Three weeks ago I posted Defeat the new Triad where I said: “Our national problem lies in three areas, in the Triad threatening us – no, not those Chinese samsengs (gangsters) but namely: the Police, Judiciary and the Electoral Commission."
We had lambasted the Police and urged in vain an AAB, who is famous not only for his elegant silence but his deafness as well, to come up with his promised IPCMC – though to be frank I wonder about the usefulness or effectiveness of an IPCMC with the abysmal state of corruption in our police force (admittedly not every officer is corrupt but it’s bad enough for us to generalise).
Then in the last couple of weeks our nation was nuked by an Anwar Ibrahim’s revelation of the Lingam videotape, though of course Anwar chose to do it in his usual style, ensuring in that process the judicial potty is stirred up - (‘potty’ as in poo container).
Now we are cursed by allegations of dodginess of the last of the tripodal terror, the new Malaysian Triad. Let’s take a trip to the Ipoh Timor parliamentary constituency, which the DAP has just revealed, has ‘grown’ by 8,463 new voters.
Now, the incumbent MP is none other than Uncle Lim Kit Siang, who in the 2004 general election defeated Ma Hwa’s (MCA) Thong Fah Chong by a majority of 9,774 votes.
Can you see the figures? DAP’s winning majority of 9,774 votes versus a new influx of mysterious new voters totalling (up to this 6 months stage only of) 8,463 – well, well well – that’s a new 4-D ekor number for you punters.
Lim Jnr, the Secretary-general of the DAP party detailed to us the breakdown of the sudden influx of new voters:
(1) The wholesale transfer all 2,231 voters in the Pengkalan Pegoh polling station in the Sungai Rapat state constituency/Gopeng parliamentary constituency to the Pasir Pinji state constituency/Ipoh Timor parliamentary constituency;
Have you got that – ‘wholesale transfer!’ Frightening, isn't it!
(2) A sudden increase in postal voters by 3,208 even though there is no new army camp or new police station;
You know what’s the general feeling about ‘postal voters’ and 3,208 new voters without even the decency of a plausible excuse like any nearby or new police or army camps too – hmmm, maybe the Phantom Army? And it’s not chickenfeed stuff either – 3,208 votes in the last winning majority of only 9,774 is pretty humongous stuff!
(3) The extraordinary increase in new voters or those transferred to Ipoh Timor - the figure stands at 3,024 new voters when it should typically be would be about 400 per quarter.
An unbelievable eight-fold increase in new voters. Mind you, I wasn’t entirely surprised by this geometric increase because over the past few months there were repetitive statements by the BN and particular UMNO in the papers that nearly (was it?) a million people haven’t registered yet.
When I read those repetitive BN 'lamentations', I felt my goosepimples came to attention. I had wanted to blog a warning on those ground prep for new increases in 'voters' but alas, I was too busy with other topics and has now allowed this to haunt me - not that my warnings would have stop what I had suspected though they might have increased opposition scrutiny of the EC's activities more..
And Lim Guan Eng sounded an ominous warning that it’s only half a year’s figures, meaning there’s more new voters of various denominations yet to come into Ipoh Timor.
Malaysiakini reported Election Commission Chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman explained that the transfer of voters from Sungai Rapat to Pasir Pinji was to rectify what had not been done in the last general election; and that the commission is legally empowered to do so.
However, the DAP is not happy because this was done without the knowledge of the voters or the elected representatives for the areas concerned.
“At the meeting yesterday, Tan Sri Rashid conceded that the EC Perak director was wrong to conduct the wholesale transfer of voters in a secretive and surreptitious manner without even informing the sitting member if Parliament and state assemblyperson,” Lim said.
“To insist that this is legal goes against constitutional provisions that provide that every delimitation exercise necessitating a change of polling stations must be approved by amendment of laws and by Parliament and the state assembly.”
Well, there’s always the OSA to support the EC’s secret manoeuvres, though it’s only in our wonderful election system that the EC acted and would undoubtedly act in mysterious secret and unaccountable ways.
In May this year I posted Penang UMNO's "2 for me, 1 for you"?, a discussion on gerrymandering in Penang.
I stated: ... in Malaysiakini … the DAP is complaining about our Election Commission (EC).
The complaint has to do with the alleged EC's ‘manipulation’ of the electoral boundaries in Penang to increase Malay-winning state seats to enhance UMNO's chances of taking over the state.
Law claimed that the ‘salamander-ing’ strategy (a gerrymandering tactic) is similar to UMNO tactics conducted in Sabah in recent years and Malacca about three decades ago. The two states are now in the firm claws of UMNO.
Well, Lim Kit Siang is obviously in danger, but what else can you expect when we are told that the EC works in a covert unaccountable fashion.
However, if we consider that voters turnout in Chinese dominated constituencies had been usually in the mid-70 percentile, the voters in Ipoh Timor must demonstrate a voting turnout of 100% to thumb their noses at the alleged nefarious exercise.
Don’t take the easy lazy way out, play mahjong and not front up by saying ‘Aiyah, no nid one lah, Uncle Lim sure win one’, because there is a clear and present danger that this time he may well not, an outcome that may not reflect the Ipoh Timor voters' true democratic preference.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Monday, October 08, 2007
Angkasawan & the amazing 'Tok Tok Mee' boy!
Those of you waiting for ‘The Necessary Demonization of Lee Lam Thye (3)’ just have to wait a little while more – am too tired this evening to do justice to the ugly piece I’ve planned ;-)
But reading Malaysiakini, I thought why don’t I publish a non political article which some visitors have been delighted with, or maybe more with my not-bashing someone who walks on water ;-)
Anyway, in the Malaysiakini news Rocket rolled out to launchpad we are once again reminded of Angkasawan Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor’s pending trip into space.
‘Angkasawan’ is of course Malay for ‘astronaut’ or if you prefer to be a purist, ‘cosmonaut’ because of the Russian Soyuz rocket blastoff from Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
But many detractors have unkindly termed Muszaphar’s role as a ‘bolehnaut’. I won’t be that unkind to poor Muszaphar and wish him well, even though I do agree that the money could be better spent in a number of more needy projects here in that part of Malaysia that’s on Earth.
He will be taking off on Wednesday with Russian cosmonaut Yury Malenchenko and American Peggy Whitson on their way to the International Space Station.
Malaysiakini reported that “Muszaphar has attracted interest with a promise that he will, if possible, observe the fasting regime of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan on the ISS.”
And to cater for that, “Malaysian religious authorities have prepared guidelines on how to adapt the rules as the ISS circles the earth 16 times each calendar day, which would technically mean having to pray 80 times every 24 hours, and cause havoc with the Ramadan rule on fasting between dawn and dusk.”
But I read somewhere that Islam has exemptions for travellers, and even as a non-Muslim I dare say there's no questioning that an angkasawan is most certainly a traveller, and one with several hundreds of thousands of kilometres to go.
Didn’t Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal state that it is permissible for a traveller to discontinue fasting.
I hope angkasawan Muszaphar is not making the promise to fast on the ISS to impress fellow Malaysians or because he has been pressured to make such a gesture during Ramadan.
An angkasawan or for that matter, an aircraft pilot, must be on full alert while on flight/space duties, and I hope a doctor can help me here, but wouldn't fasting lower the blood sugar level, a state known as hypoglycaemia?
It seems that when the blood sugar levels are too low, the brain does not receive enough glucose to function properly. The body then responds by increasing the quantity of blood flow to the brain as well as releasing hormones, which in turn release stored glucose into the blood stream. This results in increased blood pressure yadda yadda, and before you know it the poor bloke is suffering from headache, migraine and loss of ability to concentrate or focus.
I saw a movie (was it ‘Alien’?) with a catchy slogan of “In space no one can hear you scream.” Well, most certainly space isn’t exactly a place for an angkasawan not to have full command of his concentration, but I am sure the Malaysian Religious Department who prepared the guidelines knows best.
Additionally an angkasawan must also be dexterous, energetic and have an excellent sense of balance and coordination. Now, here is a candidate with all those qualities, someone I recall fom my childhood days, who could well be most qualified to be an angkasawan. Read on … about ‘The Amazing Tok Tok Mee Boy!’ from Penang.
Hawkers prowled the village where I grew up, serving the inhabitants with various delicious fares. The first one I want to describe has not so much to do with the quality of the food but more with the incredible cycling-balancing skills of the delivery boy.
"Tok tok mee, tok tok mee ….." – The cry would be repeated, accompanied by the steady clacking sound of bamboo striking on bamboo – tok tok tok tok tok.
These calls and sounds announced the arrival of the wanton (or wantan) mee boy in our street, ready to take anyone’s order. Penangites referred to wanton noodles as tok tok mee, probably, I suspect, for the reason of the associated bamboo clacking announcement.
He was about 10 to 11 years old, riding a bicycle that was far too big for him. Because the seat was too high for his boy’s legs to touch the ground when the bicycle was stationary, he cycled it by stretching his right leg (and part of his right hip) through the main triangular frame to reach the right pedal.
In that awkward asymmetric position he cycled his way all around the village singing out his trade calls. During his pedalling motion his whole body, except for his right leg & hip, would be on the left hand side, and he maintained balance by tilting the bicycle slightly to the right.
In that precarious balancing ride, his right wrist rested gently on the right handle bar, while the fingers and palm of the same hand operated the two bamboo pieces like castanets, one a flat broad but short piece and the other just a slim single chopstick – tok tok tok tok tok it would go, without any rhythm being broken.
He was the roving scout or probe, send out by the mother-ship - the hawker cart operated by the wanton noodles man, probably his father - to take orders from afar. That operating procedure saved the hawker lots of valuable time that would have been wasted through pushing or cycling the cart for long distances to serve customers. It also enabled him to reach customers in localities inaccessible to the heavy cart, like hilly areas served by steep roads.
Having taken enough orders, the tok tok mee boy would ride back and wait for his dad to prepare the noodles. When ready, he placed the bowls of noodles soup on a wooden tray, sometimes as many as six cum spoons and chopsticks, and delivered them to the customers in that precariously balanced cycling configuration, but this time holding with his right hand a tray with those six bowls of noodles.
It was always a marvel to see him mount the bicycle - his left hand on the handle bar guiding the bicycle while his right hand held aloft the loaded tray, his left foot on the left pedal and the right foot kicking the ground to accelerate the vehicle into motion, and when sufficient speed gave a degree of stability to the moving bicycle, he rested his entire weight on the left pedal while lifting and sneaking his right leg (and right hip) through the triangular frame to reach the right pedal, and away he went. The manoeuvres were reversed when dismounting, this time with the left hand operating the brakes as well.
Now, that was a boy with an amazing sense of balance and coordination – he would have made either a great acrobat or a dexterous astronaut on a space walk to repair the Hubble Space.
“In space no one can hear you scream, but can anyone hear the tok tok tok of the wanton mee boy?” Hmmm, I propose the bloke as our next angkasawan candidate.
But reading Malaysiakini, I thought why don’t I publish a non political article which some visitors have been delighted with, or maybe more with my not-bashing someone who walks on water ;-)
Anyway, in the Malaysiakini news Rocket rolled out to launchpad we are once again reminded of Angkasawan Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor’s pending trip into space.
‘Angkasawan’ is of course Malay for ‘astronaut’ or if you prefer to be a purist, ‘cosmonaut’ because of the Russian Soyuz rocket blastoff from Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
But many detractors have unkindly termed Muszaphar’s role as a ‘bolehnaut’. I won’t be that unkind to poor Muszaphar and wish him well, even though I do agree that the money could be better spent in a number of more needy projects here in that part of Malaysia that’s on Earth.
He will be taking off on Wednesday with Russian cosmonaut Yury Malenchenko and American Peggy Whitson on their way to the International Space Station.
Malaysiakini reported that “Muszaphar has attracted interest with a promise that he will, if possible, observe the fasting regime of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan on the ISS.”
And to cater for that, “Malaysian religious authorities have prepared guidelines on how to adapt the rules as the ISS circles the earth 16 times each calendar day, which would technically mean having to pray 80 times every 24 hours, and cause havoc with the Ramadan rule on fasting between dawn and dusk.”
But I read somewhere that Islam has exemptions for travellers, and even as a non-Muslim I dare say there's no questioning that an angkasawan is most certainly a traveller, and one with several hundreds of thousands of kilometres to go.
Didn’t Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal state that it is permissible for a traveller to discontinue fasting.
I hope angkasawan Muszaphar is not making the promise to fast on the ISS to impress fellow Malaysians or because he has been pressured to make such a gesture during Ramadan.
An angkasawan or for that matter, an aircraft pilot, must be on full alert while on flight/space duties, and I hope a doctor can help me here, but wouldn't fasting lower the blood sugar level, a state known as hypoglycaemia?
It seems that when the blood sugar levels are too low, the brain does not receive enough glucose to function properly. The body then responds by increasing the quantity of blood flow to the brain as well as releasing hormones, which in turn release stored glucose into the blood stream. This results in increased blood pressure yadda yadda, and before you know it the poor bloke is suffering from headache, migraine and loss of ability to concentrate or focus.
I saw a movie (was it ‘Alien’?) with a catchy slogan of “In space no one can hear you scream.” Well, most certainly space isn’t exactly a place for an angkasawan not to have full command of his concentration, but I am sure the Malaysian Religious Department who prepared the guidelines knows best.
Additionally an angkasawan must also be dexterous, energetic and have an excellent sense of balance and coordination. Now, here is a candidate with all those qualities, someone I recall fom my childhood days, who could well be most qualified to be an angkasawan. Read on … about ‘The Amazing Tok Tok Mee Boy!’ from Penang.
Hawkers prowled the village where I grew up, serving the inhabitants with various delicious fares. The first one I want to describe has not so much to do with the quality of the food but more with the incredible cycling-balancing skills of the delivery boy.
"Tok tok mee, tok tok mee ….." – The cry would be repeated, accompanied by the steady clacking sound of bamboo striking on bamboo – tok tok tok tok tok.
These calls and sounds announced the arrival of the wanton (or wantan) mee boy in our street, ready to take anyone’s order. Penangites referred to wanton noodles as tok tok mee, probably, I suspect, for the reason of the associated bamboo clacking announcement.
He was about 10 to 11 years old, riding a bicycle that was far too big for him. Because the seat was too high for his boy’s legs to touch the ground when the bicycle was stationary, he cycled it by stretching his right leg (and part of his right hip) through the main triangular frame to reach the right pedal.
In that awkward asymmetric position he cycled his way all around the village singing out his trade calls. During his pedalling motion his whole body, except for his right leg & hip, would be on the left hand side, and he maintained balance by tilting the bicycle slightly to the right.
In that precarious balancing ride, his right wrist rested gently on the right handle bar, while the fingers and palm of the same hand operated the two bamboo pieces like castanets, one a flat broad but short piece and the other just a slim single chopstick – tok tok tok tok tok it would go, without any rhythm being broken.
He was the roving scout or probe, send out by the mother-ship - the hawker cart operated by the wanton noodles man, probably his father - to take orders from afar. That operating procedure saved the hawker lots of valuable time that would have been wasted through pushing or cycling the cart for long distances to serve customers. It also enabled him to reach customers in localities inaccessible to the heavy cart, like hilly areas served by steep roads.
Having taken enough orders, the tok tok mee boy would ride back and wait for his dad to prepare the noodles. When ready, he placed the bowls of noodles soup on a wooden tray, sometimes as many as six cum spoons and chopsticks, and delivered them to the customers in that precariously balanced cycling configuration, but this time holding with his right hand a tray with those six bowls of noodles.
It was always a marvel to see him mount the bicycle - his left hand on the handle bar guiding the bicycle while his right hand held aloft the loaded tray, his left foot on the left pedal and the right foot kicking the ground to accelerate the vehicle into motion, and when sufficient speed gave a degree of stability to the moving bicycle, he rested his entire weight on the left pedal while lifting and sneaking his right leg (and right hip) through the triangular frame to reach the right pedal, and away he went. The manoeuvres were reversed when dismounting, this time with the left hand operating the brakes as well.
Now, that was a boy with an amazing sense of balance and coordination – he would have made either a great acrobat or a dexterous astronaut on a space walk to repair the Hubble Space.
“In space no one can hear you scream, but can anyone hear the tok tok tok of the wanton mee boy?” Hmmm, I propose the bloke as our next angkasawan candidate.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
At the heart of Malaysia
When I learnt from Malaysiakini that Mohamed Ezani Mohamad Taib, clinical director with the heart institute, commented on the good progress by dear Tee Hui Yee after her second heart transplant (see There are 'hearts' afterall) I was elated, as elated as Mohamad Ezam who said: "I was relieved and happy to see the progress, as I really got scared when the first transplant failed."
As you are all aware, dear Marina Mahathir has also been keeping tabs on little Tee when she (Marina) visits her dad. So I do get regular updates from her blog - thanks Marina.
As you are all aware, dear Marina Mahathir has also been keeping tabs on little Tee when she (Marina) visits her dad. So I do get regular updates from her blog - thanks Marina.
malaysiakini photo
Wong Chun Wai of the Star Online also wrote an important article titled Have a heart, Malaysia where he added his thanks (on top of mine and many others) to the wonderful chief cardiothoracic surgeon Datuk Dr Mohd Azhari Yakub, National Heart Institute people, Royal Malaysian Air Force flight crew who flew the vital organ to Kuala Lumpur, and many others.May I also add a Godzilla-size thanks to the parents of the donors – and get this, I believe at least one of the donors was Muslim, so please realise the important significance of this magnanimous gesture by his parents. It’s breathtakingly generous beyond expectation, as Muslims are very careful about human parts. I salute them.
Also equally important, Wong made a point that it's important for hospitals (and may I add, everyone, especially the public) to carry out campaigns to get Malaysians to donate their organs because, as Wong said, this would be the right the time, when public awareness of the magnificent rally around Tee has resulted in a feel-good muhibbah feeling, a feeling that is currently at its pinnacle – yes, now’s the time to pluck at the public’s heartstrings for the greater good of other less fortunate Malaysians.
In other words, through the public support of organs donation we can enable more miracles to happen for those unfortunate, for them to have a second lease on life as the one Tee has benefitted from.
Chemical attack in London?
Good lord, old boy. Chemical warfare? An attack in Soho, London? Damn those bounders!
MSN news reported that London Fire Brigade's chemical response team was called out to attend to a possible chemical attack when it received reports that a strong smell was wafting from the restaurant in the heart of London's Soho district on Monday afternoon.
Security authorities sealed off several premises and closed roads. The Times of London described shoppers coughing and gagging as fire-fighters wearing special breathing masks sought the source of the foul smell. Heaven forbids, it was emanating from the Thai Cottage restaurant.
Fire-fighters smashed down the door of the restaurant and discovered ... good grief ... that the restaurant had left extra-hot bird's eye chillies (chilli padi saja lah, or cabai burung for Penangites, & cabai rawit for Indons) which had been left dry-frying.
The restaurant owner said they were being prepared as part of a batch of nam prik pao, a super-spicy Thai dip.
MSN news reported that London Fire Brigade's chemical response team was called out to attend to a possible chemical attack when it received reports that a strong smell was wafting from the restaurant in the heart of London's Soho district on Monday afternoon.
Security authorities sealed off several premises and closed roads. The Times of London described shoppers coughing and gagging as fire-fighters wearing special breathing masks sought the source of the foul smell. Heaven forbids, it was emanating from the Thai Cottage restaurant.
Fire-fighters smashed down the door of the restaurant and discovered ... good grief ... that the restaurant had left extra-hot bird's eye chillies (chilli padi saja lah, or cabai burung for Penangites, & cabai rawit for Indons) which had been left dry-frying.
The restaurant owner said they were being prepared as part of a batch of nam prik pao, a super-spicy Thai dip.
msn photo
Well, those British lovers of spicy food claiming there's no degree of hotness they can't tolerate may have to finally acknowledge this could be it, their fiery match, a fierce sauce that had brought about security road closures and evacuations after passers-by thought they were being exposed to a chemical-weapons attack. But we Malaysians would have inhaled same with relish ;-)An embarrassed Thai Cottage owner Sue Wasboonma said: "The smoke didn't go up into the sky because of the rain and the heavy air. It's the hottest thing we make."
Now, she's a meteorologist as well ;-)
The London police spokesman said no arrests were made in the case (nor anyone shot seven times in the head like innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes – see Not guilty, we're British!).
He declared: "As far as I'm aware it's not a criminal offense to cook very strong chilli."
On 20 March 2005 I had posted Bio-Chemical Warfare I Love, where I started the post with a quotation by Daniel Pinkwater who said:
It doesn't matter who you are, or what you've done, or think you can do. There's a confrontation with destiny awaiting you. Somewhere, there is a chilli you cannot eat.
Yes, in that post you would discover horrors or heaven for your gastronomical preference. In fact the Thai bird’s eye or prik kinu is nothing, a mere sarp-sarp suoi tickling, on the scale of hot heaven or hell.
Until recently the Mexian Habanero was the world’s hottest chilli. Apparently its red variety is far hotter than the yellow type, but let kaytee assure you, and I have taken both varieties, that you can't tell the difference when your tongue has already been vapourised.
However, two years, as Daniel Pinkwater prophesized, the Indian State of Assam produced a chilli called Tezpur that whipped the Hanabero off from the top position
I wrote of the Habanero in my earlier post: This baby has been rated the hottest chilli, with a Scoville scale of 580,000. And I can certainly testify to that claim, requiring several cold beers to mitigate my first exposure to the tongue scorcher. Best of all, it also possesses a marvellous fragrance.
Now it seems another claimant to the title of the ‘fieriest’ has asserted its status – the Indian Tezpur from Assam which rates over 800,000 on the Scoville scale. The power of this Indian babe is just sheer staggering, especially after my experience with Habanero. I must try to lay my hands on a few of these plants.
Hmmm, could this be Moses' burning bush? Afterall, some biblical (alternative) historians claimed there was a link between India and Egypt, while of course everyone knows of that between Egypt and the Hebrews.
I also remarked about the origin of chilli: Chillies originated in South America and were taken to Europe by the Spaniards in the 15th Century, and from there to the rest of the world by European traders. The conquistadors might have been murderous bastards but we have to thank them for giving the world this wonderful fruit.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
The necessary demonization of Lee Lam Thye (2)
Malaysiakini tells us that none other than - to borrow a sweetie’s WMD (Weapon of Marvellous Dismissal), gasp, gawd, omigosh - Raja Bodek called on the government to ‘seriously consider’ the setting up of a royal commission to investigate the volcanic matter erupted by the Lingam videotape.
With that, Gerakan claims pole position among BN component parties to come out strongly on the videoclip than just having a mere independent investigation panel, which has limited powers under its very narrow terms of reference.
Hmmm, very unusual yet ... yet, yes yet not so strange if we consider Raja’s action against the backdrop of the approaching general elections. Has this been a Gerakan pre-emptive strike against its BN rival, the MCA, rather than a genuine call for a more comprehensive and empowered investigation?
Ok, let’s leave that aside and continue with the second part of The necessary demonization of Lee Lam Thye.
This is kaytee’s defence of Lee Lam Thye rather than a defence of the independent investigation panel, though I must point out that by contrast to a particular political party, the Bar Council, which organised the protest march to Putrajaya, has agreed to give the 3-member panel a chance.
Bar vice president K Ragunath: “We have agreed to let the panel carry out its inquiry. We’ve agreed to cooperate with them when needed. We shall attend the inquiry or hold a watching brief, we’ve got a team set up.”
The Bar Council has taken the stand of ‘let’s see what the panel will do’, yet why is one particular party and its supporters trying to rubbish the panel. Why indeed is the demonization of Lee necessary?
Let me just go through some probable 'sins' of Lee so that I can arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
Well, perhaps Lee, an opposition politician, on retirement from politics, has the bloody nerve to participate in government activities, for example,becoming Chairperson of the NS (mind you, ‘government’ or ‘national’ activity and not BN).
Unlike in the West, there is no room for civility outside (or stand down from) politics, where politicians from both sides of the House could sit down and have a drink or two and laugh about matters ‘off the record’ as colleagues rather than as political adversaries - not even for retired politician who has not taken up politics but wants or is willing to do some public service work.
Such is the Hang Tuah-ish mentality that we in Malaysia have inherited, that unless an opposition politician remains in perpetual opposition, he is a ‘traitor’, to be killed like Jebat (though 'traitorous' to whom, I am still wondering?)
Damn it, doesn’t Lee realise that once in opposition politics or in an NGO activist group like, say, ABIM, one must never ever betray one’s original organisation? One should stay forever in the Opposition or an NGO like ABIM and never hop around to the despised BN.
And then Lee compounds his ‘sin’ by becoming ‘successful’. The damn nerve, how dare he! As a retired opposition politician, he should remain poor like a Spartan warrior, Shaolin monk or an ascetic sadhu living in a Himalayan cave, and leave wealth making to us the general high-opinated know-all public who of course expect him to be forever against the ruling party.
OK, apart from us public, perhaps only ‘some people’ not in government are allowed to be successful, so successful that they can live in palatial mansion and be chaffeured around in powerful expensive imported cars, but certainly Lee Lam Thye mustn't be allowed, oh no, we aren't going to accept any of Lee's de facto monkeying around in the business world, no, not once we have decided for him a life of (opposition) political asceticism.
And if that former DAP bastard can justify his acquired wealth, why, he will be rubbished nonetheless, by unsubstantiated poo flinging all around, like, for example, he acquired 10 million from somewhere, and f-the facts or proof, who cares anyway, besides, unsubstantiated facts are the best because they spread even quicker.
Then of course how dare he heads a company that does business with – gasp, gawd, omigosh – the government (mind you, the 'government' and not the BN, but wtf, who cares).
Oh now, btw who was it who complained that those UMNO people can't distinguish between the government and the party? Maybe ex-UMNO-istas who aren't sharing the trough anymore?
Indeed how dare Lee sits on the independent panel? He should have refused, yes, refused.
Yes, yes, he didn’t offer his service and was asked – but he could have refused, couldn’t he?
Eh ... what? Who, who was not asked but offer his service?
WHAT??? WTF you’re talking about?
What’s this nonsense about someone, by contrast to Lee, wasn’t asked but offered his service to the AAB government?
WHAT? Who in April last year offered unsolicited assistance to the government on issues involving bilateral ties [with Singapore], saying he could draw from his experience in the government, and who declared:
“I would not discount any possible meeting with Abdullah if he were to ask my views on the issues ... like the negotiations with Singapore on the bridge and even information on the negotiations with Indonesia on border issues.”
“I will not be serving the government. But I am a Malaysian and very loyal to the country and will do my best to serve.”
So, what we have is ... one didn't offer his service but was asked to, while another was not asked but offered anyway ... OK, you work out the significance, you wondrous whining, whinging. wailing, whimpering warriors.
Hahaha, now, who was it who said of Lee Lam Thye that “He is a political opportunist. If he is a person of high principles, he should quit the panel. He is a disappointment to his past supporters.”
Principle? Does this only apply to Lee Lam Thye but not to He who walks on water?
OK then, next, who was it who said Lee Lam Thye is a brown noser?
Was he the one who said on Australian TV of AAB being a - gasp, gawd, omigosh - 'compassionate’ person. And who was it who praised AAB for abandoning that bridge to Singapore while of course condemning Dr Mahathir, and who expressed full support for AAB’s decision to abandon the project as a commendable decision – yes, 'twas so commendable that abandoning the project cost more than the building of the bridge. Indeed who praised AAB as follows:
“It takes a lot of courage and wisdom ... after weeks of massive campaigns against Singapore ... (for Abdullah) to suddenly say that the decision (to build the bridge) was faulty and that we have to scrap the project ... it’s commendable.”
“It takes a lot of courage and wisdom ..... it’s commendable.” Ain't that just pukish!
Jeez, could it be that brown noser, Lee Lam Thye? Or, no, no, surely it can't be ... He who walks on water?
Er ... before I end this post with a 'To be continued ...', as I said before, don't you dare practise double standards now, don't you bloody hypocrites f-dare!
To be continued ... and it won't be pretty again.
With that, Gerakan claims pole position among BN component parties to come out strongly on the videoclip than just having a mere independent investigation panel, which has limited powers under its very narrow terms of reference.
Hmmm, very unusual yet ... yet, yes yet not so strange if we consider Raja’s action against the backdrop of the approaching general elections. Has this been a Gerakan pre-emptive strike against its BN rival, the MCA, rather than a genuine call for a more comprehensive and empowered investigation?
Ok, let’s leave that aside and continue with the second part of The necessary demonization of Lee Lam Thye.
This is kaytee’s defence of Lee Lam Thye rather than a defence of the independent investigation panel, though I must point out that by contrast to a particular political party, the Bar Council, which organised the protest march to Putrajaya, has agreed to give the 3-member panel a chance.
Bar vice president K Ragunath: “We have agreed to let the panel carry out its inquiry. We’ve agreed to cooperate with them when needed. We shall attend the inquiry or hold a watching brief, we’ve got a team set up.”
The Bar Council has taken the stand of ‘let’s see what the panel will do’, yet why is one particular party and its supporters trying to rubbish the panel. Why indeed is the demonization of Lee necessary?
Let me just go through some probable 'sins' of Lee so that I can arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
Well, perhaps Lee, an opposition politician, on retirement from politics, has the bloody nerve to participate in government activities, for example,becoming Chairperson of the NS (mind you, ‘government’ or ‘national’ activity and not BN).
Unlike in the West, there is no room for civility outside (or stand down from) politics, where politicians from both sides of the House could sit down and have a drink or two and laugh about matters ‘off the record’ as colleagues rather than as political adversaries - not even for retired politician who has not taken up politics but wants or is willing to do some public service work.
Such is the Hang Tuah-ish mentality that we in Malaysia have inherited, that unless an opposition politician remains in perpetual opposition, he is a ‘traitor’, to be killed like Jebat (though 'traitorous' to whom, I am still wondering?)
Damn it, doesn’t Lee realise that once in opposition politics or in an NGO activist group like, say, ABIM, one must never ever betray one’s original organisation? One should stay forever in the Opposition or an NGO like ABIM and never hop around to the despised BN.
And then Lee compounds his ‘sin’ by becoming ‘successful’. The damn nerve, how dare he! As a retired opposition politician, he should remain poor like a Spartan warrior, Shaolin monk or an ascetic sadhu living in a Himalayan cave, and leave wealth making to us the general high-opinated know-all public who of course expect him to be forever against the ruling party.
OK, apart from us public, perhaps only ‘some people’ not in government are allowed to be successful, so successful that they can live in palatial mansion and be chaffeured around in powerful expensive imported cars, but certainly Lee Lam Thye mustn't be allowed, oh no, we aren't going to accept any of Lee's de facto monkeying around in the business world, no, not once we have decided for him a life of (opposition) political asceticism.
And if that former DAP bastard can justify his acquired wealth, why, he will be rubbished nonetheless, by unsubstantiated poo flinging all around, like, for example, he acquired 10 million from somewhere, and f-the facts or proof, who cares anyway, besides, unsubstantiated facts are the best because they spread even quicker.
Then of course how dare he heads a company that does business with – gasp, gawd, omigosh – the government (mind you, the 'government' and not the BN, but wtf, who cares).
Oh now, btw who was it who complained that those UMNO people can't distinguish between the government and the party? Maybe ex-UMNO-istas who aren't sharing the trough anymore?
Indeed how dare Lee sits on the independent panel? He should have refused, yes, refused.
Yes, yes, he didn’t offer his service and was asked – but he could have refused, couldn’t he?
Eh ... what? Who, who was not asked but offer his service?
WHAT??? WTF you’re talking about?
What’s this nonsense about someone, by contrast to Lee, wasn’t asked but offered his service to the AAB government?
WHAT? Who in April last year offered unsolicited assistance to the government on issues involving bilateral ties [with Singapore], saying he could draw from his experience in the government, and who declared:
“I would not discount any possible meeting with Abdullah if he were to ask my views on the issues ... like the negotiations with Singapore on the bridge and even information on the negotiations with Indonesia on border issues.”
“I will not be serving the government. But I am a Malaysian and very loyal to the country and will do my best to serve.”
So, what we have is ... one didn't offer his service but was asked to, while another was not asked but offered anyway ... OK, you work out the significance, you wondrous whining, whinging. wailing, whimpering warriors.
Hahaha, now, who was it who said of Lee Lam Thye that “He is a political opportunist. If he is a person of high principles, he should quit the panel. He is a disappointment to his past supporters.”
Principle? Does this only apply to Lee Lam Thye but not to He who walks on water?
OK then, next, who was it who said Lee Lam Thye is a brown noser?
Was he the one who said on Australian TV of AAB being a - gasp, gawd, omigosh - 'compassionate’ person. And who was it who praised AAB for abandoning that bridge to Singapore while of course condemning Dr Mahathir, and who expressed full support for AAB’s decision to abandon the project as a commendable decision – yes, 'twas so commendable that abandoning the project cost more than the building of the bridge. Indeed who praised AAB as follows:
“It takes a lot of courage and wisdom ... after weeks of massive campaigns against Singapore ... (for Abdullah) to suddenly say that the decision (to build the bridge) was faulty and that we have to scrap the project ... it’s commendable.”
“It takes a lot of courage and wisdom ..... it’s commendable.” Ain't that just pukish!
Jeez, could it be that brown noser, Lee Lam Thye? Or, no, no, surely it can't be ... He who walks on water?
Er ... before I end this post with a 'To be continued ...', as I said before, don't you dare practise double standards now, don't you bloody hypocrites f-dare!
To be continued ... and it won't be pretty again.
Friday, October 05, 2007
There are 'hearts' afterall
Malaysiakini and Star Online carry this heart breaking news of 14-year old Tee Hui Yi having Two heart transplants in two days.
Tee received a heart from an anonymous 15-year-old boy who had earlier died in a road accident. The operation was conducted at the National Heart Institute late Wednesday.
Today Tee had to undergo a second transplant today as her body rejected the first organ.
It was a fantastic total Malaysian effort with even the RMAF participating by flying the donor’s heart and lungs into Subang Airport from Ipoh Hospital. The National Heart Institute (IJN) transplant team, was headed by chief cardiothoracic surgeon Datuk Dr Mohd Azhari Yakub.
The father of the donor heart said poignantly: “Although I have lost a son, I now feel like I have a foster daughter.”
When asked why he agreed for his son to be an organ donor, he said: “My son was God’s gift to me. Now, it is time to return the gift to God.”
It's moments like these when we all come together that I feel proud to be a Malaysian.
Excuse kaytee while I get rid of this wee mote from my eyes.
Tee received a heart from an anonymous 15-year-old boy who had earlier died in a road accident. The operation was conducted at the National Heart Institute late Wednesday.
Today Tee had to undergo a second transplant today as her body rejected the first organ.
Star Online photo
Health Minister Chua Soi Lek said:
"Her condition is more stable now although still critical ... The government thanks the donor."It was a fantastic total Malaysian effort with even the RMAF participating by flying the donor’s heart and lungs into Subang Airport from Ipoh Hospital. The National Heart Institute (IJN) transplant team, was headed by chief cardiothoracic surgeon Datuk Dr Mohd Azhari Yakub.
The father of the donor heart said poignantly: “Although I have lost a son, I now feel like I have a foster daughter.”
When asked why he agreed for his son to be an organ donor, he said: “My son was God’s gift to me. Now, it is time to return the gift to God.”
It's moments like these when we all come together that I feel proud to be a Malaysian.
Excuse kaytee while I get rid of this wee mote from my eyes.
Stranger in a strange land
Tonight I am not feeling well enough to continue the 2nd part of The necessary demonization of Lee Lam Thye - I may do that tomorrow when I feel better – 24 hours reprieve for He who walks on water ;-)
Instead I want to just comment on the article of another Malaysiakini columnist, Helen Ang.
I used to be wary of Helen because some of her earlier views jarred with my ideology, until I read a couple of her previous articles where I discovered (1) why she named her column 'Z Sunday' and (2) she was quite sympathetic to the poor downtrodden Palestinians – I kinda fell in love with her then ;-) aw, I am just a over hopeful romantic.
Helen wrote in Malaysiakini an interesting thought-provoking yet easily identifiable Malaise, Chinese and Indians (Part 1)
Helen said (just an extract) of the lawyers’ march to Putrajaya in protest against the lack of government action towards the shocking revelation of the Lingam videotape:
To have had cautious Chinese even participate in last Wednesday’s walk is already a positive development. The Malaysian-Chinese ethos is best characterised by their catechism “Don’t get involved” … it’s what parents teach children and wives preach to husbands who show even a sliver of political activism.
But the real axis of Chinese existence resides in the mantra: “It’s the economy, stupid”
However frayed at the edges and broken at the seams the system is, as long as there is a thread left hanging, on which to make a half decent living, the Chinese will be prepared to stomach the malaise.
This malaise is the systemic rot in Malaysian institutions, both statutory and quasi-government (e.g. the mass media that is controlled and owned by ruling parties). The Chinese have mainly thus far been indifferent to their rotting surroundings, well at least in public but we don’t know what’s whispered at home.
Helen is correct of course where the older generation Chinese are concerned, but not so with the new generation.
Chinese Malaysians of an earlier generation still possess in their subconscious (meaning without even realizing it) the mentality of being still an overseas Chinese merely seeking his or her fortune overseas (that is, outside China). Their attitude is “why get involved when this isn’t our country!” not quite unlike the title of Robert A. Heinlein's book 'Stranger in a strange land'.
Instead I want to just comment on the article of another Malaysiakini columnist, Helen Ang.
I used to be wary of Helen because some of her earlier views jarred with my ideology, until I read a couple of her previous articles where I discovered (1) why she named her column 'Z Sunday' and (2) she was quite sympathetic to the poor downtrodden Palestinians – I kinda fell in love with her then ;-) aw, I am just a over hopeful romantic.
Helen wrote in Malaysiakini an interesting thought-provoking yet easily identifiable Malaise, Chinese and Indians (Part 1)
Helen said (just an extract) of the lawyers’ march to Putrajaya in protest against the lack of government action towards the shocking revelation of the Lingam videotape:
To have had cautious Chinese even participate in last Wednesday’s walk is already a positive development. The Malaysian-Chinese ethos is best characterised by their catechism “Don’t get involved” … it’s what parents teach children and wives preach to husbands who show even a sliver of political activism.
But the real axis of Chinese existence resides in the mantra: “It’s the economy, stupid”
However frayed at the edges and broken at the seams the system is, as long as there is a thread left hanging, on which to make a half decent living, the Chinese will be prepared to stomach the malaise.
This malaise is the systemic rot in Malaysian institutions, both statutory and quasi-government (e.g. the mass media that is controlled and owned by ruling parties). The Chinese have mainly thus far been indifferent to their rotting surroundings, well at least in public but we don’t know what’s whispered at home.
Helen is correct of course where the older generation Chinese are concerned, but not so with the new generation.
Chinese Malaysians of an earlier generation still possess in their subconscious (meaning without even realizing it) the mentality of being still an overseas Chinese merely seeking his or her fortune overseas (that is, outside China). Their attitude is “why get involved when this isn’t our country!” not quite unlike the title of Robert A. Heinlein's book 'Stranger in a strange land'.
wiki image
That lamentable perception is further fortified by the politically institutionalized quasi-apartheid in Malaysia, so the attitude progresses to “what did I tell you – this is not our country!”
When I was in London some years ago, a Scottish friend told me that his dad commented on the marked difference between British Chinese and British Indians (during his dad’s days), and why the Caucasian Brits were more at ease with the former.
Bruce’s dad said that the Chinese were not only apolitical but do not ‘take away’ jobs from other Brits - they tend to work around Chinese-centred industry, mainly private businesses. But to him, the Indians were far more politically active and were quite happy to take up public service jobs, much to the chagrin of those unemployed Caucasians.
Leaving the British Indians alone, it seems or seemed the Chinese in Britain were not any different to older generation Chinese Malaysians where there prevails in them a common mentality of being just temporary guests in a foreign land.
The new generation Chinese Malaysians are of course acutely aware that they are part and parcel of Malaysia and its history, and the existence of the politically institutionalized quasi-apartheid that I mentioned must be all that more frustrating, raising question of “am I a citizen of this country?”
Would that then take us (Chinese Malaysians) to the next stage of self query “hey, I am a bloody citizen here, so back off, will you!”
When I was in London some years ago, a Scottish friend told me that his dad commented on the marked difference between British Chinese and British Indians (during his dad’s days), and why the Caucasian Brits were more at ease with the former.
Bruce’s dad said that the Chinese were not only apolitical but do not ‘take away’ jobs from other Brits - they tend to work around Chinese-centred industry, mainly private businesses. But to him, the Indians were far more politically active and were quite happy to take up public service jobs, much to the chagrin of those unemployed Caucasians.
Leaving the British Indians alone, it seems or seemed the Chinese in Britain were not any different to older generation Chinese Malaysians where there prevails in them a common mentality of being just temporary guests in a foreign land.
The new generation Chinese Malaysians are of course acutely aware that they are part and parcel of Malaysia and its history, and the existence of the politically institutionalized quasi-apartheid that I mentioned must be all that more frustrating, raising question of “am I a citizen of this country?”
Would that then take us (Chinese Malaysians) to the next stage of self query “hey, I am a bloody citizen here, so back off, will you!”
Thursday, October 04, 2007
How do you like your shin shot?
From al Jazeera:
Israeli security forces have opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians waiting for 29 prisoners freed by Israel to cross into the Gaza Strip. Shots were fired into the air when the crowd surged forward to greet the men at the Erez crossing "and when they didn't stop, they fired at their legs," an Israeli military spokeswoman said on Tuesday.
Two people, including a Reuters news agency photographer, were reportedly wounded.
Hmmm, couldn't those soldiers have given way instead to the happy and excited crowd who wanted to greet their relatives and colleagues? Oh, wtf, they're just damn Arabs anyway.
40 years ago, in a Cologne court verdict and written judgement regarding the case of "The People vs.Kurt Wiese and Heinz Errelis", two local Gestapo, the following was recorded:
Two of the women had small children: one carried a child in her arms, the other was leading a little girl of four or five years by the hand. The Gestapo members fired salvos with their submachine guns back and forth in a sweeping motion, shooting at the legs of the victims and slowly raising their guns.
Damn bloody 'Gestapo' sure like to fire at victims' legs, and time hasn't affected their sadistic inclination!
Israeli security forces have opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians waiting for 29 prisoners freed by Israel to cross into the Gaza Strip. Shots were fired into the air when the crowd surged forward to greet the men at the Erez crossing "and when they didn't stop, they fired at their legs," an Israeli military spokeswoman said on Tuesday.
Two people, including a Reuters news agency photographer, were reportedly wounded.
Hmmm, couldn't those soldiers have given way instead to the happy and excited crowd who wanted to greet their relatives and colleagues? Oh, wtf, they're just damn Arabs anyway.
40 years ago, in a Cologne court verdict and written judgement regarding the case of "The People vs.Kurt Wiese and Heinz Errelis", two local Gestapo, the following was recorded:
Two of the women had small children: one carried a child in her arms, the other was leading a little girl of four or five years by the hand. The Gestapo members fired salvos with their submachine guns back and forth in a sweeping motion, shooting at the legs of the victims and slowly raising their guns.
Damn bloody 'Gestapo' sure like to fire at victims' legs, and time hasn't affected their sadistic inclination!
The necessary demonization of Lee Lam Thye
Why has my post on Leave Lee Lam Thye alone attracted adverse comments, both against me and Lee? But never mind poor kaytee - why Lee?
I hope you critics who like to ‘give’ can also ‘take’ from me, and hopefully at the end of a robust debate, we can still be mates and split a bottle of brew, whether that be sarsi or something stronger – OK then, hang on then ..... incoming!
Here is an outstanding former DAP stalwart who was the best performing opposition politician bar none. Neither my political hero Lim Kit Siang nor the late Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon could match his popularity and the respect the people of KL of an earlier generation have for him.
Yet to today’s political Johnnies & Ginny’s-come-lately, he is a “hypocrite, a spineless turncoat who goes with the flow. His past actions have clearly shown he is a ‘yes-man’ and ‘brown nose’ and he is certainly not independent nor trustworthy” – see comments on the post.
So, on the above pseudo-logic, for Lee to be trustworthy in the amoebic minds of these J’s-come-lately, he must be, according to their tadpole worldviews, a ‘no-man’. Oh yes, he must buck the ‘flow’ in accordance with their wondrous views of which way the ‘flow’ has been going. Yes, Lee should bloody well conform to their dictates or ‘de facto’ assessments.
What about the critics themselves? Certainly they would say ‘no’ to the establishment! But what would they say to the man who can walk on water.
No, I wasn’t referring to Yeshua ben Yusuf, but the bloke whom visitor kittykat46 informed me “Didn't you know the guy practically walks on water?” in an earlier post Guess who've been singing that old tune "I'd have been sacked ..."?
Read the above post and see whether Lee Lam Thye or He who walks on water has been a ‘spineless hypocrite’.
And pause to consider whether you critic wonders of Lee Lam Thye aren’t ‘yes men’ yourselves (to He who walks on water, the unelected 'leader') ?
And where is it stated that Lee must act or opine in accordance with your Winching Wendy wishes to be not spineless - oh, don’t you now dare forget to compare Lee with who’s really spineless.
As I mentioned in Lim Kit Siang - question mark over 'Lingam Tape Investigation Panel' regarding an inquiry or an investigation:
“A fundamental advice to conveners intending to hold an inquiry, no matter whether it carries a Royal Commission or otherwise, is that they should know beforehand what the findings would be.”
“If that cannot be 100% assured, limit the terms of reference to ensure desired finding …”
Now, it’s not that kaytee believes the independent investigating panel would turn up anything illuminating, because as we are informed by Malaysiakini, the three-member panel probing the authenticity of the 'VK Lingam' video admitted that the panel is limited in their power to compel witnesses to come forward or to extend protection for them.
That’s what ‘limiting the terms of reference’ can do without requiring the need to have biased panel members.
While I believe former Chief Judge Haidar Mohd Noor should not be on the panel investigating into a matter involving the independence of the judiciary because he has a ‘conflict of interest’, I do not see Lee Lam Thye in that same position.
As I remarked in my post Leave Lee Lam Thye alone, F-think carefully before making such an unfair and unworthy comment/criticism, without knowing his history nor understanding Lee's personal style of interaction!
I had questioned the biased criticism that “Lee hasn’t made any statement contrary to or critical of government policies without first taking the wind directions” by asking the following:
(1) Must he?
(2) Has that been his style even when he was at his pinnacle?
Visitor Shadow Fox commented: “You speak with hypocrisy. There're bigger issues at stake now than just bread and butter issues. If he wants to be left alone, it's very easy, he only needs to back out from the panel.”
“Since he allowed himself to be on the panel, he should expect to be scrutinised to the fullest.”
“This is what democracy is all about. Can't take the heat ? Get out of the kitchen, or in this case, the panel.”
It’s quite obscene for him (or her) to mouth the phrase “This is what democracy is all about” while at the same condemning Lee, as a citizen who has retired from opposition politics, from accepting an invitation to be a panel member. Hellooooooooo, can Lee be allowed to decide for himself, or should he toe your line?
And as a former opposition politician retired from active politics, if that doesn’t make him an independent person, who then is? He who walks on water? Lee as an independent person is under no f-obligations to say things that you only want to hear.
Democracy, my bloody foot - you have no clue what democracy is!
Shadow Fox continues to show his/her ignorance of the phrase “Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen” by applying it to a retired politician sitting on an panel for independent investigation, but WTF, why let facts bother the mealy-mouth attack on Lee.
However, Shadow Fox said something quite correct in his/her “There're bigger issues at stake now than just bread and butter issues.”
And that's what I’ll discuss next … and it won't be pretty ;-)
I hope you critics who like to ‘give’ can also ‘take’ from me, and hopefully at the end of a robust debate, we can still be mates and split a bottle of brew, whether that be sarsi or something stronger – OK then, hang on then ..... incoming!
Here is an outstanding former DAP stalwart who was the best performing opposition politician bar none. Neither my political hero Lim Kit Siang nor the late Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon could match his popularity and the respect the people of KL of an earlier generation have for him.
Yet to today’s political Johnnies & Ginny’s-come-lately, he is a “hypocrite, a spineless turncoat who goes with the flow. His past actions have clearly shown he is a ‘yes-man’ and ‘brown nose’ and he is certainly not independent nor trustworthy” – see comments on the post.
So, on the above pseudo-logic, for Lee to be trustworthy in the amoebic minds of these J’s-come-lately, he must be, according to their tadpole worldviews, a ‘no-man’. Oh yes, he must buck the ‘flow’ in accordance with their wondrous views of which way the ‘flow’ has been going. Yes, Lee should bloody well conform to their dictates or ‘de facto’ assessments.
What about the critics themselves? Certainly they would say ‘no’ to the establishment! But what would they say to the man who can walk on water.
No, I wasn’t referring to Yeshua ben Yusuf, but the bloke whom visitor kittykat46 informed me “Didn't you know the guy practically walks on water?” in an earlier post Guess who've been singing that old tune "I'd have been sacked ..."?
Read the above post and see whether Lee Lam Thye or He who walks on water has been a ‘spineless hypocrite’.
And pause to consider whether you critic wonders of Lee Lam Thye aren’t ‘yes men’ yourselves (to He who walks on water, the unelected 'leader') ?
And where is it stated that Lee must act or opine in accordance with your Winching Wendy wishes to be not spineless - oh, don’t you now dare forget to compare Lee with who’s really spineless.
As I mentioned in Lim Kit Siang - question mark over 'Lingam Tape Investigation Panel' regarding an inquiry or an investigation:
“A fundamental advice to conveners intending to hold an inquiry, no matter whether it carries a Royal Commission or otherwise, is that they should know beforehand what the findings would be.”
“If that cannot be 100% assured, limit the terms of reference to ensure desired finding …”
Now, it’s not that kaytee believes the independent investigating panel would turn up anything illuminating, because as we are informed by Malaysiakini, the three-member panel probing the authenticity of the 'VK Lingam' video admitted that the panel is limited in their power to compel witnesses to come forward or to extend protection for them.
That’s what ‘limiting the terms of reference’ can do without requiring the need to have biased panel members.
While I believe former Chief Judge Haidar Mohd Noor should not be on the panel investigating into a matter involving the independence of the judiciary because he has a ‘conflict of interest’, I do not see Lee Lam Thye in that same position.
As I remarked in my post Leave Lee Lam Thye alone, F-think carefully before making such an unfair and unworthy comment/criticism, without knowing his history nor understanding Lee's personal style of interaction!
I had questioned the biased criticism that “Lee hasn’t made any statement contrary to or critical of government policies without first taking the wind directions” by asking the following:
(1) Must he?
(2) Has that been his style even when he was at his pinnacle?
Visitor Shadow Fox commented: “You speak with hypocrisy. There're bigger issues at stake now than just bread and butter issues. If he wants to be left alone, it's very easy, he only needs to back out from the panel.”
“Since he allowed himself to be on the panel, he should expect to be scrutinised to the fullest.”
“This is what democracy is all about. Can't take the heat ? Get out of the kitchen, or in this case, the panel.”
It’s quite obscene for him (or her) to mouth the phrase “This is what democracy is all about” while at the same condemning Lee, as a citizen who has retired from opposition politics, from accepting an invitation to be a panel member. Hellooooooooo, can Lee be allowed to decide for himself, or should he toe your line?
And as a former opposition politician retired from active politics, if that doesn’t make him an independent person, who then is? He who walks on water? Lee as an independent person is under no f-obligations to say things that you only want to hear.
Democracy, my bloody foot - you have no clue what democracy is!
Shadow Fox continues to show his/her ignorance of the phrase “Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen” by applying it to a retired politician sitting on an panel for independent investigation, but WTF, why let facts bother the mealy-mouth attack on Lee.
However, Shadow Fox said something quite correct in his/her “There're bigger issues at stake now than just bread and butter issues.”
And that's what I’ll discuss next … and it won't be pretty ;-)
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Leave Lee Lam Thye alone
I wasn’t surprised by the Malaysiakini news informing us that PKR protestors confronted the three-member independent panel set up to verify the authenticity of the VK Lingam video clip.
PKR members are well known for such hi-drama protests since 1998 when then they took to the streets of KL and terrified the nation.
They were led by PKR supreme council member Latheefa Koya.
Latheefa also criticised the appointments of Haidar and Lee Lam Thye. But what annoyed me has been her condemnation of Lee, when she said that it was ironic to have Lee in the investigative panel, considering more than 10 deaths involving national service trainees have yet to be investigated. Lee is of course chairperson of the NS Training Council.
A Malaysiakini reader Yin Ee Kiong also wrote a letter to let us know that Lee Lam Thye is not the social activist that some has termed him. Yin said that since Lee left politics he has been more a businessman and an establishment figure than someone who will agitate for social change to benefit the masses.
Yin declared: “Except for the short time when he was in opposition politics; when has Lee made any statement contrary to or critical of government policies without first taking the wind directions?”
Citizens are of many ilk – some are establishment people, while some are anti establishment or, in more polite description, opposition personalities. Some are warriors while some are primary school teachers; some are firebrands when some are only quiet but steady plodders. There are all kinds.
Who is of more use to a nation?
I dare say all are of equal use and importance to a country.
Lim Kit Siang is no doubt a firebrand and a confronter. But Lee Lam Thye, even in his heydays as he is now, works quietly and achieves silent but meaningful results for his clients – when he was a DAP politician he was deemed the most successful DAP politician who obtained for the members of his constituency, hawkers and the ordinary KL people, what they wanted, needed and desired.
There was neither high level nor high sounding policy, ideology, philosophy or bull. His forte was looking after his supporters' bread and butter issues, and getting City Hall off the backs of the people, etc. He worked in harmonious relationship with the bureaucracy as he knew that was the only way he could get things done for the benefit of his constituency. And the bureacracy appreciated him.
Then, he was politically invincible, even more popular and respected than the legendary Bao Gong.
But now the man has retired and taken to business – many in the know claimed he left the DAP because he couldn’t get along with Lim Kit Siang.
Be that as it may, the point has been he chose to leave politics. Yet, many resented him for doing so, accusing him as Yin has done, that Lee hasn’t made any statement contrary to or critical of government policies without first taking the wind directions.
Must he?
Has that been his style even when he was at his pinnacle?
F-think carefully before making such an unfair and unworthy comment/criticism, without knowing his history nor understanding Lee's personal style of interaction!
Lee Lam Thye had contributed more to opposition politics than people like PKR’s Latheefa or Yin could dream of ever achieving, even if both of them combine their meagre efforts.
One single hair on Lee's leg speaks of more achievement done for the people, especially those of KL, than Latheefa’s whole crown on her unthinking head. She could merely dream of emulating Lee, and even then, most unsuccessfully.
Leave this man alone – he has done his part, and what a part, so let him enjoy his retirement. If he doesn’t grandstand like a de facto leader, it’s because that’s his way, that of a quiet achiever and certainly none of a noisy boastful but utterly useless and empty non-achiever.
PKR members are well known for such hi-drama protests since 1998 when then they took to the streets of KL and terrified the nation.
They were led by PKR supreme council member Latheefa Koya.
Latheefa also criticised the appointments of Haidar and Lee Lam Thye. But what annoyed me has been her condemnation of Lee, when she said that it was ironic to have Lee in the investigative panel, considering more than 10 deaths involving national service trainees have yet to be investigated. Lee is of course chairperson of the NS Training Council.
A Malaysiakini reader Yin Ee Kiong also wrote a letter to let us know that Lee Lam Thye is not the social activist that some has termed him. Yin said that since Lee left politics he has been more a businessman and an establishment figure than someone who will agitate for social change to benefit the masses.
Yin declared: “Except for the short time when he was in opposition politics; when has Lee made any statement contrary to or critical of government policies without first taking the wind directions?”
Citizens are of many ilk – some are establishment people, while some are anti establishment or, in more polite description, opposition personalities. Some are warriors while some are primary school teachers; some are firebrands when some are only quiet but steady plodders. There are all kinds.
Who is of more use to a nation?
I dare say all are of equal use and importance to a country.
Lim Kit Siang is no doubt a firebrand and a confronter. But Lee Lam Thye, even in his heydays as he is now, works quietly and achieves silent but meaningful results for his clients – when he was a DAP politician he was deemed the most successful DAP politician who obtained for the members of his constituency, hawkers and the ordinary KL people, what they wanted, needed and desired.
There was neither high level nor high sounding policy, ideology, philosophy or bull. His forte was looking after his supporters' bread and butter issues, and getting City Hall off the backs of the people, etc. He worked in harmonious relationship with the bureaucracy as he knew that was the only way he could get things done for the benefit of his constituency. And the bureacracy appreciated him.
Then, he was politically invincible, even more popular and respected than the legendary Bao Gong.
But now the man has retired and taken to business – many in the know claimed he left the DAP because he couldn’t get along with Lim Kit Siang.
Be that as it may, the point has been he chose to leave politics. Yet, many resented him for doing so, accusing him as Yin has done, that Lee hasn’t made any statement contrary to or critical of government policies without first taking the wind directions.
Must he?
Has that been his style even when he was at his pinnacle?
F-think carefully before making such an unfair and unworthy comment/criticism, without knowing his history nor understanding Lee's personal style of interaction!
Lee Lam Thye had contributed more to opposition politics than people like PKR’s Latheefa or Yin could dream of ever achieving, even if both of them combine their meagre efforts.
One single hair on Lee's leg speaks of more achievement done for the people, especially those of KL, than Latheefa’s whole crown on her unthinking head. She could merely dream of emulating Lee, and even then, most unsuccessfully.
Leave this man alone – he has done his part, and what a part, so let him enjoy his retirement. If he doesn’t grandstand like a de facto leader, it’s because that’s his way, that of a quiet achiever and certainly none of a noisy boastful but utterly useless and empty non-achiever.
Accessories to murderous Myanmar?
Dean Johns, one of the most readable columnists at Malaysiakini has hit the nail right on the head … of hypocrisy, those of various Head of States.
He wrote in Malaysiakini:
“I’m sick to death of hearing heads of state, foreign ministers and other high-level hypocrites claiming that their hearts bleed for the people of Burma while they and their business cronies go on supporting the regime that has been sucking the life out of its people for so long.”
This time Dean abandoned his fabulous tongue-in-cheek style and lambasted - yes, passionately and caustically so - a number of nations who might/could have been able to pull a few levers in the Myanmar totalitarian machine but wouldn't due to so-called ‘national interest’. He tongue-lashed China (OK, just a damn totalitarian State itself anyway) and India, the World’s biggest democracy(?), with the question mark on ‘democracy' rather than ‘World’s biggest’.
Dean spat out at India for saying meaningless ‘nuthin’ like “The government of India is concerned at and is closely monitoring the situation in Myanmar (Burma). It is our hope that all sides will resolve their issues peacefully through dialogue. India has always believed that Myanmar’s process of political reform and national reconciliation should be more inclusive and broad-based.”
Damn spill could have been issued from Whitehall itself, but then they are Indians, aren't they!
Now, this ‘national interest’ – just what is it that has zipped up those big nations' mouths?
It’s their need and greed for energy! Yes, oil, gas and any fossil fuel.
The same ‘national interest’ saw the world’s greatest democracy, namely the USA, owner of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and creator of the evil sinister system called ‘extraordinary rendition’ (or the devolvement of American desired torture to 3rd World nations), supporting, protecting and nurturing draconian regimes like Saudi Arabia, and once-upon-a-time the Shah’s Iran where the Gestapo-like US-trained Savak murdered and tortured Iranians, and that Mother of them all, Saddam’s Iraq where US munitions plenipotentiary Mr Rumsfeld personally flew to Baghdad to shake the Mother of all hands with promise of more weapons.
Oh, did I miss out the American–Taliban bed-fellowship, when those Muftis of Murder had previously controlled a country vital for a US oil pipeline from Kazakhstan and various ‘-stan’ nations to the Indian Ocean (via Pakistan), and were then naturally American allies.
On the same score Dean didn’t spare his former state of residence as he blasted Malaysia for her amorous but 'unctuous' relationship with dictators in Chad, Sudan and ... gulp ... Myanmar.
What about our southern neighbor then – no, not disorganized Indonesia but that Island called Singapore?
Dean wrote: “… Singapore, so proudly squeaky-clean at home, is also apparently in on the action. An article by Eric Ellis in the Sydney Morning Herald on Oct 1 quotes Singapore’s (unnamed) former head of foreign trade as saying during the 1990s about his country building links with Burma."
“While other countries are ignoring it, it’s a good time for us to go in. You get better deals and you’re more appreciated. Singapore’s position is not to judge them and take a judgmental moral high ground.”
Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of Singapore Democratic Party wrote of the Singapore government’s hypocrisy with regards to the incongruity of the Island nation’s stern capital punishment for drug smugglers and its cozy (trade) relationship with Myanmar.
Dr Chee said: “While Singapore hangs small-time drug peddlers, the government continues to trade lavishly with Burma - the world's largest producer of heroin. The hypocrisy begs attention.”
[...]
"Herein lies the irony. As much as the Singapore government is 'not happy with people keeping opium,' it does extensive trade with a regime notorious for supporting and operating the drug trade in Burma."
"Singapore remains the second largest investor in Burma. In the hotel industry, Singapore tops the list with $546 million invested in various hotel projects - more than Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, the UK and France put together."
"With such investments, the SLORC has been actively trying to promote Burma as a tourist haven. In fact, SLORC Generals have been diligently trying to woo the Singaporean tourist."
"The difference between Singapore and some of the other countries investing in Burma is that while other countries are represented by private companies, the Singapore government is itself is involved in the businesses."
"A television documentary , Singapore Sling, by Australia's Special Broadcasting Services alleged that the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, (GIC), has invested heavily in the Myanmar Fund, an investment company set up to promote and finance investments in Burma. Lo Hsing Han's Asia World Co. also has shares in the Myanmar Fund. It was also alleged that Lo travels freely in and out of Singapore. In addition, Lo's son, Steven Law, who has been denied a visa to enter the US because of suspected drug activities, has a registered business in Singapore."
"After the programme was aired in October 1996, the Singapore government lodged a protest through its High Commission in Canberra. The television station stood by its report and invited representatives of the government to appear in a subsequent episode to discuss the issue. The Singapore government declined."
Indeed, it was precisely because of this hypocrisy that I dedicated a lamentation to 25 year old Australian Nguyen Tuong Van (arrested when he was only 21), hung by Singapore for the crime of attempting to smuggle heroin (probably from Myanmar’s Golden Triangle) to Australia.
Please see distant bells & distant chimes and my broadside at a so-called perfect country.
He wrote in Malaysiakini:
“I’m sick to death of hearing heads of state, foreign ministers and other high-level hypocrites claiming that their hearts bleed for the people of Burma while they and their business cronies go on supporting the regime that has been sucking the life out of its people for so long.”
This time Dean abandoned his fabulous tongue-in-cheek style and lambasted - yes, passionately and caustically so - a number of nations who might/could have been able to pull a few levers in the Myanmar totalitarian machine but wouldn't due to so-called ‘national interest’. He tongue-lashed China (OK, just a damn totalitarian State itself anyway) and India, the World’s biggest democracy(?), with the question mark on ‘democracy' rather than ‘World’s biggest’.
Dean spat out at India for saying meaningless ‘nuthin’ like “The government of India is concerned at and is closely monitoring the situation in Myanmar (Burma). It is our hope that all sides will resolve their issues peacefully through dialogue. India has always believed that Myanmar’s process of political reform and national reconciliation should be more inclusive and broad-based.”
Damn spill could have been issued from Whitehall itself, but then they are Indians, aren't they!
Now, this ‘national interest’ – just what is it that has zipped up those big nations' mouths?
It’s their need and greed for energy! Yes, oil, gas and any fossil fuel.
The same ‘national interest’ saw the world’s greatest democracy, namely the USA, owner of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and creator of the evil sinister system called ‘extraordinary rendition’ (or the devolvement of American desired torture to 3rd World nations), supporting, protecting and nurturing draconian regimes like Saudi Arabia, and once-upon-a-time the Shah’s Iran where the Gestapo-like US-trained Savak murdered and tortured Iranians, and that Mother of them all, Saddam’s Iraq where US munitions plenipotentiary Mr Rumsfeld personally flew to Baghdad to shake the Mother of all hands with promise of more weapons.
Oh, did I miss out the American–Taliban bed-fellowship, when those Muftis of Murder had previously controlled a country vital for a US oil pipeline from Kazakhstan and various ‘-stan’ nations to the Indian Ocean (via Pakistan), and were then naturally American allies.
On the same score Dean didn’t spare his former state of residence as he blasted Malaysia for her amorous but 'unctuous' relationship with dictators in Chad, Sudan and ... gulp ... Myanmar.
What about our southern neighbor then – no, not disorganized Indonesia but that Island called Singapore?
Dean wrote: “… Singapore, so proudly squeaky-clean at home, is also apparently in on the action. An article by Eric Ellis in the Sydney Morning Herald on Oct 1 quotes Singapore’s (unnamed) former head of foreign trade as saying during the 1990s about his country building links with Burma."
“While other countries are ignoring it, it’s a good time for us to go in. You get better deals and you’re more appreciated. Singapore’s position is not to judge them and take a judgmental moral high ground.”
Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of Singapore Democratic Party wrote of the Singapore government’s hypocrisy with regards to the incongruity of the Island nation’s stern capital punishment for drug smugglers and its cozy (trade) relationship with Myanmar.
Dr Chee said: “While Singapore hangs small-time drug peddlers, the government continues to trade lavishly with Burma - the world's largest producer of heroin. The hypocrisy begs attention.”
[...]
"Herein lies the irony. As much as the Singapore government is 'not happy with people keeping opium,' it does extensive trade with a regime notorious for supporting and operating the drug trade in Burma."
"Singapore remains the second largest investor in Burma. In the hotel industry, Singapore tops the list with $546 million invested in various hotel projects - more than Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, the UK and France put together."
"With such investments, the SLORC has been actively trying to promote Burma as a tourist haven. In fact, SLORC Generals have been diligently trying to woo the Singaporean tourist."
"The difference between Singapore and some of the other countries investing in Burma is that while other countries are represented by private companies, the Singapore government is itself is involved in the businesses."
"A television documentary , Singapore Sling, by Australia's Special Broadcasting Services alleged that the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, (GIC), has invested heavily in the Myanmar Fund, an investment company set up to promote and finance investments in Burma. Lo Hsing Han's Asia World Co. also has shares in the Myanmar Fund. It was also alleged that Lo travels freely in and out of Singapore. In addition, Lo's son, Steven Law, who has been denied a visa to enter the US because of suspected drug activities, has a registered business in Singapore."
"After the programme was aired in October 1996, the Singapore government lodged a protest through its High Commission in Canberra. The television station stood by its report and invited representatives of the government to appear in a subsequent episode to discuss the issue. The Singapore government declined."
Indeed, it was precisely because of this hypocrisy that I dedicated a lamentation to 25 year old Australian Nguyen Tuong Van (arrested when he was only 21), hung by Singapore for the crime of attempting to smuggle heroin (probably from Myanmar’s Golden Triangle) to Australia.
Please see distant bells & distant chimes and my broadside at a so-called perfect country.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Winter
One morning green buds peek out shyly
to see if they were too early for Spring,
but on noticing the neighbouring trees
were festooned with white, crimson and
pink blooms, burst forth with impatience,
understandably so after a long slumber
through a cold dark spell of suppression;
'tis time for renewal, 'tis time for new life,
each bud competing with its awoken sibling
to dress the tree with cool green leaves
in a verdant dance with the cool breeze
of the new season, drawing bees, birds
and butterflies, with their buzzing, trilling
and dainty flutter to the cherry blossoms
Yet in all these, Spring's wondrous glory,
I hesitate to rejoice, and for a moment
remember Winter's cold bold ambition,
its show of strength in naked branches
stretching out to the grey sky up above
while crystal clear icicles hang, dripping
threatening, yet pristinely pure, all shorn
of hypocrisy, unsullied, no coyish evasion;
sanitizing the land with a white virgin cloak
it signals its haughty intent to dominate
soon again; I thought of its freezing days
and strangely I yearn for the dignity of the
solitude, asceticism, and uncompromising
tenacity and peace that Winter gives me
to see if they were too early for Spring,
but on noticing the neighbouring trees
were festooned with white, crimson and
pink blooms, burst forth with impatience,
understandably so after a long slumber
through a cold dark spell of suppression;
'tis time for renewal, 'tis time for new life,
each bud competing with its awoken sibling
to dress the tree with cool green leaves
in a verdant dance with the cool breeze
of the new season, drawing bees, birds
and butterflies, with their buzzing, trilling
and dainty flutter to the cherry blossoms
Yet in all these, Spring's wondrous glory,
I hesitate to rejoice, and for a moment
remember Winter's cold bold ambition,
its show of strength in naked branches
stretching out to the grey sky up above
while crystal clear icicles hang, dripping
threatening, yet pristinely pure, all shorn
of hypocrisy, unsullied, no coyish evasion;
sanitizing the land with a white virgin cloak
it signals its haughty intent to dominate
soon again; I thought of its freezing days
and strangely I yearn for the dignity of the
solitude, asceticism, and uncompromising
tenacity and peace that Winter gives me
Guess who've been singing that old tune "I'd have been sacked ..."?
One of Malaysia’s most disgraceful detestable and debatable episodes was the 1988 judicial crisis that led to the sacking of former Lord President of the Malaysian Courts, Salleh Abbas.
The sacking was ‘questionable’ because there’s doubt about its kosher-ness, though …..... well now, I don’t intend to venture into an area armed only with prejudice and suspicion, and without the detailed facts of what had really happened. So I’ll leave that to people who know the system and the facts surrounding one of Malaysia’s most controversial events.
But what was beyond doubt had been a No 2 man of an organization sitting in judgment of his boss, the No 1 man, where the No 2 man stood to gain by any adverse finding on the No 1 man.
The ‘conflict of interest’ was utterly indefensible, and the (lack of) ethics of the situation was wretchedly loathsome. It was a contemptible situation with an equally contemptible outcome.
The No 1 man then was former Lord President of the Courts, Salleh Abbas. No 2 man was his deputy, Hamid Omar, who acted in Abbas position as Lord President when Abbas was made to stand aside. And the finding on No 1 man by No 2 man was adverse - a finding made loathsome and utterly despicable because a Deputy had sat in judgment of his superior where he eventually benefited from that judgement.
According to Malaysiakini, “… in 1988, Salleh, the former lord president, was found guilty of judicial misconduct by a special tribunal chaired by Hamid. At that time, Hamid was acting lord president and next in line to succeed Salleh.”
“Strong objections, especially from the Bar Council, were raised then over Hamid’s role in the tribunal.”
According to Param Cumaraswamy, then president of the Bar Council during the 1988 crisis, he went to see Hamid about the blatant ‘conflict of interest’. He said:
“We went to see Hamid to advise him not to accept the position for the obvious reason that he was next in line. I advised Hamid ‘please don’t (accept), you will cause a very ugly embarrassment to the judiciary.”
Param revealed Hamid’s reply: “His (Hamid’s) response was ‘Param, if I don’t accept, I will be sacked. If I am sacked, will you or your Bar Council compensate my losses of remuneration?’”
I am just staggered by such an unmitigated disgraceful, shameless and selfish response.
Param also quoted Hamid as telling him defiantly, “Param, if you want, you can go and advise the King” to which Param shot back at Hamid, telling him that as acting Lord Presidnet, he was in a better position to advise the King.
If what Param has exposed is accepted, what sort of man would that have made Hamid?
Now, read another Malaysiakini report titled Anwar: Stopped from stemming judicial rot where PKR’s de facto supremo revealed that when he was both DPM and Finance Minister he had tried to intervene in a dodgy court finding but was told to stay on his own turf.
Anwar was referring to the Ayer Molek case of 1994-1995. Justice NH Chan made his immortal statement of “Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark”, a comment borrowed from Shakespeare’s Hamlet (looks like it's not just Anwar among Malaysians who loves Shakespeare).
The Shakespearean quote found resonance within the legal circle because the Commercial Division of the High Court, which made the original questionable finding, is located in Denmark House in Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.
Chan sitting with Siti Norma Yaakob and KC Vohrah had overturned that dodgy high court judgment, but to their dismay, found in turn that their finding was subsequently overturned by the Federal Court.
Then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin had presided over the Federal Court sitting and in fact wrote the opinion.
Chief justice Eusoff Chin was of course the bloke who became a Malaysian household name after he was photographed in 1994 with lawyer VK Lingam (of the current videotape notoriety) while holidaying in New Zealand under circumstances that, as Malaysiakini reported, "... would give rise to the inference of a serious breach of professional conduct on part of the lawyer and even more serious implications of unethical conduct on the part of the chief justice".
But after Anwar was criticised during a public forum as to why he had acquiesced on issues of corruption during Dr Mahathir’s PM-ship (when he now could pontificatingly moralise about the sins of the BN), he informed us about his 'magnificent and valiant' effort during a cabinet session, where he bravely announced (quoting from bits & pieces from Malaysiakini):
“I discovered corruption was becoming endemic and to fight it from within was simply too arduous a task ..... I also concurred with the Rulers' Conference which raised doubts over the recommendation that Justice Mokhtar Sidin be elevated from the High Court to the Court of Appeal ..... When I tabled Chan’s judgment at a cabinet meeting, it was the first time a minister had done so.”
He then explained why, apart from his 'magnificent and valiant' effort (revealed above), he didn’t or couldn't stop the rot: “I would have been removed earlier had I objected earlier.”
Er... wait a minute ... wouldn't this be a case of déjà vu? Didn’t I just hear that “I’ll be sacked unless I go along with it” story from Hamid Omar (as revealed by Param Cumaraswamy)?
Well now, as I've said, I don’t intend to venture into an area armed only with prejudice and suspicion, and without the detailed facts of what had really happened. So I’ll leave that to people who know the system and the facts surrounding one of Malaysia’s most smooth talking never-ever-wrong personality.
The sacking was ‘questionable’ because there’s doubt about its kosher-ness, though …..... well now, I don’t intend to venture into an area armed only with prejudice and suspicion, and without the detailed facts of what had really happened. So I’ll leave that to people who know the system and the facts surrounding one of Malaysia’s most controversial events.
But what was beyond doubt had been a No 2 man of an organization sitting in judgment of his boss, the No 1 man, where the No 2 man stood to gain by any adverse finding on the No 1 man.
The ‘conflict of interest’ was utterly indefensible, and the (lack of) ethics of the situation was wretchedly loathsome. It was a contemptible situation with an equally contemptible outcome.
The No 1 man then was former Lord President of the Courts, Salleh Abbas. No 2 man was his deputy, Hamid Omar, who acted in Abbas position as Lord President when Abbas was made to stand aside. And the finding on No 1 man by No 2 man was adverse - a finding made loathsome and utterly despicable because a Deputy had sat in judgment of his superior where he eventually benefited from that judgement.
According to Malaysiakini, “… in 1988, Salleh, the former lord president, was found guilty of judicial misconduct by a special tribunal chaired by Hamid. At that time, Hamid was acting lord president and next in line to succeed Salleh.”
“Strong objections, especially from the Bar Council, were raised then over Hamid’s role in the tribunal.”
According to Param Cumaraswamy, then president of the Bar Council during the 1988 crisis, he went to see Hamid about the blatant ‘conflict of interest’. He said:
“We went to see Hamid to advise him not to accept the position for the obvious reason that he was next in line. I advised Hamid ‘please don’t (accept), you will cause a very ugly embarrassment to the judiciary.”
Param revealed Hamid’s reply: “His (Hamid’s) response was ‘Param, if I don’t accept, I will be sacked. If I am sacked, will you or your Bar Council compensate my losses of remuneration?’”
I am just staggered by such an unmitigated disgraceful, shameless and selfish response.
Param also quoted Hamid as telling him defiantly, “Param, if you want, you can go and advise the King” to which Param shot back at Hamid, telling him that as acting Lord Presidnet, he was in a better position to advise the King.
If what Param has exposed is accepted, what sort of man would that have made Hamid?
Now, read another Malaysiakini report titled Anwar: Stopped from stemming judicial rot where PKR’s de facto supremo revealed that when he was both DPM and Finance Minister he had tried to intervene in a dodgy court finding but was told to stay on his own turf.
Anwar was referring to the Ayer Molek case of 1994-1995. Justice NH Chan made his immortal statement of “Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark”, a comment borrowed from Shakespeare’s Hamlet (looks like it's not just Anwar among Malaysians who loves Shakespeare).
The Shakespearean quote found resonance within the legal circle because the Commercial Division of the High Court, which made the original questionable finding, is located in Denmark House in Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.
Chan sitting with Siti Norma Yaakob and KC Vohrah had overturned that dodgy high court judgment, but to their dismay, found in turn that their finding was subsequently overturned by the Federal Court.
Then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin had presided over the Federal Court sitting and in fact wrote the opinion.
Chief justice Eusoff Chin was of course the bloke who became a Malaysian household name after he was photographed in 1994 with lawyer VK Lingam (of the current videotape notoriety) while holidaying in New Zealand under circumstances that, as Malaysiakini reported, "... would give rise to the inference of a serious breach of professional conduct on part of the lawyer and even more serious implications of unethical conduct on the part of the chief justice".
But after Anwar was criticised during a public forum as to why he had acquiesced on issues of corruption during Dr Mahathir’s PM-ship (when he now could pontificatingly moralise about the sins of the BN), he informed us about his 'magnificent and valiant' effort during a cabinet session, where he bravely announced (quoting from bits & pieces from Malaysiakini):
“I discovered corruption was becoming endemic and to fight it from within was simply too arduous a task ..... I also concurred with the Rulers' Conference which raised doubts over the recommendation that Justice Mokhtar Sidin be elevated from the High Court to the Court of Appeal ..... When I tabled Chan’s judgment at a cabinet meeting, it was the first time a minister had done so.”
He then explained why, apart from his 'magnificent and valiant' effort (revealed above), he didn’t or couldn't stop the rot: “I would have been removed earlier had I objected earlier.”
Er... wait a minute ... wouldn't this be a case of déjà vu? Didn’t I just hear that “I’ll be sacked unless I go along with it” story from Hamid Omar (as revealed by Param Cumaraswamy)?
Well now, as I've said, I don’t intend to venture into an area armed only with prejudice and suspicion, and without the detailed facts of what had really happened. So I’ll leave that to people who know the system and the facts surrounding one of Malaysia’s most smooth talking never-ever-wrong personality.
Shahrir Samad naughty on PAC questions re Libra ECM merger
Last week I expressed my surprise when I posted PAC on KJ's ECM-Libra case - why was DAP member silent?
I was astounded by Shahrir Samad’s assertion that the PAC investigations on the ECM-Libra hit an unexpected snag, because when Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop came before PAC to answer the committee’s questions, no PAC member asked any question.
I commented that while I could understand BN members of PAC maintaining UMNO's practice of elegant silence, I wonder what happened to those opposition parliamentarians like DAP’s Tan Seng Giaw who is a PAC member.
The DAP members are known for their no nonsense vigilance on government lack of governance and dodgy deals, so indeed I was not only surprised but shocked that, according to the gospel by Shahrir, Tan had allowed the mouse to get away.
… which was why I asked in my previous post, ‘was Tan there’ or the PAC had held that hearing minus him?
I couldn’t believe Tan would have been that negligent - no way, not with a DAP chap!
Shahrir had complained then: “I guided everybody to a point that anyone could have picked up from where the minutes left off but... nobody did. Why do I always have to do the work?”
Well, a couple of days ago, Malaysiakini reported Tan Seng Giaw dismissing Shahrir’s assertion as a “guffaw” and did not reflect the true situation.
‘... as a guffaw ...’?
What did Tan or the Malaysiakini reporter mean? Maybe as a 'joke'?
OK, I promise not to guffaw ;-)
Anyway back to Tan - he said a copy of the concerned PAC meeting minutes tabled to Parliament in September showed there were three PAC members - PKR's Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, and PAS' Kamaruddin Jaafar and of course himself - who questioned Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop over the merger in the meeting.
Tan said: “I asked a hell lot of questions, more than the questions that (the minister) wanted to answer.”
Tan said that the minister however avoided questions on the ECM Libra Avenue merger and merely wanted to comment about other matters.
Now, what does this make Shahrir Samad?
Shahrir has been one of those very rare UMNO MPs that I respect. Remember, he was the bloke who stood together with the Opposition in wanting to refer One-eyed Cyclops and his disgraceful dodginess to the Parliamentary Privilege Committee, which in the end unfortunately cost him (Shahrir) his job as Chair of the Backbenchers Club. Ho hum, so much for AAB's values!
But Tan’s revelation of his (Shahrir’s) lack of truth in alleging the Opposition members of PAC didn't quizz the 2nd Finance Minister has been a great disappointment to me personally, because it shatters the admirable image of Shahrir that I had entertained all these while.
Worse, I now wonder about Shahrir’s claim that the PAC found the ECM Libra Avenue merger was carried out according to procedure.
However, Shahrir was very careful to state that PAC is yet to conclude whether there was any issue of ‘conflict of interest’ by PM/Finance Minister AAB in allowing the merger to go through.
Malaysiakini quoted him as saying: “My personal view is that there is no corruption but there is a case of conflict of interest and (can be) questionable.”
Well, Yang Berhormat, where there is a 'conflict of interest', then the merger couldn’t have been carried out according to procedure. You just can’t have it both ways.
Alas, but I am more disappointed with Shahrir Samad for averring that the opposition members of the PAC didn’t ask questions of the evasive Second Finance Minister.
‘... evasive ...’!
Got it, Yang Berhormat? The accountable-to-PAC 2nd Finance Minister had, according to DAP Tan, avoided questions on the ECM Libra Avenue merger. Therefore we must ask the logical question of 'WHY'?
And a second 'WHY' on you too for saying what you said of the Opposition PAC members!
I was astounded by Shahrir Samad’s assertion that the PAC investigations on the ECM-Libra hit an unexpected snag, because when Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop came before PAC to answer the committee’s questions, no PAC member asked any question.
I commented that while I could understand BN members of PAC maintaining UMNO's practice of elegant silence, I wonder what happened to those opposition parliamentarians like DAP’s Tan Seng Giaw who is a PAC member.
The DAP members are known for their no nonsense vigilance on government lack of governance and dodgy deals, so indeed I was not only surprised but shocked that, according to the gospel by Shahrir, Tan had allowed the mouse to get away.
… which was why I asked in my previous post, ‘was Tan there’ or the PAC had held that hearing minus him?
I couldn’t believe Tan would have been that negligent - no way, not with a DAP chap!
Shahrir had complained then: “I guided everybody to a point that anyone could have picked up from where the minutes left off but... nobody did. Why do I always have to do the work?”
Well, a couple of days ago, Malaysiakini reported Tan Seng Giaw dismissing Shahrir’s assertion as a “guffaw” and did not reflect the true situation.
‘... as a guffaw ...’?
What did Tan or the Malaysiakini reporter mean? Maybe as a 'joke'?
OK, I promise not to guffaw ;-)
Anyway back to Tan - he said a copy of the concerned PAC meeting minutes tabled to Parliament in September showed there were three PAC members - PKR's Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, and PAS' Kamaruddin Jaafar and of course himself - who questioned Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop over the merger in the meeting.
Tan said: “I asked a hell lot of questions, more than the questions that (the minister) wanted to answer.”
Tan said that the minister however avoided questions on the ECM Libra Avenue merger and merely wanted to comment about other matters.
Now, what does this make Shahrir Samad?
Shahrir has been one of those very rare UMNO MPs that I respect. Remember, he was the bloke who stood together with the Opposition in wanting to refer One-eyed Cyclops and his disgraceful dodginess to the Parliamentary Privilege Committee, which in the end unfortunately cost him (Shahrir) his job as Chair of the Backbenchers Club. Ho hum, so much for AAB's values!
But Tan’s revelation of his (Shahrir’s) lack of truth in alleging the Opposition members of PAC didn't quizz the 2nd Finance Minister has been a great disappointment to me personally, because it shatters the admirable image of Shahrir that I had entertained all these while.
Worse, I now wonder about Shahrir’s claim that the PAC found the ECM Libra Avenue merger was carried out according to procedure.
However, Shahrir was very careful to state that PAC is yet to conclude whether there was any issue of ‘conflict of interest’ by PM/Finance Minister AAB in allowing the merger to go through.
Malaysiakini quoted him as saying: “My personal view is that there is no corruption but there is a case of conflict of interest and (can be) questionable.”
Well, Yang Berhormat, where there is a 'conflict of interest', then the merger couldn’t have been carried out according to procedure. You just can’t have it both ways.
Alas, but I am more disappointed with Shahrir Samad for averring that the opposition members of the PAC didn’t ask questions of the evasive Second Finance Minister.
‘... evasive ...’!
Got it, Yang Berhormat? The accountable-to-PAC 2nd Finance Minister had, according to DAP Tan, avoided questions on the ECM Libra Avenue merger. Therefore we must ask the logical question of 'WHY'?
And a second 'WHY' on you too for saying what you said of the Opposition PAC members!
George Bush's farewell gift to Israel?
Here’s probably George Bush’s presidential farewell gift to Israel, the final part of the two-part endowment that Zionists in the Bush Administration had been working on for years for Bush to bestow to his spiritual country.
This second part has been placed on the back burner for a while after the unexpected humongous setback with the first part of what he did for dear Israel.
But the Zionists know that unless this final part is sneaked in before dumbo Dubya leaves, the next US president won’t be so moronically led by the nose by Israel.
Also see my previous post Israel 12-letter magic mantra! written in May 2006, and Israeli failure may prompt USA to strike Iran soon in August last year.
Related:
(1) US Plans Air Strikes on Iran
(2) USA ever obedient to Israel!
(3) Why did USA squander peace with Iran?
(4) Bush plans N-strike against Iran
(5) Bush's N-backfire
(6) Americans Duped, Iraqis Paying Terrible Price
(7) US is Co-Rapist of Lebanon
(8) Why President Bush is so against Iran
This second part has been placed on the back burner for a while after the unexpected humongous setback with the first part of what he did for dear Israel.
But the Zionists know that unless this final part is sneaked in before dumbo Dubya leaves, the next US president won’t be so moronically led by the nose by Israel.
Also see my previous post Israel 12-letter magic mantra! written in May 2006, and Israeli failure may prompt USA to strike Iran soon in August last year.
Related:
(1) US Plans Air Strikes on Iran
(2) USA ever obedient to Israel!
(3) Why did USA squander peace with Iran?
(4) Bush plans N-strike against Iran
(5) Bush's N-backfire
(6) Americans Duped, Iraqis Paying Terrible Price
(7) US is Co-Rapist of Lebanon
(8) Why President Bush is so against Iran
Monday, October 01, 2007
Anwar Ibrahim - we want more than Lingam tape
So Malaysiakini informed us that Anwar Ibrahim has more on the Lingam videotape.
According to the de facto leader of PKR, in the second part of the infamous tape allegedly exposing ‘judicial appointment fixing’ that is yet to be released, the name of Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim was explicitly mentioned.
Note I said ‘... allegedly exposing ...' because in my previous posting Lingam tape - Why was it recorded? I quoted Dr Bakri Musa, a columnist for Malaysiakini, mentioning the possibility of a Lingam pretend-telephone conversation with said CJ, putting on a sandiwara for his videotaping.
Dr Bakri said: “I do not put it below this shyster to put on this monologue with an imagined targeted senior judge at the other end, a la Lat’s old cartoon, and then purposely ‘leaked’ the tape out. It would certainly be a headline grabber. As for a motive, rogues are known to do this to each other when they have a falling out. There is one quick way to check this: examine the tape to determine when it was manufactured.”
I did raise some queries on how we could possibly check that it was a monologue, because unless the videotape could show evidence that there was no one at the other end, we still wouldn't be any wiser.
Indeed even if Anwar Ibrahim’s claim/promise of a second part of the videotape ever comes to fruition, and the name of Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz was mentioned in it, what proof would there be that the whole scene was not as Dr Bakri alleged, a monologue.
It would be based on very flimsy grounds, like Tian Chua's wishful portrait of a French dinner.
... unless of course, the police subpoenaed (would this be the correct word?) Lingam’s phone bill for that period and match its details with the date-time stamp on the videotape for the association to be made between ‘real calls’ (to that judge) at that time, to disprove a monologue - that is, assuming, the videotape has a date-time stamp and which may be proven to be authentic.
My personal suspicion is Dr Bakri’s fourth suggestion, that it was an insider’s job, by someone close to and trusted by the lawyer.
Anyway, let's return back to Anwar Ibrahim and his so-called 2nd part of the Lingam videotape.
Malaysiakini said the (unelected) PKR supremo did not explain in what context Ahmad Fairuz’s name was brought up in the second part.
Anwar was quoted as saying: “In the second part of the clip, there were other personalities shown. In the second part of the clip too, Ahmad Fairuz was mentioned by VK Lingam (the lawyer talking in the clip).”
As I mentioned, so what, if it was a monologue as Dr Bakri put forward as one of his suspicions.
Anwar continued: “It is interesting now that the chief justice has denied (his involvement). I would love to see him defend himself in the dock as to whether he was lying.”
Anwar then said the remaining part of the video clip will be released at “a right time”.
But this is typical Anwar Ibrahim ‘man man’ teasing which we have heard before in Kuching, Kelantan and Ijok but which we’re yet to hear those complete tales from him – read my earlier post The Anwar style of campaigning.
* ‘man man’ = ‘slowly’, implying, in the context of which Anwar had used this Chinese term, that he would ‘eventually release the whole story’
In an earlier post Why we lost faith in the man man lai promise? I quoted Dean Johns, one of my fave columnists in Malaysiakini, stating of Anwar Ibrahim:
If Anwar and PKR are actually the targets, I really don't see the point. As much as I deplored the way Anwar was set-up by Mahathir (on the same sodomy rap ...), I couldn't help feeling that finally at least one Umno big-wig was, however unjustly, getting his desserts.
And as strongly as I sympathized with the man as they paraded their perjured witnesses and the stained mattress, then had him assaulted and shut-up in solitary, I still can't view him entirely as a victim.
Nor can I see him today as anything but a spent force. Or, more accurately, as a misspent force. Frittering-away his new-found moral authority on making the fiery speeches for which he's so justly famous and messing-around in petty party-politics when, if he was truly serious and sincere, he could be bringing one documented charge after another against his former corrupt colleagues and their current successors in the Malaysian and possibly even international criminal courts, as well as the courts of local and world public opinion.
His repeated assertions that he will reveal all he knows and act accordingly "when the time comes" are sounding increasingly hollow, and doing nothing to allay many peoples' suspicions that he is "the same old Anwar" and thus not to be trusted.
In this Lingam videotape case, the problem I have with Anwar Ibrahim is two-fold:
(1) Anwar only releases stuff that may help his personal conviction but nothing else, which as UMNO’s former No 2 man and acting PM he would have plenty of knowledge. Why then not reveal more to discredit the BN? That has been his failing and lack of commitment to the discrediting or exposure of UMNO.
I join Dean Johns in questioning Anwar Ibrahim's sincerity, that "if he was truly serious and sincere, he could be bringing one documented charge after another against his former corrupt colleagues and their current successors in the Malaysian and possibly even international criminal courts, as well as the courts of local and world public opinion." But I won't hold my breath.
(2) I am sick of his ‘man man’ promise which would as usual end up as nothing, the unfulfilled meaningless promises they always had been. Either he puts up or shut up.
According to the de facto leader of PKR, in the second part of the infamous tape allegedly exposing ‘judicial appointment fixing’ that is yet to be released, the name of Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim was explicitly mentioned.
Note I said ‘... allegedly exposing ...' because in my previous posting Lingam tape - Why was it recorded? I quoted Dr Bakri Musa, a columnist for Malaysiakini, mentioning the possibility of a Lingam pretend-telephone conversation with said CJ, putting on a sandiwara for his videotaping.
Dr Bakri said: “I do not put it below this shyster to put on this monologue with an imagined targeted senior judge at the other end, a la Lat’s old cartoon, and then purposely ‘leaked’ the tape out. It would certainly be a headline grabber. As for a motive, rogues are known to do this to each other when they have a falling out. There is one quick way to check this: examine the tape to determine when it was manufactured.”
I did raise some queries on how we could possibly check that it was a monologue, because unless the videotape could show evidence that there was no one at the other end, we still wouldn't be any wiser.
Indeed even if Anwar Ibrahim’s claim/promise of a second part of the videotape ever comes to fruition, and the name of Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz was mentioned in it, what proof would there be that the whole scene was not as Dr Bakri alleged, a monologue.
It would be based on very flimsy grounds, like Tian Chua's wishful portrait of a French dinner.
... unless of course, the police subpoenaed (would this be the correct word?) Lingam’s phone bill for that period and match its details with the date-time stamp on the videotape for the association to be made between ‘real calls’ (to that judge) at that time, to disprove a monologue - that is, assuming, the videotape has a date-time stamp and which may be proven to be authentic.
My personal suspicion is Dr Bakri’s fourth suggestion, that it was an insider’s job, by someone close to and trusted by the lawyer.
Anyway, let's return back to Anwar Ibrahim and his so-called 2nd part of the Lingam videotape.
Malaysiakini said the (unelected) PKR supremo did not explain in what context Ahmad Fairuz’s name was brought up in the second part.
Anwar was quoted as saying: “In the second part of the clip, there were other personalities shown. In the second part of the clip too, Ahmad Fairuz was mentioned by VK Lingam (the lawyer talking in the clip).”
As I mentioned, so what, if it was a monologue as Dr Bakri put forward as one of his suspicions.
Anwar continued: “It is interesting now that the chief justice has denied (his involvement). I would love to see him defend himself in the dock as to whether he was lying.”
Anwar then said the remaining part of the video clip will be released at “a right time”.
But this is typical Anwar Ibrahim ‘man man’ teasing which we have heard before in Kuching, Kelantan and Ijok but which we’re yet to hear those complete tales from him – read my earlier post The Anwar style of campaigning.
* ‘man man’ = ‘slowly’, implying, in the context of which Anwar had used this Chinese term, that he would ‘eventually release the whole story’
In an earlier post Why we lost faith in the man man lai promise? I quoted Dean Johns, one of my fave columnists in Malaysiakini, stating of Anwar Ibrahim:
If Anwar and PKR are actually the targets, I really don't see the point. As much as I deplored the way Anwar was set-up by Mahathir (on the same sodomy rap ...), I couldn't help feeling that finally at least one Umno big-wig was, however unjustly, getting his desserts.
And as strongly as I sympathized with the man as they paraded their perjured witnesses and the stained mattress, then had him assaulted and shut-up in solitary, I still can't view him entirely as a victim.
Nor can I see him today as anything but a spent force. Or, more accurately, as a misspent force. Frittering-away his new-found moral authority on making the fiery speeches for which he's so justly famous and messing-around in petty party-politics when, if he was truly serious and sincere, he could be bringing one documented charge after another against his former corrupt colleagues and their current successors in the Malaysian and possibly even international criminal courts, as well as the courts of local and world public opinion.
His repeated assertions that he will reveal all he knows and act accordingly "when the time comes" are sounding increasingly hollow, and doing nothing to allay many peoples' suspicions that he is "the same old Anwar" and thus not to be trusted.
In this Lingam videotape case, the problem I have with Anwar Ibrahim is two-fold:
(1) Anwar only releases stuff that may help his personal conviction but nothing else, which as UMNO’s former No 2 man and acting PM he would have plenty of knowledge. Why then not reveal more to discredit the BN? That has been his failing and lack of commitment to the discrediting or exposure of UMNO.
I join Dean Johns in questioning Anwar Ibrahim's sincerity, that "if he was truly serious and sincere, he could be bringing one documented charge after another against his former corrupt colleagues and their current successors in the Malaysian and possibly even international criminal courts, as well as the courts of local and world public opinion." But I won't hold my breath.
(2) I am sick of his ‘man man’ promise which would as usual end up as nothing, the unfulfilled meaningless promises they always had been. Either he puts up or shut up.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Standing with the brave in Palestine
Josef Roy Benedict send a letter to Malaysiakini titled Standing with the brave in Burma.
He said: “As we Malaysians view pictures of the violent crackdown of pro-democracy demonstrations occurring in Burma, we are once again reminded about the brutality of the military junta which has denied democracy to its people and continues to detain at least 1,200 political prisoners for engaging in peaceful political activities and non-violent exercise of the right to freedom of expression and association.”
I agree and support Josef’s call, but I observe that his words (except for "to its people" - substitute that "to the people of its occupied territories") above would apply equally, if not more, to the Palestinian situation in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Palestinians have to suffer the ignominity and horrors of such brutal suppression in their own land by an occupying power, Israel, who has been robbing the Palestinians of their land through fabricated justifications of security, while conveniently pretending they are one of the most brutal colonial regimes, one of those many sanctioned and protected by the USA.
Another of his paragraphs went: “The government sent troops to brutally suppress the protests. No official investigation has ever taken place, but the best estimates suggest that approximately 3,000 people were killed as the demonstrations were crushed in September 1988. As many as 10,000 people were killed nationwide between March and September of that year.”
Other than the relevant dates and statistics, the same applies to the Israeli suppression of the Palestinians.
Then: “We must also call on China who has funded and armed the regime to play a crucial role in ending this crisis. China cannot wish to hosts next year’s Olympic Games as the defender of such a despicable regime and we must urge the country to use its influence with the regime to exercise restraint and move towards dialogue. Other countries who have economic and military ties with Burma such as India and Russia must be shown that there will increasing economic problems and political instability as long as the regime defies the will of the people. They should back the democracy movement if it wants a stable, peaceful and prosperous Burma.”
Make a guess as to what I would be saying with regards to the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians in the latter’s own land – just a hint, substitute ‘China’ with Western country!
But no, don’t just guess - why don’t you instead adopt it as your political support for the oppressed Palestinians in the same manner you are passionately expressing for the Burmese.
He said: “As we Malaysians view pictures of the violent crackdown of pro-democracy demonstrations occurring in Burma, we are once again reminded about the brutality of the military junta which has denied democracy to its people and continues to detain at least 1,200 political prisoners for engaging in peaceful political activities and non-violent exercise of the right to freedom of expression and association.”
I agree and support Josef’s call, but I observe that his words (except for "to its people" - substitute that "to the people of its occupied territories") above would apply equally, if not more, to the Palestinian situation in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Palestinians have to suffer the ignominity and horrors of such brutal suppression in their own land by an occupying power, Israel, who has been robbing the Palestinians of their land through fabricated justifications of security, while conveniently pretending they are one of the most brutal colonial regimes, one of those many sanctioned and protected by the USA.
Another of his paragraphs went: “The government sent troops to brutally suppress the protests. No official investigation has ever taken place, but the best estimates suggest that approximately 3,000 people were killed as the demonstrations were crushed in September 1988. As many as 10,000 people were killed nationwide between March and September of that year.”
Other than the relevant dates and statistics, the same applies to the Israeli suppression of the Palestinians.
Then: “We must also call on China who has funded and armed the regime to play a crucial role in ending this crisis. China cannot wish to hosts next year’s Olympic Games as the defender of such a despicable regime and we must urge the country to use its influence with the regime to exercise restraint and move towards dialogue. Other countries who have economic and military ties with Burma such as India and Russia must be shown that there will increasing economic problems and political instability as long as the regime defies the will of the people. They should back the democracy movement if it wants a stable, peaceful and prosperous Burma.”
Make a guess as to what I would be saying with regards to the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians in the latter’s own land – just a hint, substitute ‘China’ with Western country!
But no, don’t just guess - why don’t you instead adopt it as your political support for the oppressed Palestinians in the same manner you are passionately expressing for the Burmese.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Lingam tape - Why was it recorded?
The Malaysiakini headline asked about the Lingam tape, Is the tape authentic? That's the panel's job.
Many Malaysians believe they already have the answer, so why bother to ask anymore or even have an investigating panel?
Then, some aren’t interested in nor will accept what the panel will discover, unless of course by some delightful miracle, the panel's findings fit their already set-in-concrete belief about the tape.
Their attitude would be influenced by a mix of (1) distrust in any government’s appointed panels (call it ‘independent’ with a capital ‘I’ or whatever, and the public would still be pretty much unmoved, (2) a frustrated public’s eager willingness to believe in anything against the integrity or conduct of the establishment, and lastly but not least, especially for the PKR crowd, (3) the silver bullet to bringing Anwar Ibrahim back in legitimate running for the general election through overturning his corruption conviction, by proving through the tape that he was 'fixed' by a dodgy judiciary.
Bakri Musa, a columnist for Malaysiakini, wrote of the authenticity of the tape:
"The quality of the recording is such that it is unlikely to be a fake. With today’s forensic capabilities, it would be foolish for anyone to even attempt this. The lawyer concerned was speaking on his cell phone, meaning, there will be the inerasable digital trail. My monthly cell phone bill details my outgoing and incoming calls. Because of the quality, the video could not be shot surreptitiously as with a cell phone a la the earlier “nude ear squat” episode. Besides, such a device was probably unavailable back in 2002."
OK, that means that more dated equipment was used to record it, probably something quite bulky, unlike the modern palm-size slim-line cell phone camera. Bakri asked what some of us did – though many couldn’t be bothered as it’s a heaven-send-come gift for Anwar Ibrahim, so why look a gift horse in the mouth - yes, some of us share Bakri’s intriguing question on why the taping was made in the first place. Indeed, why?
He reckons that if we ignore the most common and obvious reason – stupidity – and kaytee believes we still shouldn’t dismiss that - he offered a few possibilities:
1) Vanity. He said that when man (or woman) have passed the thrill of bragging about their accumulated monetary wealth, he (or she) would seek some other 'trophies' (a good word from Dr Bakri) – Bakri offered some typical example,“like an embellished royal title or additional wives (for Muslims). If you already have those, or cannot acquire them, then the next intoxicating fantasy would be to be a kingmaker, or fancying yourself as one.”
Indeed – hmmm, my mind leaps to Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I wonder on which level of the pyramidical hierarchy would a Malaccan (RM250,000, unless you're a VVIP's wife) 'Latuk Seli' sits?
Bakri reckons this possibility for a lawyer would be for him to brag, in later years, that he had judges in his pocket, a sort of kingmaker in the world of the Malaysian judiciary. Bakri said: “Years later in your old age, your skeptical grandchildren might attribute your boasts to nothing more than the rambling of a senile mind, unless of course you have the video to prove it!”
2) Arrogance. Bakri explained that “Humility is when you could manipulate the nation’s judiciary and have the quiet satisfaction; arrogance is when you flaunt it.”
Maybe the recording was associated with an arrogant need to flaunt it, perhaps within a closed circle, which as the Chinese have warned us way beore ‘osmosis’ was scientifically proven by Western scientists: “Even water can get into an egg!” or was it the other way around?
3) The third possibility that Bakri offers actually questioned the authenticity of the tape despite his earlier assertion that it’s likely to be authentic.
He said: “I do not put it below this shyster to put on this monologue with an imagined targeted senior judge at the other end, a la Lat’s old cartoon, and then purposely ‘leaked’ the tape out. It would certainly be a headline grabber. As for a motive, rogues are known to do this to each other when they have a falling out. There is one quick way to check this: examine the tape to determine when it was manufactured.”
Er ... “examine the tape to determine when it was manufactured”? Hmmm ......
Now, how would that confirm whether it was a monologue, because the videotape wouldn't be able to show evidence that there was no one at the other end? Even Lingam’s phone bill details wouldn’t confirm that unless there is a date-time stamp on the videotape for the association to be made between ‘real calls’ (to that judge) at that time, to disprove a monologue.
Then we may imagine the next step would be to prove the authenticity of the date-time stamp on the tape ... alas, with the proving process going on ad infinitum.
4) Bakri said that of course there is a last possibility, which incidentally was my suspicion right from Day 1, that it was an insider’s job, by someone close to and trusted by the lawyer.
Bakri reckoned it could be an employee’s scheme to get even with his or her boss just in case he [the lawyer boss] would get nasty in future. He declared that knowing how law firms’ employees are treated in Malaysia, this is a real possibility.
Kaytee believes we also mustn't also discount the tape being surreptitiously made by a close friend or relative of the lawyer.
Some years ago, there was a scandal involving an Indian politician, a rising star in a Malaysian political party. He liked to tape his salacious romps with the ladies for subsequent viewing, maybe to admire his own conquests or to wank off during a lean spell.
He was said to have consensual you-know-what with the wife of another Indian. His nephew removed one of those tapes and allowed that to reach public viewing. Unfortunately it was the one involving the other person's wife. Unable to face the shame, she committed suicide. He plummeted like a falling comet.
Ah well, you choose which possibility is most plausible for the making of the Lingam tape.
Next, I will examine the issue from the Anwar Ibrahim’s side.
Many Malaysians believe they already have the answer, so why bother to ask anymore or even have an investigating panel?
Then, some aren’t interested in nor will accept what the panel will discover, unless of course by some delightful miracle, the panel's findings fit their already set-in-concrete belief about the tape.
Their attitude would be influenced by a mix of (1) distrust in any government’s appointed panels (call it ‘independent’ with a capital ‘I’ or whatever, and the public would still be pretty much unmoved, (2) a frustrated public’s eager willingness to believe in anything against the integrity or conduct of the establishment, and lastly but not least, especially for the PKR crowd, (3) the silver bullet to bringing Anwar Ibrahim back in legitimate running for the general election through overturning his corruption conviction, by proving through the tape that he was 'fixed' by a dodgy judiciary.
Bakri Musa, a columnist for Malaysiakini, wrote of the authenticity of the tape:
"The quality of the recording is such that it is unlikely to be a fake. With today’s forensic capabilities, it would be foolish for anyone to even attempt this. The lawyer concerned was speaking on his cell phone, meaning, there will be the inerasable digital trail. My monthly cell phone bill details my outgoing and incoming calls. Because of the quality, the video could not be shot surreptitiously as with a cell phone a la the earlier “nude ear squat” episode. Besides, such a device was probably unavailable back in 2002."
OK, that means that more dated equipment was used to record it, probably something quite bulky, unlike the modern palm-size slim-line cell phone camera. Bakri asked what some of us did – though many couldn’t be bothered as it’s a heaven-send-come gift for Anwar Ibrahim, so why look a gift horse in the mouth - yes, some of us share Bakri’s intriguing question on why the taping was made in the first place. Indeed, why?
He reckons that if we ignore the most common and obvious reason – stupidity – and kaytee believes we still shouldn’t dismiss that - he offered a few possibilities:
1) Vanity. He said that when man (or woman) have passed the thrill of bragging about their accumulated monetary wealth, he (or she) would seek some other 'trophies' (a good word from Dr Bakri) – Bakri offered some typical example,“like an embellished royal title or additional wives (for Muslims). If you already have those, or cannot acquire them, then the next intoxicating fantasy would be to be a kingmaker, or fancying yourself as one.”
Indeed – hmmm, my mind leaps to Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I wonder on which level of the pyramidical hierarchy would a Malaccan (RM250,000, unless you're a VVIP's wife) 'Latuk Seli' sits?
Bakri reckons this possibility for a lawyer would be for him to brag, in later years, that he had judges in his pocket, a sort of kingmaker in the world of the Malaysian judiciary. Bakri said: “Years later in your old age, your skeptical grandchildren might attribute your boasts to nothing more than the rambling of a senile mind, unless of course you have the video to prove it!”
2) Arrogance. Bakri explained that “Humility is when you could manipulate the nation’s judiciary and have the quiet satisfaction; arrogance is when you flaunt it.”
Maybe the recording was associated with an arrogant need to flaunt it, perhaps within a closed circle, which as the Chinese have warned us way beore ‘osmosis’ was scientifically proven by Western scientists: “Even water can get into an egg!” or was it the other way around?
3) The third possibility that Bakri offers actually questioned the authenticity of the tape despite his earlier assertion that it’s likely to be authentic.
He said: “I do not put it below this shyster to put on this monologue with an imagined targeted senior judge at the other end, a la Lat’s old cartoon, and then purposely ‘leaked’ the tape out. It would certainly be a headline grabber. As for a motive, rogues are known to do this to each other when they have a falling out. There is one quick way to check this: examine the tape to determine when it was manufactured.”
Er ... “examine the tape to determine when it was manufactured”? Hmmm ......
Now, how would that confirm whether it was a monologue, because the videotape wouldn't be able to show evidence that there was no one at the other end? Even Lingam’s phone bill details wouldn’t confirm that unless there is a date-time stamp on the videotape for the association to be made between ‘real calls’ (to that judge) at that time, to disprove a monologue.
Then we may imagine the next step would be to prove the authenticity of the date-time stamp on the tape ... alas, with the proving process going on ad infinitum.
4) Bakri said that of course there is a last possibility, which incidentally was my suspicion right from Day 1, that it was an insider’s job, by someone close to and trusted by the lawyer.
Bakri reckoned it could be an employee’s scheme to get even with his or her boss just in case he [the lawyer boss] would get nasty in future. He declared that knowing how law firms’ employees are treated in Malaysia, this is a real possibility.
Kaytee believes we also mustn't also discount the tape being surreptitiously made by a close friend or relative of the lawyer.
Some years ago, there was a scandal involving an Indian politician, a rising star in a Malaysian political party. He liked to tape his salacious romps with the ladies for subsequent viewing, maybe to admire his own conquests or to wank off during a lean spell.
He was said to have consensual you-know-what with the wife of another Indian. His nephew removed one of those tapes and allowed that to reach public viewing. Unfortunately it was the one involving the other person's wife. Unable to face the shame, she committed suicide. He plummeted like a falling comet.
Ah well, you choose which possibility is most plausible for the making of the Lingam tape.
Next, I will examine the issue from the Anwar Ibrahim’s side.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Lim Kit Siang - question mark over 'Lingam Tape Investigation Panel'
A fundamental advice to conveners intending to hold an inquiry, no matter whether it carries a Royal Commission or otherwise, is that they should know beforehand what the findings would be.
If that cannot be 100% assured, limit the terms of reference to ensure desired finding, and if that outcome is still doubtful, well, don’t convene any inquiry but provide some excuse like a police investigation should be adequate.
Where doubts exist at all, don’t ever ever have a Royal Commission which has extraordinary powers – extraordinary powers that may lead to unforeseen independent actions/findings by the members.
Well, following the brouhaha over the Lingam videotape, DPM Najib has succumbed to pressure (probably to relieve any untoward bad publicity on the nearing general election) and has convened an ‘independent’ panel to investigate the authenticity of the tapes.
Just a little digression here – who could the owner of that tape, holding it for years until now when he probably grew dissatisfied with a number of ‘things’ to finally present it to Anwar Ibrahim?
But two days ago Malaysiakini reported that Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang criticized the limited terms of reference of the ‘independent’ panel of investigation. He said:
“In restricting the panel to the question of the authenticity of the Lingam tape instead of allowing full investigations into all aspects of the allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity raised by the video clip, the government is avoiding the imperative issue of the long-standing rot in the judiciary and the urgent need to restore national and international confidence in the system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law.”
Lim has a certain verbosity that challenges our limited vocabulary. In plain street talk, Lim had said “Bullsh*t to just look into whether the tape was genuine or not. What about the more important issue, the recorded events showing a lawyer discussing appointments of judges with the current No 1 Judge? HTF are we gonna trust any judge again?”
Then the next day, Lim again attacked the ‘independent’ panel of investigation. Malaysiakini reported that Lim called for a member of the panel, former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor, to either decline or withdraw as chairperson of the three-man panel.
Lim said Haidar was involved in the 1988 judicial crisis which saw the unprecedented sacking of Salleh Abas, then Lord President, George Seah and the late Wan Suleiman Pawan Teh who were Supreme Court judges. Yes, I can see why Lim perceived Haidar's appointment as rather inappropriate.
Lim said that was the ‘mother of all judicial crises’ - hmmm, if the late dictator Saddam Hussein had patented the use of the phrase ‘mother of .....’, he would have been a very rich dead man by now – everyone seems to be using his rather unique and succinct phraselogical creation.
But Lim was fair in that he urged Haidar to clarify his role in the crisis, and that he (Haidar) must explain that ‘arbitrary and unconstitutional’ sacking of before taking any role connected with restoring national and international confidence in the judiciary.
See what I mean by Lim's challenging style of talking! But look, Haidar now has an opportunity to defend his role, a privilege that Abbas didn't enjoy.
Lim didn’t spare his former fellow DAP pollie as well, asking poor Lee Lam Thye to decline the appointment or withdraw.
But I do wonder which three independent personalities could be recruited for this investigation – the opposition of course aren’t exactly independent as they are out for blood.
Gosh, after 50 years of national independence, it has become even more difficult to find just three independently minded persons to fill such a panel, limited as the terms of reference may be.
If that cannot be 100% assured, limit the terms of reference to ensure desired finding, and if that outcome is still doubtful, well, don’t convene any inquiry but provide some excuse like a police investigation should be adequate.
Where doubts exist at all, don’t ever ever have a Royal Commission which has extraordinary powers – extraordinary powers that may lead to unforeseen independent actions/findings by the members.
Well, following the brouhaha over the Lingam videotape, DPM Najib has succumbed to pressure (probably to relieve any untoward bad publicity on the nearing general election) and has convened an ‘independent’ panel to investigate the authenticity of the tapes.
Just a little digression here – who could the owner of that tape, holding it for years until now when he probably grew dissatisfied with a number of ‘things’ to finally present it to Anwar Ibrahim?
But two days ago Malaysiakini reported that Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang criticized the limited terms of reference of the ‘independent’ panel of investigation. He said:
“In restricting the panel to the question of the authenticity of the Lingam tape instead of allowing full investigations into all aspects of the allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity raised by the video clip, the government is avoiding the imperative issue of the long-standing rot in the judiciary and the urgent need to restore national and international confidence in the system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law.”
Lim has a certain verbosity that challenges our limited vocabulary. In plain street talk, Lim had said “Bullsh*t to just look into whether the tape was genuine or not. What about the more important issue, the recorded events showing a lawyer discussing appointments of judges with the current No 1 Judge? HTF are we gonna trust any judge again?”
Then the next day, Lim again attacked the ‘independent’ panel of investigation. Malaysiakini reported that Lim called for a member of the panel, former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor, to either decline or withdraw as chairperson of the three-man panel.
Lim said Haidar was involved in the 1988 judicial crisis which saw the unprecedented sacking of Salleh Abas, then Lord President, George Seah and the late Wan Suleiman Pawan Teh who were Supreme Court judges. Yes, I can see why Lim perceived Haidar's appointment as rather inappropriate.
Lim said that was the ‘mother of all judicial crises’ - hmmm, if the late dictator Saddam Hussein had patented the use of the phrase ‘mother of .....’, he would have been a very rich dead man by now – everyone seems to be using his rather unique and succinct phraselogical creation.
But Lim was fair in that he urged Haidar to clarify his role in the crisis, and that he (Haidar) must explain that ‘arbitrary and unconstitutional’ sacking of before taking any role connected with restoring national and international confidence in the judiciary.
See what I mean by Lim's challenging style of talking! But look, Haidar now has an opportunity to defend his role, a privilege that Abbas didn't enjoy.
Lim didn’t spare his former fellow DAP pollie as well, asking poor Lee Lam Thye to decline the appointment or withdraw.
But I do wonder which three independent personalities could be recruited for this investigation – the opposition of course aren’t exactly independent as they are out for blood.
Gosh, after 50 years of national independence, it has become even more difficult to find just three independently minded persons to fill such a panel, limited as the terms of reference may be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)