwar or me. And let the conspirators beware because they will have to face the wrath of the people.

So, I have signed a false Statutory Declaration, have I? Well, then prove it because the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt and not on the accused to prove innocence. And since they made a police report and announced that I had made a false declaration even before launching the investigation, this points to the very strong possibility that the police investigation must ‘support’ what they have said, that I had signed a false declaration. To do otherwise would be suicide, for them of course.

In the meantime, while they figure out how they are going to bring me down and lock me away in the Kajang Prison, I too am working on the evidence that will prove the Inspector General of Police and Attorney-General fabricated evidence in Anwar Ibrahim’s 1998-1999 trials. Let’s see whether they get me first before I get them. Anyone want to make a small wager that I will get them before they get me? This should be an interesting bet don’t you think?

Ooooh….I just love impossible odds. Anyway, while we wait to see who gets whom first, let us look at another subject matter. This was what happened in the Perak State Assembly last week as reported by The Star on Friday:

The first 36 minutes of Question Time yesterday saw opposition assemblymen continuously standing up and asking him for the chance to speak, and raise issues.

One by Hamidah Osman (BN-Sungai Rapat) particularly earned the wrath of the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen when she asked whether Sivakumar “agreed to disagree” with the well-known fable of whether a snake or a man from a certain racial community should be killed first.

Nga Kor Ming (DAP-Pantai Remis) and other Pakatan assemblymen demanded Hamidah retract her words but she maintained she was merely asking if Sivakumar “agreed to disagree” with it.

Sivakumar let her off with a warning and told her not to bring up anything sensitive. Barisan whip Datuk Seri Mohamad Tajol Rosli Ghazali (BN-Pengkalan Hulu) then asked her to retract her words, and she did.

This reminds me of the statement by the Kampong Medan Umno State Assemblywoman soon after the race riots of almost a decade ago, which saw the loss of a number of lives. She said that the Indians had it coming because they have been arrogant for far too long.

I was shocked when I read the newspaper report quoting this Umno State Assemblywoman. Was she trying to say that it is not wrong to kill Indians because they deserve it and were asking for it? Hell, she is a State Assemblywoman and this is no way for a State Assemblywoman to talk. Endorsing killings of Malaysians, even if they are not of your race but are of another race, is just not on. Even if they are not Malaysians but are illegal immigrants that is still no reason to slaughter them and say that they deserve it.

Why are Malays so worked up and angry about Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian civilians? Palestinians are not Malaysians. They are not even Malays. So why poke our nose into something that is happening so far away in a land we have never visited and to people we have never met? If we have no sympathy for non-Malays killed in our own country why are we so nosy-parker about the same thing in a far away land?

The Umno State Assemblywoman from Sungai Rapat, Hamidah Osman, revealed the attitude of these Umno women last week when she insinuated that if you see an Indian and a snake, you kill the Indian first. Yes, that is what she meant. Hey, fuck you; Raja Petra Kamarudin is not seditious. This Umno State Assemblywoman from Sungai Rapat and that other Umno State Assemblywoman from Kampong Medan (now retired), who both endorse the killings of Indians, are. Go for their balls (metaphorically speaking of course since they do not actually have any). Leave mine alone. My wife has grown attached to them and she would hate to see the government take them away from her for the next couple of years.

It takes two hands to clap

The Muslims can regard the non-Muslims as brothers and sisters fighting for a common cause -- a better Malaysia for the future generations -- or they can continue shouting that non-Muslims should never be taken as friends.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

A couple of years ago I wrote about how Islam spreads hate. I do not mean, of course, Islam the religion. I am talking about the Islam practiced by the majority of the Muslims. Understandably, this article of mine met with negative responses from most Muslims -- and silence from the non-Muslims who knew better than to engage in what might be viewed as anti-Islamic rhetoric.

Let us imagine this scenario. A Muslim walks past a church or temple and he or she hears the blaring PA system and the priest inside screaming that Islam is a fake religion, that Prophet Muhammad had been deceived by Satan into believing that God is sending down a new religion from heaven, that the Quran is man-made and not from God and a creation of deviants years after Muhammad had died, that Muslims are mistakenly following the religion of the devil, that Muhammad in fact never existed, that Islam is part-Hindu and part-Zoroastrian and that all the rituals and beliefs are borrowed from these two religions, and so on and so forth.

Yes, I know what the critics say about Islam and the above is but some of what they say. But let us say that a Muslim walks past a church or temple and this is what he or she hears. Can you imagine the backlash? Would Muslims remain quiet and tolerate what they would view as insulting and slanderous to Islam? Certainly not and be prepared for blood on the streets, the result of the most brutal retaliation you can ever imagine.

But no, no church or temple would dare do such a thing. No priest would dare declare the Muslims as enemies who must be exterminated. No priest would even consider asking his congregation to declare war on Islam and Muslims. It is just not on. And the people of the other faiths just can’t understand why this same thing is not taboo to the Muslims.

We talk about multi-culturalism. We talk about racial harmony. We talk about inter-faith tolerance. But that’s all we do. We talk. We do not demonstrate that we really mean what we say. We do not walk the talk. Instead, Muslims would not hesitate to declare that those not of the Muslim faith can never be taken as friends of the Muslims. If they are not friends then what are they? The opposite of friend is enemy. Sure, we do not quite say that they should be regarded as the enemy. This is a crime under Malaysia’s Sedition Act. We just say that they should not be taken as friends. This is not seditious.

Then we talk about wanting a new opposition coalition called Pakatan Rakyat. We talk about seeing a strong opposition finally emerging in Malaysia. We talk about our dream of a two-party system in Malaysia. We aspire for check and balances in the way this country is run. And we know that this can only be achieved if and when all the races in Malaysia unite. So we call for all the races to unite. But we look down on the other races and declare that non-Muslims can’t be taken as friends.

Muslims are beginning to look like hypocrites. To the non-Muslims we say, “Let us unite for a better Malaysia.” Amongst fellow Muslims we say. “The non-Muslims can’t be taken as friends.” We think that the non-Muslims do not know this. The truth is, the non-Muslims do know but they are hoping that in time the first statement will override the second statement and that Malaysia will eventually become a true multi-racial country.

8 March 2008 was just the beginning of the wide chasm between Muslims and non-Muslims becoming closer. It is closer. But it is not closed. And the ‘closeness’ is only temporary. It is only for the next four or five years until the next general election. It can get closer still and eventually the chasm is removed totally or it can revert to what it used to be before 8 March 2008.

The choice is not really with the non-Muslims. They are the minority and minorities do not have too many choices. The choice is with the Muslims. The Muslims can regard the non-Muslims as brothers and sisters fighting for a common cause -- a better Malaysia for the future generations -- or they can continue shouting that non-Muslims should never be taken as friends. And the choice the Muslims make will determine the outcome of the 13th General Election, whenever that is going to be held.

This is our last chance. We can either move forward in the spirit of a New Malaysia and with all Malaysians united. Or we can revert to what it used to be -- a Malaysia divided by race and religion. No, the non-Muslims would never say nasty things about Islam, the Quran, Prophet Muhammad or the Muslims. They know it is suicidal to do so, as time and time again that has been proven. It is time that the Muslims too mature and look at the reality of the world today. It takes two hands to clap. And unless the Muslims too raise their hands there will be no clap. That is the long and short of the whole thing.

*************************************************

The sermons of hate from my childhood have been silenced

Dr Khalid Salem Al-Yabhouni

One of my earliest memories from boyhood is being taken to the mosque by my father to attend Friday prayers and hear the sermon. Friday, to the Islamic faith, is of great importance for it's symbolic significance - the first mosque was built on Friday - and for the Quranic injunction that instructs Muslims to attend the mosque and heed their prayers:

"O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business (and traffic): That is best for you if ye but knew," - Holy Quran 62:9

The Friday sermons, so I was taught in my Islamic studies classes at school, should be a kind of forum where an informed Muslim can enlighten the people from the pulpit about the concerns of life and the afterlife. The issues that the sermons address could be religious, political, social, economic or personal if need be. And they should follow the Prophet's example and last from 15 to 20 minutes.

That's what we were taught at school, certainly. But what I remember from attending those mosque sermons with my father was very different. The sermons we used to listen to then almost always dealt with political issues, and only very rarely with others matters such as religious rites, or moral issues. I suppose it is true that all the political sermons we heard led children like myself to begin thinking about political affairs early on in life - which in itself is no bad thing. No, the problem was not the subject matter but the tone that the imams invariably used: they were always angry.

The usual style of delivery would be for the imam to begin quietly and then progress, getting louder and louder until he was screaming into the microphone. The blaring voice of the imam would shake not just the foundations of the mosque but the foundations of all the listeners, too. At the very top of his voice, he would invariably threaten fire and brimstone, impending punishment and distant reward for all the worshippers. Finally, his voice hoarse from the shouting, the imam would conclude by cursing the enemies of Islam - as defined by his own personal criteria. It was impossible for anyone, young or old, not to be deeply affected by such a performance.

For the first 20 or so years of my life, sermons of this type were my weekly religious staple, until I left Abu Dhabi to study abroad. My first stop was Kalamazoo, a small town in the state of Michigan in the United States, where I went to study at Western Michigan University. My subjects were comparative politics and comparative religions - which gave me the opportunity to understand my own religion and the religions of the world in a more academic manner.

I began visiting churches and other religious centres, and went to services to learn about the different faiths at first hand. In none of them, regardless of denomination, did I hear the preacher cursing others and praying for their destruction. In none of them did I hear the preacher shouting at the top of his voice into a heavily-amplified microphone. The religious ceremonies that I attended were quiet and peaceful, the priests and preachers serious but calm in their demeanour - and all were most welcoming.

I did find, however, that the mosque in Kalamazoo was just like those I had left behind in Abu Dhabi. The imam would curse and scream and promise punishment and impending doom. My most embarrassing experience was when some American students wanted to come with me to listen to the sermon at Friday prayers. The imam, in his usual manner, cursed them roundly in Arabic and I had to translate what was being said to my fellow students.

After completing the introductory courses on the major religions of the world, such as Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism, I began an intensive study of the Islamic faith in all its subdivisions so that I could begin to understand my own religion more fully. Eight years have passed since then and my studies continue, but I now believe that the manner in which the sermons were made when I was a boy and in America does not conform to what the Islamic faith preaches.

Ever since the September 11 attacks of 2001, the mosques in the United Arab Emirates have been brought under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Islamic Endowments and Religious Affairs and under the direction of enlightened religious leaders. Now, the sermons are considerably more humane and deal with issues that are of immediate concern to the worshippers. Where, in the past, politics took precedence in the mosque, today, religious, social, and humanitarian matters have a significantly greater importance. Political issues are still discussed, but only if there is religious clarification needed on them. Today, the ending of the sermons are also vastly different. Now, they always finish with prayers for the well-being of all mankind and to ease the hardships of all.

I am happy that my sons and the sons of my sisters and brothers living in the more enlightened UAE of today will not be exposed to the angry, vengeful face of the imams I remember from my childhood. Instead, they will discover the humane and tender face of the Islamic ideal that was lost but has now found its place again.

Dr Khalid Salem Al-Yabhouni is a political analyst and researcher
http://1426.blogspot.com/2008/06/sermons-of-hate-from-my-childhood-have.html

Source : Malaysia-Today

Nightmares in Bolehland

Sub judice my foot! Before the Mongolian murder trial even began, the Attorney-General himself had publicly declared that there were only three people involved in the murder - Abdul Razak Baginda and two members of the Unit Tindakan Khas (Special Action Squad) assigned to Najib Razak as bodyguards. Isn't that "sub judice" to the max? The BN seems to have adopted former PM Mahathir's infamous modus operandi of accusing everybody else of being a liar and opportunist except himself.

The Altantuya murder trial, even more so than the grotesque Anwar Trial nine years ago, has worn out the public's patience with the rusty grind of ill-fitting wheels that passes for Malaysian justice. Not a single person I know has the slightest confidence in the impartiality of Attorney-General Gani Abdul Patail - or the presiding judge hand-picked to play his part in the charade. Nor does anyone (apart from, of course, his political masters in Umno) believe for a moment that Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan is worth a single cent of his salary. Indeed, the general perception is that both the A-G and the IGP work exclusively for Barisan Nasional and not on behalf of the Malaysian public. As such, we find ourselves in a total quandary where there is no longer any authority figure or public institution that can be relied upon to do its work independently and effectively.

Imagine a situation where a young woman has been abducted and gang-banged. Finally, she manages to free herself and escape. Her friends take her to the nearest police station to lodge a report - and there, to her utmost horror, she finds the same gang that just raped her standing behind the counter, smiling smugly in their uniforms and eager to take her report. Well, that's more or less the nightmarish predicament Malaysia is in right now.

The devastating information presented in Raja Petra Kamarudin's June 18th statutory declaration at the Kuala Lumpur High Court reveals that there was indeed a military intelligence report delivered to the Prime Minister of Malaysia who, at the time, also served as Home Minister. RPK does not indicate when this military intelligence report might have been submitted to the PM - but he states unequivocally that the report was subsequently handed over to the PM's son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, "for safekeeping."

What does all this imply? What are the broad ramifications of this truly mind-boggling development?

Let's connect a few dots so we can step back and look at the ugly picture that emerges. The background to Altantuya Shaariibuu's gruesome abduction and murder can be traced to the Defence Ministry's shopping spree over the last few years that resulted in the acquisition of Scorpene (2) and Agosta (1) submarines and 18 Sukhoi SU30MKM jetfighters. Abdul Razak Baginda, the main accused in the ongoing Altantuya murder trial, is a close friend of DPM and defence minister Najib Razak. Razak Baginda is - or was - a consultant to the Defence Ministry and also doubled as a purchasing agent and high-level negotiator via his private limited company, Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd, whose subsidiary, Perimekar Sdn Bhd received a record-breaking RM534.8 million commission on just the submarine deal alone. (Perimekar Sdn Bhd is jointly owned by Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera, Boustead Holdings Bhd, and KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd.)

Abdul Razak Baginda's sworn affidavit, filed on January 5th, 2007, named Altantuya Shaariibuu (alias Aminah) as Razak Baginda's mistress. As she was reportedly conversant in several languages, including French and Russian, it can be surmised that she might have come in handy as a paid interpreter at negotiations between the Malaysian Defence Ministry, Perimekar, and the French and Russian manufacturers. She accompanied Razak Baginda during his stay in France to conduct the negotiations - and it has been established that Defence Minister Najib Razak was also in France at the time (June 2005) and handed out jackets sponsored by Perimekar Sdn Bhd to Malaysian submariners undergoing training at the Brest naval yard. On June 11th, 2005, Najib Razak gave a press conference after visiting the site where the Scorpene submarines were being built. This indicates that the Defence Minister took a personal interest in the French submarine deal and it's unimaginable that he would not have been in contact with his purchasing agent, advisor and negotiator, Abdul Razak Baginda (who would have had Altantuya in tow). In effect, Najib's vehement insistence that he never met "the Mongolian woman" rings particularly hollow - and even more so when Altantuya's friend, Burmaa Oyunchimeg mentioned during the trial that she had seen a photograph of Altantuya dining with "the two Razaks." In short, we detect an extremely high possibility of untruthfulness in the Defence Minister's public denial of any personal acquaintance with the murdered Mongolian.

Malaysia's first Scorpene sub, KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, launched 23 October 2007 by Rosmah Mansor at the DCNS dockyard in Cherbourg, Normandy, France.

We are also inevitably drawn to the conclusion that astronomical amounts of kickback payments were involved and that "the Mongolian woman" may have been privy to the financial arrangements behind the Defence Ministry's shopping spree in Europe - at least circa June 2005. Could there have been the added bonus and titillation of some fun and games when negotiations were transferred from boardroom to bedroom? Dare we say it... a ménage à trois? If that was indeed what happened in France in June 2005, it would explain the subsequent wrath of Rosmah Mansor, official wife of the Defence Minister and DPM.

Jealous rage and power are a lethal combination - as we have already witnessed in another high-profile murder case, unsolved since 2002, involving Siti Hasleza Ishak, second wife of a member of the Perak royalty. There are many more unsolved murders involving pretty women: take the 2003 case of Noritta Samsudin (left) whose cellphone records were conveniently erased although rumors persist that she had called some extremely powerful politician on the night she was murdered.

So what we have before us is a deadly and scandalous combination: corruption of the first magnitude, sexual peccadilloes, betrayal, blackmail, harassment, intimidation - and finally abduction, possible torture, and cold-blooded murder ending with the body getting blown to a million bits with military-grade explosives. RPK's statutory declaration names three others present at the crime scene: Rosmah Mansor, Lt. Col Aziz Buyong (an explosives expert with the Defence Ministry's engineering corps), and his wife Norhayati (a Defence Ministry employee who also happens to be Rosmah's aide-de-camp). In every instance, the Defence Ministry is implicated, as well as police personnel assigned as bodyguards to Najib and Rosmah - and everybody knows who the Top Dog is at the Defence Ministry.

Some folks play high stakes poker, willing to risk everything to get where they want to go - in this case, the very highest rung of power in the country.

There is absolutely no way that Abdul Razak Baginda and the two accused UTK cops (Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar) could have accomplished the crime and the subsequent (albeit clumsy) cover-up without help from the highest echelons of power. Not even DSP Musa Safri (Najib's ADC) would have the necessary clout to order immigration records deleted so that there would be no traces of Altantuya and her cousin's arrival in Malaysia.


Then we have the blatant interference of the Attorney-General who replaced the trial judge and prosecution team under outrageously suspicious circumstances - and the dramatic resignation of Azilah's lawyer, Zulkifli Nordin, who publicly stated: "There were serious attempts by third parties to interfere with the defence that I proposed."

RPK alleges that the PM and his son-in-law have read the military intelligence report and are therefore accessories after the crime in that they have all this while been withholding crucial evidence for their own political advantage.

No wonder the BN-owned media have been absolutely mute over RPK's bombshell declaration!

In other words, if RPK is as "reliably informed" as he claims to be, he has just indicted the entire Malaysian government for various jailable offences - and under ideal circumstances we ought to be seeing on TV the arrest of everybody from the PM and his son-in-law, defence minister and DPM Najib and his wife Rosmah, the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police (for aiding and abetting a variety of serious crimes). Even without the anticipated crossovers, BN is dead meat. In any case, nobody in their right mind will accept Najib Razak as Malaysia's next prime minister. The only way he could rule the country would be by martial law - and that would spell ABSOLUTE AND IRREVOCABLE DISASTER for our beloved nation.

But will BN leave the stage without fussing and fighting and resorting to the ISA? RPK took pains to add in his declaration that a ruler had been briefed on the sordid details of the Altantuya murder and was fully in the know. We can only surmise that he was referring to his cousin, Sultan Sharafuddin of Selangor, who was subjected to an abusive phonecall about a month ago - according to an RPK blogpost on Malaysia Today - from none other than Rosmah Mansor! Now that was a really smart move, RPK. Because, when push comes to shove, we may have to call upon Royal Intervention to protect the nation from the vicious Crime Syndicate that has taken over the reins of government.

It's High Noon at the Not-So-OK Corral that Malaysia has become. We watch with bated breath as the showdown begins between those of us who love the country - and those who love only their own power and privilege, which they have abused for far too many decades.

Source: Magickriver