Police cow-ed by cow's head?

But why was the police so slow in its response to such a public act of religious sacrilege, when tardiness in dealing with 'national security threats' had never been a weakness of the Royal Malaysian Police Force?

Police intelligence cannot be so obsolete that it is not aware of the act of sacrilege being planned and executed, when the organisers had taken pains to ensure that their protest would get the maximum mass media coverage – reported, photographed and videoed.

- Lim Kit Siang

The Malaysian Insider CPO: Protest to be investigated under Sedition Act tells us that the Selangor CPO - but only after none other than the PM gave an ass-kick to the IGP who in turn gave one to him - finally mumbled something to the effect that his normally alert-aggressive (against Pakatan) but recently somnolent (against UMNO) police would be looking into yesterday’s cow-head illegal assembly at the state secretariat building.

[Note: he didn’t use the word ‘illegal’, but that’s what that event actually had been]

He grudgingly whispered that the (my words again) 'illegal but police-tolerated (maybe even protected) mob of hoodlums' who were (my description, not his, of what had occurred) sprouting irresponsible racist vicious threats of blood-letting against the relocation of a Hindu temple, would be investigated under the Sedition Act.

He said those involved would be called up for questioning. He proudly boasted: "We have identified those involved in the incident and will be recording their statements.”

above underlining are mine

That’s all? Oh, I feel so safe now!

So unlike sweetie Teresa Kok, those blood-letting wannabes aren't dangerous enough to be held under the ISA, ironically an Act which would just be gnam gnam (fitting) for those assh*les.

And bullchicken-sh*t protestor, the so-called Action Committee chair Mahyuddin Manaf, who had earlier warned the Pakatan state government to give in to them or the residents would retaliate (stating: "We will not budge one inch, even if lives are lost or blood is made to flow. We will still defend Section 23 from having a temple built there"), changed his moo-ing today, asking with cow-eyes "Cow's head? Don't know where it came from?", and stressing he was not a racist.

He belakang-pusing-ed with his miserable mealy-mouth moo-ing: "From the onset, I gave importance to religious sensitivities. I want unity. We are not against the temple, we just do not want it to be built in a Muslim majority area."

[read his 180 degrees cowbull in Malaysiakini Organiser: Cow's head a mystery!]

And if you’re still in doubt about the Selangor Police double standards - not unlike that of the useless bludging makan-gaji-for-free branch of UMNO posing as a public service, the MACC - just read The Malaysian Insider editorial Can’t hold a candle to cop’s excuse which tells us the following (with delightful shades too of the punning way of my matey Dean Johns):

One can’t hold a candle to the Shah Alam police excuse for inaction in fear of sparking further anger at the cow-head protest yesterday. It begs the question if the dozens of riot police in full gear were cowed by the actions of 50 protesters armed with banners and a cow’s head.

And smacks of double standards.

Dozens of people have been hauled away for less provocative stunts, like wearing black or holding lit candles at night. The only thing these cow-head protesters had in common with the others was to assemble without a permit.

Of course, a democracy can tolerate if not encourage public assemblies and protests but not anything that is provocative or insults another person’s faith. Isn’t there mutual respect anymore? And is it not the duty of the police to keep the peace by preventing stunts that can inflame racial passions?

Opposition politicians have long condemned the Royal Malaysian Police for not arresting the rising crime rate but instead focusing on political activity against the ruling Barisan Nasional government.

It’s now plain to see that they may be right after all. The police have to act without fear or favour, for they carry the royal warrant. All the more so when the police top brass were breaking fast with the King yesterday, hours after the protest.

The proffered excuse of not acting because of the ‘volatile nature’ of the protest is pathetic and a slur on a force that has served the nation for some 200 years. And shows up the police as a farce, to borrow the words of Pulai MP Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed.

Are we a nation that quickly detains those who wear black or hold candles but take our time for those who insult religions!

And do we have to wait till the cows come home for some police action against those who threaten Malaysia’s peace and give a bad name to Islam?

Well, considering it’s the infamous (the current IGP-led) PDRM, maybe we need to wait until …

Hey diddle diddle,
The cat and the fiddle,
The cow jumped over the moon,
The little dog laughed to see such sport,
And the dish ran away with the spoon.

un-Islamic manners during Ramadan

In this holy month of Ramadan, you would imagine an atmosphere of peace, goodwill and compassion, in accordance with the teachings of Allah (swt) as Muslims strive to perfect compliance with one of the 5 pillars of Islam, fasting.

According to Dr Arafat El-Ashi, the director of the Muslim World League (Canada), when Islam requires Muslims to fast, “it planted an ever-growing tree of infinite virtue and invaluable products.”

He stated that the spiritual meaning of the Islamic Fasting aims to achieve the following:

(a) It teaches man the principle of sincere Love: because when he observes Fasting he does it out of deep love for God. And the man who loves God truly is a man who really knows what love is.

(b) It equips man with a creative sense of hope and an optimistic outlook on life; because when he fasts he is hoping to please God and is seeking His Grace.

(c) It imbues in man the genuine virtue of effective devotion, honest dedication and closeness to God; because when he fasts he does so for God and for His sake alone.

(d) It cultivates in man a vigilant and sound conscience; because the fasting person keeps his fast in secret as well as in public. In fasting, especially, there is no mundane authority to check man's behaviour or compel him to observe fasting. He keeps it to please God and satisfy his own conscience by being faithful in secret and in public. There is no better way to cultivate a sound conscience in man.

(e) It indoctrinates man in patience and selflessness, as through fasting, he feels the pains of deprivation but he endures them patiently.

(f) It is an effective lesson in applied moderation and willpower.

(g) Fasting also provides man with a transparent soul, a clear mind and a light body.

(h) It shows man a new way of wise savings and sound budgeting.

(i) It enables man to master the art of Mature Adaptability. We can easily understand the point once we realize that fasting makes man change the entire course of his daily life.

(j) It grounds man in discipline and healthy survival.

(k) It originates in man the real spirit of social belonging, unity and brotherhood, of equality before God as well as before the law.

(l) It is a Godly prescription for self-reassurance and self-control.

But alas, the noble objectives of fasting during Ramadan that Allah (swt) set for his believers have been totally ignored by a few (around 50) Malaysians. Instead they did the exact opposite.

malaysiakini photo

But the clue that might just give away their 'affiliation' has been their most un-Islamic ways of dragging around a severed cow’s head. Once I saw this strange practice in Bali.

Can MCA redeem itself under Ong Tee Keat?

In recent years, the last 25 or so, a significant number of Chinese Malaysians began to have doubts about the MCA as a political party that could represent them. Some had by then dismissed the MCA as nothing more than an UMNO lackey, with the leaders only concerned about their own interests. Fat cats … and castrated ones too!

However, many clung on, in the hope that the MCA might change. In 1969 the Chinese had once abandoned the MCA in a big way; in 2008 the majority decided that enough was enough, and repeated their disdainful disgusted dismissal of the MCA as their political representative a la 1969.

Just prior to 08 March 2008, the brother of the MCA president, seeing the winds of change, actually debased himself in humiliating fashion, by ‘begging’ the Chinese for some crumbs when they voted. He knew the MCA would be wiped out north of KL. He pleaded for a minor share of the Chinese mandate.

He didn't get even a stale bread crumb.

Has it been the alleged corruption of MCA leaders that had made the Chinese spurn MCA? Was it the unpopular MCA's purchase of some Chinese newspapers (turning them into government mouthpieces) that had infuriated the community?

Yes, all that did add up to the Chinese growing disenchantment with the party that fought for their fathers' citizenship in the early gestation days of the nation, but …

… BUT …

… the singular most humiliating factor that convinced (and still does) Chinese Malaysians to reject the MCA has been its servile silent sycophantic relationship with UMNO.

Admittedly the MCA has not been as obsequious as the disgraceful Gerakan Party in the person of Koh TK, but it was bad enough to make Chinese Malaysians cringe in shame.

The Barisan Nasional is in name a coalition … a coalition theoretically of partners. Sure there would always be a leader among the partners, the primus inter pares (first among equals), ... but as I had blogged before, UMNO has been all primus while the rest of the Barisan Nasional, namely MCA, Gerakan, MIC and the kacang putih mosquito parties, were never ever remotely near the status of pares.

OK, forget those mosquito parties, but for the last 20 to 25 years UMNO had not been treating the MCA with the respect a partner, even a junior one, ought to receive.

For God’s sake, when the BN divvy-ed up the seats for a general election, you would imagine that for a 'coalition', that was that, with each component party nominating its own party members to be the respective election candidates in their allocated constituencies.

But oh no, the MCA (and the others) had to seek the approval of the UMNO president for its nominated candidates. Has MCA been a subordinate branch of UMNO? Now, do you understand what I had meant when I said, ’UMNO has been all primus while … MCA was never ever near the status of pares’.

UMNO had continuously undermined, sometimes deliberately, MCA’s credibility with its own community, yet demanded of the Chinese-based party the support of the majority of Chinese Malaysians … a f* Sisyphean task.

As a recent example of UMNO’s unrealistic and unreasonable expectation, the failed UMNO candidate in Permatang Pasir (though reportedly an UMNO 'good looking hero') had the brazen nerve to voice his dissatisfaction with the lack of Chinese support for his candidature, in that, an indirect criticism of the MCA, without even appreciating that it had been UMNO which had destroyed the credibility and political leadership of MCA in the eyes of the latter’s community.

But the shameless MCA plodded on, as a willing captive, a pariah serf to the Barisan Brahmin, in wishful thinking that somewhere down the track, its record of loyalty, or at worst, muted passivity, will earn UMNO’s respect.

But trust the MCA somehow to lose its plot and dignity along the way, where at one stage, to the utter humiliation of the Chinese Malaysian community, an UMNO man actually acted as the MCA’s interim president. How f* humiliatingly low could one go.

So when Malaysiakini reported on the MCA sacking of Chua Soi Lek with the headline Chua's axing in defiance of Najib? I said to myself, good on Ong Tee Keat. It’s f* high time the MCA stop cringing and wringing its hands in front of TaiKoh like what Koh TK would probably do, to take instructions from Ah Hniah (Teochew for big brother).

I don’t know much about Ong Tee Keat, though his credentials as MCA President has automatically placed him in many Chinese black books ;-) …

… but if his current efforts to expose the PKFZ corruption scam as he had done in 2006 with the embezzlement of (90% of) schools’ maintenance funds is a sincere effort at ‘cleaning up’ the MCA’s act, then I say, more power to Ong!

I also have nothing against Chua in as much as I don't with Ong Tee Keat, but in the matter of MCA as a sovereign party which can and should manage its own internal party’s issues, I say kudos to Ong for standing up to UMNO with some spine in the sacking of Chua.

;-) and guess what, Najib agrees with me, stating he won’t step in unless invited.

Handicapped UMNO never a threat in Permatang Pasir

In Malaysiakini Pakatan's victory signals reversal of fortunes Athi Shankar ;-) wrote “PAS' comfortable victory in Permatang Pasir, despite the low turnout, was a sweet surprise, especially so after the narrow win at Manek Urai.”

C’mon lah Athi, what surprise? How could you have compared Manek Urai with Permatang Pasir – like you could an apple to an orange?

Manek Urai was virtually (almost) a 100% Malay constituency. Permatang Pasir was 74% Malay, 26% Chinese with a sprinkling of Indians.

If we look at only the Malay constituency in Permatang Pasir we would have seen, through Ong Kian Ming’s erudite analysis that UMNO did succeed in winning back 3% of the Malay votes (since 2008). But it lost instead nearly a further 6% of Chinese votes (on top of that for 2008).

Before we get ourselves overly ecstatic with PAS-PR victory, we need to remind ourselves that UMNO started off by shooting itself in the foot, handicapping itself by putting forward a candidate who had been disbarred by the Bar for impropriety with a client's money.

What if the candidate had been one who is 'clean' and well-known/liked locally?

Then UMNO mutilated itself further with its racist campaign, virtually on an everyday basis, with its media mouthpieces concocting all sorts of imagined threat and/or insults by the DAP-led yellow peril.

They portrayed Islam and the Malay Kingdom as under siege. The DPM showed his jaguh-ness for the leadership role in this shameless ethno-centric marshalling of the faithful to the keris-ed banner.

In the process they effectively killed off any possible help that could have been rendered by their supposed allies, MCA and the already moribund Gerakan. Not only that, they ensured the political death of these two Chinese-based BN parties.

But worst of all, they sent the feared yellow peril over to the enemy camp … to become PAS' voters.

Yes, there were attempts to convince the Chinese voters of PAS' fearsome policies against pig abattoirs in Kedah and yamseng-ing in Selangor, but these porky pissup propaganda paled into comparison with the perceived (not yet proven but nonetheless perceived/believed) murder of Teoh Beng Hock.

And Rohaizat what’s-his-name wondered why the Chinese in Permatang Pasir didn’t marshal around him.

… well my dear disbarred counsellor, for the same reason the Chinese abandoned the BN sailing boat in March 2008 when they were threatened by the ambitious during the UMNO general assembly.

On the other side of the coin, in the longer term, the Chinese know they have to grapple eventually with an arrogant PAS led by the leadership triad of Pak Haji Hadi Awang, Nasharuddin Mat Is and Dr Hassan. But this will be for another day.

Lust to punish

Reference: The Malaysia Insider Kartika’s legacy to Malaysia

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the Chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, an international organisation devoted to improving West-Muslim world relations, and author of “Islam, A Sacred Law, What Every Muslim Should know about the Shariah”.

He wrote in The Star on July 29, 2009 the following about Islam and its stand on the imbibing of alcohol:

“…Neither the Quran nor the Hadith invokes a penalty for alcohol consumption. The sin of consuming alcohol is described in the Quran in the mildest language of prohibition. When it comes to dietary laws, the Quran commands the believers in Sura 5:3: “forbidden (hurrimat) to you is the dead animal, loose blood, and the flesh of the pig.”

“… Some legal scholars suggest that the divine command ijtinab, to avoid something, is milder language than tahrim, prohibition. A Muslim consuming a glass of wine with a pork chop commits a more serious offence in eating pork; yet as there is no Quran or Hadith penalty for consuming pork, there is also none for alcohol consumption.”

If that’s the case, then how did the punishment for drinking alcohol come about?

Rauf wrote, “It occurred during the time of the second Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab. There was a companion of the Prophet (sahabi) who had fought on the Prophet’s side in his battles. A heavy drinker, he would walk the streets of Madina drunk at night and loudly shout scandalous things about people. The inhabitants of Madina complained, and Umar formed a committee to decide what to do.”

“Imam Ali, based on the man having committed slander, suggested the penalty for slander, whose maximum penalty is 80 lashes. Since that time, this has been considered the maximum penalty for alcohol consumption, based on utilising the Syariah concept of ta`zir (deterrence).”

Above underlining is mine

“I disagree with this being the mandatory sentence for the offence of wine consumption, because it is the maximum sentence for another, separate offence – slander – albeit committed under the influence of alcohol.”

So we learned the real reason for the punishment from a learned person like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The punishment was really about 'slandering' rather than 'drinking alcoholic beverage'.

And in the meantime we get a local but seditious bloke, one who nearly caused racial-religious riots through unsubstantiated information (later proven to be not true at all, meaning they were fibs) a couple of years back, who insisted it should have been 80 lashes instead of a mere 6 – see Malaysiakini Mufti: It should be 80 lashes, so why the fuss?

Hmmm, how many strokes does one get for telling fibs (surely 'slandering' as defined by Imam Ali), that could have gotten innocent people killed through riots?

80 lashes? Why not, and do I need to tell you who that bloke is?

But he is not alone. PAS Youth wants Kartika punished! Why am I not f* surprised?

And so do PAS' two most conservative ulamas with an un-Islamic bent for ‘ethnic unity’, Pak Haji Hadi and Awang and his No 2 man, Nasharuddin Mat Isa.

To reiterate, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said the punishment was more about slander than partaking of alcohol. And the Prophet Mohamd (pbuh) said: "Every important matter which is not begun with, ‘In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful’ is maimed."

So why have PAS leaders seen fit not to emulate what the Prophet (pbuh) said, that when one talks in the name of Allah (swt), one should be mindful of His compassion and mercy? These PAS bloke haven’t shown one microscopic iota of either quality for Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno.

Well, Art Harun described it well in The Malaysian Insider’s article Will the real PAS please stand up? where he wrote:

PAS’s real nature is more like the Lernaean Hydra, the fearsome water serpent with nine heads.

This is a party which is so full of itself. It is filled with people who believe that Islam needs their help and assistance all the time. With people who believe that God is so meek and weak that He needs defending by them.

Ya, I agree with Art Harun's explanation from what I have observed, that many PAS people possess such a mentality.

But the strange thing is this. When the situation suits them, these very same people would embrace liberalism and would dance on the same dance floor with the likes of DAP and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's PKR. Not only that, it would have no qualms in entering into a pact — a binding promise the breach of which, in Islam, is a sinful act — with PKR and DAP in order to form a political alliance for the general election. And they would sing liberalism all the way to various state legislative assemblies and even Parliament.

Well, it is hard for a tiger to lose its stripes. Deep inside and within, PAS is still PAS. History would show that they have jumped in and out of the Umno bandwagon for the sake of nothing more than political aspirations and desires. It is almost a vehicle for political expediency.

Ho hum, hyper hypocrites!

Friedrich Nietzsche once said: "Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful".

I believe the unseemly lust to punish, as exhibited by PAS leaders, very much against Allah’s (swt) twin pillars of compassion and mercy, is the covert need to slap down those who dare to imperil the punisher's status (his edicts, beliefs) and position in society (his authority, ulama-ship).

It's the old tale of the use of overpowering dominance, with the weapon of religio-teflon-ised intimidation without fear of any retribution, against those who would dare to not conform or refuse to toe the line.

Yes, I suspect it's more about self interests.

Lawmakers too easy on incest!

The Star Online - Father jailed 15yrs for incest with teenage daughter.

That slimy slug received only 15 years jail and three strokes of the rotan. He would have been punished more severely if not for the disgraceful act of Parliament in lightening sentences for such slugs – read about that in my 2006 post Parliament Reducing Sentence for Incest?

Then I had written:

... the biggest disgrace has been its proposed amendments to the conviction for committing incest. Incest with an underage child would also be aggravated rape. Currently incest carries a jail sentence of between 15 and 30 years with up to ten strokes of the rotan (cane)*. The committee now proposes to reduce the jail term to between eight and 15 years.

* that’s what that slug should have received, if not for Parliament

Their bullshit is that the reduced sentence will encourage the public to report the offence.

Tell me, would a victim or the guardian representing the victim be influenced by the difference between 15 to 30 and 8 to 15? Would they, when reporting to the police, be inhibited by it? Would those poor unfortunates, when testifying in court, be even aware or conscious of the difference in the terms of the sentence?

This is sheer nonsense!

Then continuing on its unsupportable course, the committee wants the punishment for rape cum murder from the present mandatory death penalty to either the death penalty or imprisonment of between 15 and 30 years and not more than 10 strokes of the rotan, because it claims that there might be those who did not intend to cause the death of the rape victim. With the amendment, the courts will have more discretion to decide whether the accused should face imprisonment or a death penalty.

Now, KTemoc is against the death sentence so I am happy even for them to remove that draconian punishment completely.

But judge for yourself its proposal for snatch theft, that it be defined as a specific offence with perpetrators facing up to 14 years in jail. OK, there had been a couple of deaths associated with snatch thefts but in those cases, murder wasn’t intended. The deaths were caused by the victim being hurt when they fell down as a result from the abrupt jerk of the snatch theft. If death occurs as a result of snatch theft, then charge the perpetrator with either murder or manslaughter.

But my point is this - consider the possibility of a snatch thief receiving 14 years of imprisonment, while a rape-murder criminal gets only 15 years, a husband sexually assaulting his resisting and perhaps pregnant wife a mere 5 (or maybe 1 or less), years, and the worst of all, the slimy slug who rapes his own underage daughter in a disgusting act of incest would get max 15 years or just 8 if he puts on a 'welfare face' and blames his 12-year old daughter for being 'gatal' (randy).

It appears to be that rape in general, and specific rape in particular such as incest with an underage child, aren't viewed with the gravity those crimes demand.

And poor Kartika Sari Dewi gets 6 strokes for having a beer!


Related:(1) Gatal versus Miang
(2) Has Aphrodisiac Budu Been Responsible?

MACC wanted to delay reporting Teoh's death by 1 day!

In The Malaysian Insider’s Court orders probe into DAP man’s accounts we now know of a very important revelation from the MACC officer being cross–examined by Gobind Singh Deo in the inquest into Teoh Beng Hock’s inexplicable death (or perhaps manslaughter if not murder).

The revelation is actually shocking!

The Malaysian Insider reported: Speaking to reporters after the inquest, he [Gobind] stressed that the pattern of [MACC officer] Mohd Anuar’s testimony from the witness box “were consistent with somebody having something to hide.”

“If you look at what he said, if he had been directed not to report, he would not, despite the law requiring him to do so,” Gobind added, referring to the MACC man’s admission, under questioning that he had been “ordered” by the deputy director of Selangor MACC, Hishamuddin Hashim, to wait one day before reporting Teoh’s death to the police.

Above underlining are mine.

Imagine, a MACC senior officer instructed his subordinate not to report Teoh’s death to the police until one day later, yes, ONE DAY LATER!

You may ask yourself why - what was there to hide?

Put this revelation together with the following three facts:

(1) On the day of Teoh’s death (or was it the actual day Teoh had died? Now I'm not sure?) MACC slammed shut its door for unexplained reason – read my previous post The attempted metamorphosis of MACC where I wrote:

Something terrified MACC at around 1:30 pm, when it was claimed that a janitor discovered Teoh’s body. Kim Quek wrote in Malaysiakini’s Teoh's death: Mysteries abound (extracts):

… Why was the outer timber door of the MACC office unprecedentedly closed for some half an hour at the time when some one discovered Teoh's body?

The Chinese section of Malaysiakini reported on July 17 that its reporter Rahmah Ghazali observed an inexplicable happening at the MACC office at the 14th floor, where the outer timber door was mysteriously shut between 1.15 pm and 1.35 pm, and re-opened shortly before 1.50pm on July 16. [...]

What did the staff do behind that timber door at that crucial moment that they would not want outsiders to see? The mystery seems to deepen.

What had caused that ‘sealing’ of the building at that crucial time? Was it the discovery of Teoh’s body? Or was it an interrogation technique that had gone horribly wrong? At this juncture, around 1:30 pm, it should be noted that Tan Boon Hwa was then suddenly released.

(2) Kim Quek also wrote: What happened between 1.30 pm and 5 pm?

Though Teoh's body was discovered at 1.30 pm, it was not until after 5 pm that MACC disclosed the news to assemblymen Ean Yong and Ronnie Liu who had been waiting for over an hour in the MACC office insisting to meet Teoh. Why should MACC have hidden the news for so long unless there were compelling reasons which in all probability might not be guilt-free?

(3) Why was Teoh’s body not removed from where he had fallen until late into the evening, at around 8 pm to 9 pm?

When I put all these four together, especially the instruction by deputy director of Selangor MACC, Hishamuddin Hashim, according to the testimony by MACC officer Mohd Anuar, to wait one day before reporting Teoh’s death to the police, I gather a nauseating suspicion that the objective was to heighten the rate of Teoh's decomposition.

I don't know, but would decomposition have helped mask certain bruises or surface markings?

Ask yourself again: why would a MACC senior officer - a man identified by the whistle-blower’s letter as the very person interrogating Teoh prior to the latter’s strange death, a man reported to employ a notorious manhandling technique of seizing and holding up his unfortunate victim by the belt - instruct his subordinate to delay reporting to the police of a death in MACC custody for a whole day, if there was nothing untoward to hide?

Gobind then made Mohd Anuar read out loud Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which deals with the duty of a police officer to investigate deaths, where it says:

“Every officer in charge of a police station on receiving information -

(a) that a person has committed suicide;
(b) that a person has been killed by another, or by an animal, or by
machinery, or by an accident;
(c) that a person has died under circumstances raising a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has committed an offence;
(d) that the body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known
how he came by his death; or
(e) that a person has died a sudden death;

... shall with the least practical delay transmit such information to the officer in charge of the police district.”

That’s right, “with the least practical delay”!

So let me end this post by repeating what I have written at the very top:

Gobind] stressed that the pattern of [MACC officer] Mohd Anuar’s testimony from the witness box “were consistent with somebody having something to hide.”

“If you look at what he said, if he had been directed not to report, he would not, despite the law requiring him to do so,” Gobind added, referring to the MACC man’s admission, under questioning that he had been “ordered” by the deputy director of Selangor MACC, Hishamuddin Hashim, to wait one day before reporting Teoh’s death to the police.

UMNO prefers Ong Tee Keat out?

In Malaysiakini Chua: It's baffling Umno not defending Ong the former-MCA-now-PKR man, Chua Jui Meng, acting in his new role as char koay teow man, stated the obvious, that not one, yessiree, not one single UMNO minister inclusive of the PM, has defended Ong Tee Keat over the latter’s exposure of the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) issue.

UMNO has been deafening in its absolute silence over Ong's handling (exposure) of the corruption-scam crisis.

Chua said: "Ong is the president of the second largest BN component party and no one from Umno is protecting him. All these years, UMNO leaders have come out in the open to defend their under-attack colleagues from component parties. I find it strange."

I don’t!

Some three years ago, around September 2006, a then deputy Education Minister, Ong Tee Keat aroused the ire of Hishamuddin Hussein when he (Ong) exposed the corruption in a school.

Hishamuddin's cousin, Najib (then DPM) managed to get the Education Minister to apologise for his deputy’s (Ong’s) exposure of the rot in the education domain. Ong had refused to apologize wakakaka so his boss had to do it.

But much to the cabinet’s embarrassment, Samy Vellu confirmed what Ong exposed in that particular case, that corrupt school administrators couldn’t account for 90% of the maintenance funds, yes, 90% and not just 10% of the funds.

The word used was ‘embezzlement’. Ong Tee Keat exposed it, Hishamuddin was mad he did. Najib made him apologise (Ong refused and so his Minister-boss did).

Ong Tee Keat had then discovered UMNO didn’t like the exposure of acts of corruption by the government lil’ napoleons or BN insiders. I believe that’s what Chua Jui Meng is now saying, that UMNO is once again mad with Ong for repeating his ‘mistake’, with the current PKFZ issue, ...

... which, BTW, the current DPM wants settled in an ‘amicable’ manner, though what he had meant by that, one can only guess.

In my post "No sorry please, we're UMNO Youth leaders" I wrote of that affair:

On the cabinet reprimand of Deputy Higher Education Minister Ong Tee Keat’s criticism of alleged embezzlement of school maintenance funds, since then confirmed by Humpty Dumpty, Hishamuddin dug in deep himself. He said the reprimand [of Ong] had to be made.

Obviously the subsequent vindication of Ong's statement by the Works Minister wasn't enough to restore a just apology to the man who was unjustly reprimanded for exposing corruption.

Hishammuddin said his ministry has thousands of staff, and it was not possible to keep an eye on all of them to ensure that they do a proper job. He said it was not fair for Ong to specifically pick two Chinese schools in his complaint and to publicly criticise another ministry. He averred that when there were problems, they must be dealt with quickly, instead of turning them into a racial issue.

Bull Hisham! It's everyone's duty to expose corruption, not just Ong's. And in fact, Ong did not air that alleged embezzlement as a racist issue. He merely highlighted corruption. There was no mention of race. That the schools were vernacular in character was never the issue - the missing 90% of the maintenance funds was.

It was Hishamuddin who turned it into an anti-Ong issue because he obviously didn’t like the idea of an MCA bloke highlighting alleged corruption in his ministry. His act of political intimidation against Ong could be seen as an act against the exposure of corruption.

Even DPM Najib knew that there had been, to use Humpty's word, 'irregularity', which was why he stressed on cross-ministerial procedures as the reason to reprimand Ong while in the same breath, stating the 'facts' of the case was a different issue. He stated: “I don’t want to talk about facts, that’s another issue".

The DPM of the nation didn't want to talk about facts of an issue, that have direct bearing to a case of corruption? Kalah ta'apa, gaya mesti ada - form takes precedence over substance.

For more, read my earlier postings:

(1) Najib's facts, principles, goose & gander
(2) Corruption 'Fact' for DPM Najib & Hishamuddin
(3) What the cabinet reprimanded Ong Tee Keat for!
(4) Najib riled with Ong Tee Keat's last laugh!
(5) Int Sec Ministry gagged Chinese press on alleged embezzlements
(6) MCA at a crossroad

So I am hardly surprised that UMNO would be moving to oust Ong Tee Keat, a loose cannon in the BN scheme of never washing dirty linen in public.

In MCA's history there were/are three of its presidents who didn't/doesn't quite meet UMNO's requirements, namely, Lim Chong Eu, Tan Kwon Swan and Ong Tee Keat.

These were what happened to them: (a) Tunku cunningly manoeuvred Lim Chong Eu out in favour of Tan Siew Sin; (b) Tan Kwon Swan however made life easy for Dr Mahathir when he was arrested by the Sings; and now (c) Ong Tee Keat may well be the 3rd on UMNO's political hit list.

And what sort of Chinese politician would be UMNO's ideal partner? Ask Hishamuddin - anyway, the answer lies here - check the 2nd photo! ;-)

Anyway, back to Ong Tee Keat - Ong said of his intention to expose the PKFZ scam: I am willing to dismantle this time-bomb and if I fail, I will be the first to die.

In a way, I am waiting for death. Do you think Malaysians are stupid? Voters want transparency and accountability. Don't blame the blogs for posting gossips and speculations (on the PKFZ).

I am fighting for real and Ong Tee Keat never fakes his fights. As long as I have this breath, I will carry on this task.

If he doesn't succeed, he knows that it’s not only him who will ‘die’ but the MCA as well.

After 'ultra vires' comes 'lacuna'

The Malaysian Insider’s Legalities complicate Kartika’s caning refers to the case of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno who was to be whipped this week for drinking beer.

Kartika Sari Dewi in Indonesian means the ‘goddess of the essence of the star’ (wow). And with such a name perhaps she has been protected by a Higher Being.


Syariah experts have discovered a lacuna in the court’s punishment decree against her, which may possibly prevent the authorities from caning her.

By the way, in case any Utusan reporter is reading this, ‘lacuna’ does not mean any insult to Islam, DPM Muhyiddin or Rais Yatim wakakaka.

According to Terengganu Chief Syariah Judge Datuk Ismail Yahya, and supported by senior civil law lecturer Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi, Kartika was fined RM5,000 and given six lashes by the Pahang Syariah Court for the offence of yamseng-ing on 12 July 12 two years ago at a nightclub in Cherating but no jail sentence.

In Malaysia only the prison department and no one else may cane a prisoner.

As Kartika wasn’t sentenced, she is not a prisoner, thus she needn't go to prison. Therefore how is the authority going to cane her?

Well, according to the Malaysian Insider, Islamic Development Department (Jakim) legal adviser Mohd Zulbahrin Zainuddin unsurprisingly asserted it requires just a warrant to require Kartika to turn up at the prison for sentence to be carried out.

He mumbled unconvincingly: “Kartika will just be detained. The prison is just a place for her to wait. If Kartika wants to object, she has to go to the Syariah High Court and file an appeal. Since she has not done so, it is considered a straightforward case.”

Not so, said Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi, arguing that a detention order (via a warrant to detain) is in fact a second sentencing, i.e, an additional penalty to the caning and RM5,000.

And as Kartika has paid the RM5,000, she can’t be jailed in lieu.

But she can’t be cane unless she is jailed. And she can't be jailed as there's no jail sentence imposed on her - the 'lacuna' that Professor Shad mentioned.

“We’ve got a lacuna, that is the person who is to be whipped must be jailed. According to the law, nobody can be deprived of his life or liberty, except by the law. In this case, the law came to an end when the trial ended.”

“The judge imposed only two punishments [i.e. RM5,000 and caning]. He cannot now turn around and impose a third punishment. This is illegal. It’s almost like double jeopardy.”

Shad also quoted Article 7 of the Federal Constitution which states that if a person has been convicted of an offence, he or she could not be tried again for that offence.

“Kartika was not sentenced to jail initially. It would be unjust for the court to impose a new penalty.”

“Only the Syariah Appeal Court can deal with this matter now. So, the DPP should appeal to have the sentence increased. But the judge of the first instance should not be increasing the sentence himself. That is wrong.”

Shad explained: “There are only two types of detention: remand and prison. It can’t be remand because Kartika was convicted. And it can’t be imprisonment because she was not given a jail sentence.”

Terengganu Chief Syariah Judge Datuk Ismail Yahya warned Jakim that the whipping will be ultra vires [any Utusan reporter around? Wakakaka] and opened the authorities to a legal suit.

He advised: “Kartika can sue. This is because her detention, and subsequently the whipping, is illegal.”

For those Utusan reporters and Islamic Development Department (Jakim) legal adviser Mohd Zulbahrin Zainuddin, I say not ‘lacuna’ nor 'ultra vires' but:

Alhamdulillah Allahu-Akhbar

Siapa ponteng DNA sampling?

Extracts from Malaysiakini Letter reveals top MACC man, politician collusion.

The mystery letter which emerged at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest yesterday is believed to contain claims connecting a top ranking MACC officer to the interrogation of the political aide, which could have led to his death.

It further alleged that the top official was questioning Teoh on the day the DAP man was found dead. However the letter did not state on how Teoh died or if the officer was directly involved in his death.

The MACC officer has been identified by Kapar member of parliament S Manikavasagam as Selangor MACC deputy chief commissioner Hishamuddin Hashim.

The MACC insider letter stated:

(1) The officer did not punch out from work when he left Plaza Masalam where the Selangor MACC is located on that day. However, the letter stated the time of him leaving the office. This is important as it could show that this officer was the last person to have seen Teoh on that day, alleged the letter.

(2) The officer did not provide his DNA samples along with his other colleagues. He only gave a sample privately at a later day.
That he ordered his officers to wipe clean the window from where Teoh had apparently fallen from.

The letter also stated (from Star Online Teoh Inquest: Letter names officer and BN leader) that:

… the officer gave his DNA in the privacy of his office instead of the conference room where all the officers, including the state director, had assembled to be swabbed.

“Why was his DNA sample given in secrecy? Was it his own sample that was given? We MACC officers are puzzled why none of the samples extracted matched that of the mysterious male samples (found on Teoh’s blazer and belt).” […]

One incriminating accusation in the letter is about the method the officer used as his interrogation technique – by holding the front portion of a person’s belt and lifting him several times before shaking him.

(Government forensic pathologist Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim had opined at the inquest earlier that it was possible that Teoh had been held up by the belt as it had a tear at the buckle region.)

Well ...

Kg Buah Pala - end of the road!

The court has passed the death sentence
On High Chaparral, the village of Buah Pala
Signalling the final chapter of a resistance
That was further weakened by bull charisma

The villagers mortally wounded long ago
Were ill served by the new false prophets
Misleading the residents from woe to woe
Treating innocent hopefuls as mere puppets

Once where real bull poo fertilize the land
Sheer utter bull now corrupts the pristine air
Confusing the villagers with sleight of hand
By their exploitative braggadocio and dare

Resist, hold fast, give way not a millimeter
From way behind they shouted ferociously
We’re sure to win, but comes September
Those ‘brave’ voices will just be a memory


See Malaysiakini - Federal Court strikes out Buah Pala residents' application

Dodgee Dimsum's Statutory Declaration

I have been reliably informed that:

(a) the Bar Council has an ulterior motives in whistle-blowing to the media that UMNO candidate for the Permatang Pasir by-election Rohaizat Othman was a disbarred lawyer;

(b) in doing so as per (a) above, the Bar Council is attacking a hallowed Malay institution (I'm still working out the religious angle - Damn! Where's that Kulim bloke when one needs him?);

(c) the sin of the Bar Council is all the greater in (b) above because Rohaizat Othman is not only a hero, but a handsome hero (nah nah nah to PAS!);

(d) that Rohaizat Othman's former business partner Yusri Isahak won't be welcomed when he attempts to lodge a police report against certain parties for attempting to make him take the rap for Rohaizat Othman;

(e) the Star Online amazing headline is about H1N1 swine fever when every other news media outlet has been talking about the headlines breaking news of an insider letter exposing a senior MACC officer's alleged culpability in the murder of Teoh Beng Hock;

(f) DPM Muhyiddin Yassin wants the PKFZ alleged billion ringgit scam to be resolved 'amicably', but for MACC to continue its aggressive pursuing of the Selangor DAP ADUNs for an alleged misuse of a humongous sum of RM2,400.

(g) DPM Muhyiddin Yassin revealed another (earlier) attack on a Malay institution where Lee Kuan Yew threatened to wage war on Malaysia.

(h) DPM Muhyiddin Yassin said because of (g) above, Malaysia capitulated to Singapore on the Island-nation's demand for Malaysian water (sob, lose face oledy).

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true (otherwise go blame Malaysiakini, The Malaysian Insider and Star Online).

Dodgee Dimsum

***

The Yum-Cha Chronicles:
(1) Apology - A letter to the minister
(2) Bloggers - A letter to the ministry
(3) Drama queens & kings wanted
(4) May 13 Book - a letter to the minister
(5) Appreciation - a letter to the minister
(6) Goblok to Golek - a letter to the minister
(7) MGR-ish makeover - a letter to a minister
(8) Bahasa Mělayu - a letter to Yang Běrhormat
(9) 'Convincibility' - A letter to Yang Amat Berhormat
(10) Political defections - a letter to a future PM
(11) Healing the nation's wounds - a letter to the PM

2nd pathologist conceded Teoh could have been forced onto 14th floor window sill

So the second pathologist has asserted the likelihood of Teoh’s suicide, with so-called scientific justifications … such as …

… On why he believed Teoh had deliberately thrown himself off the building, Dr Prashant … blah blah blah …, and

… He also said Teoh had probably squatted on the window sill before the plunge as marks on both the shoes co-relate with the width of the window sill … blah blah blah …

or has he?

In today’s Star Online Teoh Inquest : No signs of assault found, when questioned by Gobind Singh Deo, “… on whether a person would freeze up in fear if he were being held in that position on the window sill, Dr Prashant said yes, adding that there would also be not much of a struggle.”

The cross-examination went as follows:

Gobind: Do you agree that someone could have held him there in that position?

Dr Prashant: It is possible.

On Dr Prashant’s testimony that there were “disturbances” in the area around the window, like smudges and finger drag marks, Gobind asked the pathologist if these could be due to some form of resistance.

Dr Prashant: Yes.

Gobind: Shows that the person standing there had resisted falling?

Dr Prashant: Possible, sir.

The annoying thing is the pathologist had provided only one possibility (suicide) when there were others just as likely (like being threatened with scare tactics as scenario-ized by Gobind Singh).

Why must he only present the one the MACC (and Police) wanted?

Why not say, “Look, from the forensic evidence gathered (limited as these may be) there are a number of possibilities … blah blah blah …”

Indians - 50 more years of marginalisation?

Recent polls have shown that the Indian 'tsunami' has subsided into gentle lapping wavelets, kissing the golden sand of the Malaysian beach, where the swing back to the BN has been around 76%. Wow, the faithful has returned to the fold.

I suppose we can say there is now tranquility, serenity and of course the likelihood of betrayal for Indians in the fair land of Malaysia.

Malaysiakini Hindraf: Where's the money, buddy? reported:

Hindraf activist V Ganabatirau has accused the outlawed movement's leader P Waythamoorthy of using millions of ringgit collected from the people for his personal use while in self-imposed exile in London.

Ganabatirau said funds collected by Hindraf, which ran into millions, were meant for the families of those 5 detained under the ISA, but alas, not one sen had ever reached their families.

However, when questioned, Waythamoorthy claimed the funds were meant for a civil suit against the British (colonial) government for its neglect of Indian Malayans.

An angry Ganabatirau retorted that the suit has expired as civil matters must be pursed within three months after being filed.

Worse than that, Ganabatirau said in outrage: "I believe that the suit was deliberately allowed to expire so that he [Waynamoorthy] could enjoy his exile and the good life in London.”

He then pointed out that Waythamoorthy did not condemn RS Thanenthirran for using the title Makkal Sakthi as the name of his new political party, when that title was coined by Ganabatirau and K Vasanthakumar for the Hindraf movement.

Ganabatirau reminded us that Thanenthirran in forming the Makkal Sakthi Party had immediately made overtures to the BN government which then led to the possibility of Waythamoorthy's return to Malaysia.

And Ganabatirau further questioned Waythamoorthy's motives in blaming Pakatan Rakyat for the Kampung Buah Pala fiasco. Oh yes, while we are on this issue, don't forget his brother Uthayakumar as well - yes, we did wonder about these two brothers attacking the DAP which had supported them when they were in strife.

Ganabatirau sneered: "Who does he [Waynamoorthy] want to please to ensure his safe return?"

Finally Ganabatirau twisted the knife of insult by one further turn when he said of Waynamoorthy: "He is a chicken. If there is a forum, he would ask me whether there were police or SB (Special Branch personnel) in the vicinity before coming to give a speech."

Hmmm, perhaps Waynamoorthy and his brother see themselves as the logical replacement for Samy Vellu as the new Kapitan for the Indian community.

No doubt with that representation in the BN, there will be all the attendant rewards of Datukship and ministerial apppointments.

I hope there won't be another 50 years of marginalisation for the poor Indians?

If true, then it's aiyoyo, why have Siva, Krishna and Brahma punished their children with such leaders?

Teoh severely beaten on face and head prior to fall? DNA on belt deliberately contaminated?

The half-past six lawyer finally succumbed to brilliant questioning by Malik Imtiaz Sawar, who has been acting for the Selangor State government.

While not yet facts, the 180-degree about-turn revelations by the piffling pathetic pathologist have presented the following possibilities, in fact far more probable than his earlier bull about Teoh’s suicide:

(a) Teoh might still have been alive after his body hit the floor as his hands were found clenched in a fist, as this last breath gesture most likely indicated that poor Teoh had attempted to grab on to or reach for something to hold onto when falling or, alternatively, were clenched to endure the pain he probably felt when he landed.

It’s just f* horrible - those MACC bastards!

(b) The piffling pathetic pathologist admitted it was possible that Teoh's fractured skull could have been the result of severe hitting even before he had fallen (or was thrown out), mind you, not that he willingly provided this information ...

... ‘twas only after Malik asserted through a reconstructed scenario, that if Teoh had fallen, he would not have suffered head injuries.

(c) Malik challenged the pathologist’s half-past six speculation (that’s what the f*-er had been doing) that the unknown DNA found on Teoh's waist belt and at the back of his blazer were results of contamination.

The cross-examination went like this:

Malik: So are you saying the Klang hospital contaminates exhibits?

Khairul: I will have to admit that.

Malik: I am wondering why are steps being taken to undermine the DNA evidence?

Khairul: There is a possibility of contamination.

Mailk: Do you know for a fact it was contaminated, you don't know, do you?

Khairul: I don't know.

Real chowkarnar!

(e) Malik also said that there could possibly be ‘penetration’ of Teoh’s anus area, but he mentioned it was very hard to confirm that as the injuries around there were very extreme.

Nonethless Malik said we couldn’t discount the possibility that there might have been penetration - WTF!

Additionally he stated that indications of abrasions on Teoh's buttocks could have been caused by a thin wooden instrument, but again, due to the horrendous damage there, could not pin-point what instrument had been used.

(f) Malik also put forward a hypothesis; that Teoh was surrounded by individuals - a form of oppressive bullying intimidation tactic - before he fell. And when he fell someone could have grabbed his hand and snapped his wristwatch as the watch is yet to be found.

The pathologist grudgingly agreed to that possibility.

(g) Then again, subjected to good cross-examination, the pathologist admitted there is a possibility that the injuries on Teoh's face could have been caused by beating.

Oh, those MACC mother f*-ers!

(h) It was also possible that Teoh had horribly perished much earlier than had been officially presented.

(i) Malik rounded up by lambasting the pathologist for assuming that there were no injuries before the fall and worse, that half-past six bloke had earlier speculated that Teoh committed suicide when there was no such evidence.

Much as the authorities have been spinning a conspiracy theory that Teoh had wanted to ‘squeal’ on his DAP boss (part of the current UMNO demon-isation campaign against the DAP), and that if Teoh didn’t commit suicide, he was ‘killed’ by DAP thugs, whatever little evidence exist (thanks to the no-effort by both the police and pathologist) they were enough to ring alarm bells that something horrible, very very horrible had happened to Teoh Beng Hock.

But these revelations are enough to send a chill through our bodies, that in Malaysia, such Evil with a capital ‘E’ exists in the very agencies that are supposed to protect us.

Is there no limit to their iniquities?

Based on news reports from:
(1) Malaysiakini 'Teoh could have been injured before fall'
(2) Star Online Teoh Inquest Day 9: 'Facial injuries may be due to beating'
(3) The Malaysian Insider Teoh may have been injured before death fall

Inquest pathologist backed MACC - that Teoh committed suicide

Malaysiakini - Counsel: Suicide theory baseless.

Predictably - and most Malaysians, regardless of political affiliations, yes, even some BN people, would have arrived at the same cynical contemptuous conclusion as I did - the government appointed pathologist at the inquest of Teoh Beng Hock's death suggested that the most likely cause of Teoh’s death was what had been asserted by MACC in the first place – suicide.

Suicide by a man who was, on the day following his interrogation by MACC, to marry the mother of his unborn child?

Suicide by a man who, just prior to being hauled in MACC, had rang up his best man to remind him of the wedding?

Gobind Singh Deo, the lawyer for Teoh’s family, said pathologist Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim, had come to the inquest merely as a witness to give his theories of Teoh's suicide without any evidence.

He thundered: "I put it to you that you are wrong. This is not a case of the deceased jumping and committing suicide because there is no shoe print or fingerprint on the window. This theory on suicide is based on non-existing facts because you, yourself, did not conduct checks to support the theory.”

When cross-examined by Gobind, the pathologist sounded like a stuck record, with his confession of NOT checking for vital evidence – see following extract from the Malaysiakini news report:

Gobind: Would you agree with me that there was a possibility of the deceased being thrown out first, then the shoe?

Khairul: Yes, there was a possibility.

Gobind: Did you test the shoe for fingerprints?

Khairul: No.

Gobind: Isn't it significant?

Khairul: Yes. But we have no facilities.

Gobind: Why not? You could have directed someone. You are the forensic expert on the scene.

Khairul: I expected the police to do it.

Gobind: But you didn't make sure that they did it because it would have indicated a homicide. Were you covering it up?

YET, yes, YET this witness had the nerve to propound a likely case of suicide by Teoh Beng Hock. What a half-past-six conclusion!

It reminds me of another bloke like him in the Udayappan inquest – see my post Was Udayappan Beheaded After His Death?

In that case in 2006, Coroner Nazran Mohd Sham claimed there was no foul play after returning an open verdict (yes, that's right, an 'open verdict') into Udayappan’s death, contradicting himself in the same breath.

He pompously said the court could not be involved in a guessing game as to the cause of death by basing its finding on assumptions, and YET, yes, YET he himself assumed there was no foul play. Another half-past-six verdict.

As I had commented, if the coroner couldn’t determine the death "was a result of natural causes, an act of God or an accident", how could the coroner say there’s no foul play?

He made it worse by then going on to assert there was nothing to contradict police evidence of Udayappan’s escape, claiming: "The fact is that the deceased found a way through the fence to escape and jumped into the river behind the station."

Fact? I questioned his use of this word ‘fact’!

How did the coroner know that "there was nothing to contradict police evidence of the late Upayappan's escape", ending in his jump into the river?

Did he rely solely on the police report?

If so, could that report from an 'interested party' in an allegation of police abuse be claimed as a 'fact'?

Should he have relied solely on a report by an ‘interested party’, considering the inquest had been for the specific purpose of verifying an allegation associated with a death of a police detainee?

That’s the problem with these half-past-six government officials.

Back to the current inquest on Teoh’s death – did the pathologist consider that his all-too-premature conclusion actually contradicted those of DNA expert Dr Seah Lay Hong of the Chemistry Department, who testified that there were DNA traces of two unknown males on Teoh's waist belt and at the back of his blazer. At least she checked, unlike the pathologist!

Teoh’s trousers were also noted to be torn at his back.

This group of evidence would appear to suggest a possible scene of Teoh being dangled by his belt-trousers outside the 14 floor window by some unknown person or persons (maybe to frighten Teoh into providing the ‘required evidence’) before the trousers gave way to disastrous consequences for Teoh.

Why have these evidence been ignored by the pathologist?

Why?

Stupid question – it’s predictable!

Untuk agama, raja dan bangsa

Malaysiakini - I won't give in, says defiant Hasan - extracts follow:

Far from intimidated by the prospect of facing a disciplinary hearing, Selangor PAS commissioner and exco member Hasan Ali is “even more determined” to uphold his party's Islamic principles. […]

Retorted Hasan today: “I won't (give in to) such threats. I will keep fighting for Islam... I am ready to face any action by the top leadership, even if I am stripped of my position for what I did.”

The Malaysian Insider - Legal observers criticise Karpal sedition charge – extracts follow:

The controversial trial of a Malaysian opposition leader for sedition started today, drawing criticism from international legal observers amid increasing opposition fears of a crackdown on dissent.

Karpal Singh, chairman of the Democratic Action Party (DAP), is being tried for comments he made in February, where he said the sultan of Perak could be taken to court over endorsing the government takeover of an opposition-ruled state. […]

Karpal, an MP, faces a fine and up to three years in prison if convicted. He told reporters he had “no doubt” the case against him was politically motivated.

“A lot of statements from Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders including the prime minister who has said action should be taken against bloggers who put up seditious material. I think that appears to be the trend,” said Karpal.

Malaysia’s police chief today was reported by the Berita Harian Malay language newspaper as saying that two other DAP MPs are to be investigated for sedition.

The state government of Perak will also pursue action against two bloggers who it says made comments that insulted the royal family of Perak, which the Perak chief minister said amounted to “sedition and probably treason”, the New Straits Times reported today.

Jeffrey Miles from the International Association of Lawyers, one of four observers representing various international legal bodies, said sedition laws have been “very rarely” applied in other Commonwealth countries.

“The last case I can think of was in the 1950s in Australia during the Cold War, where a member of the Communist Party was prosecuted,” he said

What’s the similarity between the two?

Danger in our midst against freedom of choice

This editorial from The Malaysian Insider resonates so much with my feelings that I produce it here, chapter and verse, for your reading pleasure

********

The freedom of choice — The Malaysian Insider

It really isn’t about beer. It is about freedom of choice.

The choice of a shopkeeper to sell anything and everything permitted by the laws of the land. The choice of a consumer to choose to buy anything sold in a shop.

As it is a choice to choose which ever political party that represents your views. Or not choose a political party that is an affront to your views. It is as simple as that and the reason for elections, for everyone in a democracy to vote in a government of their choice with the majority getting their choice.

And thus, the seizure of beer from a 7-Eleven convenience outlet in Selangor is against the law. It has nothing to do with religion. Are Muslims so weak-willed that the mere presence of beer on sale will turn them against their faith?

That is as ridiculous as the idea that being sprayed with holy water from a Roman Catholic Church will turn a Muslim into a non-Muslim.

Politicians can jump on the bandwagon, preach from the pulpit, scream in the streets and protest for and against the sale of beer but that really is a just a symptom of the main issue — choice.

But the PAS lawmakers are not alone at this, in restricting choice.

The Selangor Barisan Nasional government did the same years ago, when the Roman Catholic Church applied for a piece of land to build a cathedral in Shah Alam in 1977. They got a plot of land in Section 24 eight years later when the previous Sultan of Selangor queried “if non-Muslims ever pray” as he rarely saw temples and churches in his state.

However, the Shah Alam Municipal Council halted the construction in August 1993 on orders from then-mentri besar Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib who queried the need for a cathedral. The church was finally re-sited after two more attempts and opened in 2005.

It all boils down to the freedom of choice to worship the Almighty in any way one deems fit. And it took the sultan to get the government of the day to ensure his citizens enjoyed that right.

Does it take a sultan, who is unelected and holds a hereditary position, to figure out the desires of the people? Of what use then are the politicians who court us during election campaigns with promises of reforms, rights and rosy futures.

Where does it stop if they can claim majority rights and religious reasons to stop Malaysians from having a place to worship, from stopping people from selling or buying what is legal?

Why do they waste time on trivialities like this when the bigger issues of corruption and a slowing economy should be the focus?

Perhaps because they have a choice of issues to work on. Perhaps they forget Malaysians too have a choice every election.

Who is the real bastard?

Malaysiakini - PKR, DAP lock horns over Teoh's child.

The Kulim Wonder condemns DAP Youth chief Anthony Loke for criticising Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee.

Ridhuan Tee had the bloody insensitive gall to make cruel and heartless remarks over the issue of Teoh Beng Hock’s unborn child. In outrage over those cruel remarks against a dead man who couldn't answer back, Loke wrote a letter to Sin Chew to lambast Ridhuan Tee. The letter was picked up by the Bar Council website. The letter is as follows:

***

It is sickening to see that a person with supposedly strong academic credentials and high religious stature can produce such cruel and heartless remarks over the issue of Teoh Beng Hock’s unborn child.

By twisting a dreadful tragedy with his zealous agenda against “bastard children” in his Utusan Malaysia article, Dr. Mohd Ridhuan, the vice-president of the Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association, has caused immense emotional damage to Teoh’s family.

Whatever superficial sympathy Dr. Mohd Ridhuan has for Teoh’s family is lost when he chooses to harp on the status of the child, whom he labels as an illegitimate child. Dr. Mohd Ridhuan has also compared Teoh’s child to the children of “Malay-Muslim girls who have sex with Muslim or non-Muslim partners with or without consent”, who are born without taking their father’s names.

By comparing, with blatantly racist language, an unborn child of an engaged couple who is painfully separated by the fiance’s mysterious death, to children who are results of unplanned conception, Dr Mohd Ridhuan has shown everyone how low he can go to hurt other human beings with broken logic.

As if that wasn’t enough, Dr. Mohd Ridhuan produced another hurtful article to slam his critics, labelling two Chinese language dailies – China Press and Nanyang Siang Pau – as racist, for highlighting his own racist outbursts. You can’t get more hypocritical than that.

DAPSY condemns in the strongest possible terms, the decision by Dr. Mohd Ridhuan to produce such insensitive, racist, zealous and hypocritical writings and the decision by Utusan Malaysia to publish them. DAPSY calls on Dr. Mohd Ridhuan to immediately apologize to Teoh’s family and to China Press and Nanyang Siang Pau, for all they have done is to reveal and reject his nasty character.

***

In Malaysiakini the Kulim Wonder asked if it was DAP's policy to legitimise 'pre-marital sex' and 'children born out of wedlock'. He demanded that DAP recognizes "Mohd Ridhuan has the right to express his opinion. He is of Chinese descent, and is well aware of the community's traditions and culture.”

Then, cheekily or more likely, hypocritically, he asked "Is DAP Youth unable to accept differences of opinion? Must we always dance to the beat of DAP and whoever who does not agree with DAP is an enemy and must be condemned."

And isn't the Kulim Wonder the politician most renowned for his intolerance, a fact ironically borne by his condemnation of Loke’s opinion of Mohd Ridhuan! And do ask the Bar Council about his thuggish behaviour.

The demographic breakdown in the federal constituency of Kulim is 67% Malays and 33% non-Malays.

Since Anwar Ibrahim dares not discipline him, I want to remind Pakatan supporters in Kulim that comes 2013, if the Kulim Wonder has the balls to still stand in that constituency again, punish him real kau kau for his bigotry.