Yellow-bellied ferral boar

The Facebook posting depicting disgusting portrayal of four strategic Malaysia Government office bearers

The Facebook posting on 27 September 2014 depicting disgusting portrayal of four strategic Malaysia Government office bearers

This is the work of a very coward ferral boar, who was not even man enough to face the music like a real man.

This wasn’t Alvin Tan’s first venomous posting in his Facebook account since arriving in the United States recently, after jumping bail and soon to be classified as a fugitive for scooting away from criminal charges current in the court.

The Malay Mail online:

Fugitive sex blogger Alvin Tan again under sedition scope

SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 29 ― Already deemed a fugitive for skipping town and violating his bail terms, Malaysian sex blogger Alvin Tan is now facing yet another probe under the Sedition Act back home ― this time for criticising the country’s leaders on Facebook

According to Astro Awani, Deputy Federal CID chief Deputy Comm Datuk Amar Singh confirmed today that Tan is being investigated under the 1948 law for criticising, among others, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar and Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

“Members of the public have lodged reports against Alvin Tan. Upon this, we initiated an investigation under the Sedition Act,” DCP Amar was quoted saying by the news portal.

Asked how the authorities plan to bring Tan, who is now believed to be in the United States, back to Malaysia to face his charges, DCP Amar said: “Let us complete the investigation first. Then, we will liaise with the Attorney General’s department to decide the next course of action.”

Tan, who is now seeking asylum in the US purportedly to escape Umno, recently took to Facebook to vent his frustrations against the government’s recent sedition crackdown on dissenters.

The controversial sex blogger also referred to IGP Khalid as the German nazi commander Heinrich Himmler and said Zahid was “the closest thing to true evil”.

A Twitter user was charged earlier this month under the Penal Code for “deliberately humiliating and provoking” Khalid when he too likened the IGP to Himmler.

Yesterday, IGP Khalid vowed to search every “wormhole” for Tan until the blogger is found, saying the youth’s repeated insults against the authorities on social media is “unforgivable”.

Tan, the fugitive Malaysian blogger slapped with multiple charges over his now-defunct sex blog and controversial Hari Raya greeting involving pork dish “bak kut teh”, resurfaced in cyberspace recently, saying that he is now seeking political asylum in the US.

Singapore media agency Channel News Asia (CNA) reported Tan as saying he is fleeing from Umno — the mainstay party of Malaysia’s ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN), and had applied for asylum in the US in May.

Tan and his ex-girlfriend Vivian Lee May Ling, 25, were hauled to court last July 18 and slapped with three charges, but the couple known as “Alvivi” managed to get the court to struck off a charge under Section 298A of the Penal Code.

Tan and Lee still face a charge under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act for publishing a seditious photograph and the words “Selamat Berbuka Puasa” (dengan Bak Kut Teh…wangi, enak, menyelerakan!) [Happy breaking fast with bak kut teh...fragrant, delicious, appetising]” on their Facebook page last July 11 that also showed a halal logo.

They are also being tried for a second remaining charge under subsection 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 for displaying pornographic images on their blog,, between July 6 and July 7 last year.

The court had previously ordered the duo to surrender their passports and allowed them to be released on bail, but allowed them to temporarily take back their travel documents on May 18 this year to travel to Singapore to shoot a documentary.

Only Lee returned the passport on June 3, while Tan failed to show up on the scheduled date and went missing, leading the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court to issue an arrest warrant and forfeit his RM20,000 bail.

Interpol are also reportedly on the hunt for Tan.

- See more at:


Apparently, there are so many Malaysians like this. The come out from the woodworks and antagonise the majority as they like, with all sorts of excuses. When the law is thrown at and against them, they cry foul and as if as the majority is out to oppress and persecute them.

Alvin Tan's Facebook posting 26 September 2014

Alvin Tan’s Facebook posting 26 September 2014, which was mentioned by IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar

Aren’t they the sort who consciously and intentionally utilise free-to-use medium for public exposition to make many people anguish and sow hatred?

This is why there is the Sedition Act. It is not mere intellectual irritation. This is an example of continuous irritation that unless dealt with, would compound into hatred.

*Updated midnight

Published in: on September 29, 2014 at 15:00  Comments (13)  

From being the village idiot into an international laughing stock

Alvin Tan’s and Vivian Lee’s ‘Selamat Berbuka Puasa’ message via FB, which landed them facing charges under the Sedition Act

Malaysians lashed against seditiously stupid social media abuser Alvin Tan who sought asylum in the United States after hoodwinking Malaysian immigration authorities for a work excuse in Singapore, who conveniently blamed UMNO and Federal Government for his troubles. He also ditched his current seditious case insulting the Muslims last year’s Ramadhan and former girlfriend Vivian Lee, to face the case alone.

Recently acquired news portal by Anwaristas story:

Malaysians flay sex blogger Alvin Tan for fleeing to US


Published: 28 September 2014 | Updated: 28 September 2014 6:35 PM

Alvin Tan (red t-shirt) being led to court following his arres following his alleged offensive post online last year. – The Malaysian Insider pic, September 28, 2014.
Sex blogger Alvin Tan’s decision to seek asylum in the United States has drawn flak from Malaysian social media users, many of whom believe he should face up to his actions rather than flee the country.

Tan and his former partner, Vivian Lee, had been charged under the Sedition Act for uploading a bak kut teh posting during Ramadan last year, but he violated his bail conditions while on a supposed working trip to Singapore.

Tan, 26, had insisted in a recent interview with The Malaysian Insider that leaving Malaysia was “the only rational action” as he was powerless to fight “tyranny and ignorance”.

However, most Facebook users felt otherwise, noting that Tan should have been brave enough to face the consequences of the law after knowingly breaking it.
“The reason he ‘tak suka Malaysia’ is because he’s being prosecuted for a crime under Malaysian law. In my opinion, he deserves to be punished for his puerile acts in the past,” wrote Facebook user Josh Wu.

“He openly admitted to deceiving the courts by fleeing to the United States after Malaysian courts were kind enough to allow him to go to Singapore for some film-shooting.

“The law shouldn’t protect those who misuse the law. He who seeks equity must do equity.”

Another Facebook user, Eugene Leong, said Tan had started the entire episode with his Ramadan wishes, which he said were uncalled for.

“That was indeed a silly and stupid thing to do. Yes, he was punished by the courts. Yes, he fled Malaysia via some excuses.

“But, what I would really like to know is how he feels now, knowing that he got his mum to lose the bond money of 20k when he ran away, instead of defending himself in court!” wrote Leong.

In his interview with The Malaysian Insider, Tan had defended the post, which carried a photo of a pork dish, as political satire.

He said it had highlighted the danger of using Islam “as a basis to govern other people’s life” by legislating personal morals, without making a distinction between what is immoral and what is illegal.

Tan added that he did not believe he was a coward by seeking refuge in the US, but that he was “smart, pragmatic, calculative and mercenary”.

“When the government and its institutions decide to ruin your life and jail you for years just because you hurt their feelings, you do not sit back and try to fight the overwhelming wave of emotional, irrational force coming down on you,” he had said.

But most Facebook users dismissed this, saying his actions were cowardly and idiotic.

“I think he is humiliating himself becoz of his ego! Nothing so smart, also more like childish!” wrote Vivian V. Kulasingham.

“It’s either he is a coward or he is an idiot!!!” wrote Augustin Anthony.

They also warned Tan that he would be extradited back to Malaysia and still have to face the courts.

“Don’t be confident. Soon he will realise that he will be extradited back to Malaysia. But I really pity the girl because he left her,” wrote Mohd Shafian Noordin, referring to Lee.

Anastasia Pertiwi said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was well known for “covert negotiations” and a single phone call to US President Barack Obama would have Tan on the first flight back to Malaysia.

“How long can he stay there? Unless he possess the green card, else it will be deported back. Know yourself first before the enemy,” wrote Chai KL.

However, a handful of Facebook users defended Tan, with one even hailing him a “hero”.

“He is battling the political system not race and religion. Don’t be confused,” wrote Brian Low.

Clement Leong Ern said that while he did not condone Tan’s past actions, the sex blogger was “speaking sense” now.

“Bravo Alvin Tan!” wrote Rosa Rosa.

Tan and Lee are facing criminal charges under Malaysia’s Sedition Act as well as the Film Censorship Act for their controversial online uploads, including a photo deemed insulting to Islam on Facebook.

They were both allowed a total bail of RM30,000 each, with two sureties, by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur in July last year. – September 28, 2014.


The Malaysian Insider published an exchane of e mail interview with Tan, to explain himself:

Sex blogger Alvin Tan says not a coward, but smart to seek asylum

Whatever one thinks about sex blogger Alvin Tan, the controversial Singapore scholar has rather opinionated views of politics, Malaysian society and religion. The 26-year-old is seeking asylum in the United States but told The Malaysian Insider that his decision to flee his homeland was to escape the government’s “tyranny” as well as the…
Malaysia Insider

Whatever one thinks about sex blogger Alvin Tan, the controversial Singapore scholar has rather opinionated views of politics, Malaysian society and religion.
The 26-year-old is seeking asylum in the United States but told The Malaysian Insider that his decision to flee his homeland was to escape the government’s “tyranny” as well as the “ignorance” of ordinary Malaysians.

The butt of criticism by many Malaysians after his offensive and controversial Ramadan greeting on Facebook in July last year, Tan defended the post, which carried a photo of a pork dish, as political satire.

He revealed that this entire episode highlighted the danger of using Islam “as a basis to govern other people’s life” by legislating personal morals, without making a distinction between what is immoral and what is illegal.

The former law student at the National University of Singapore, and his then partner Vivian Lee, first came under the spotlight after uploading raunchy sex postings on their blog.

But it was their bak kut teh posting during Ramadan last year that landed them in hot water, and even in jail briefly – after they were charged under the Sedition Act and the Film Censorship Act.

Tan violated his bail conditions while on a supposed working trip to Singapore and is now on Interpol’s wanted list.

After lying low for a while, he recently emerged on social media to make known his plans for asylum in the US.

In this bare all e-mail interview, Tan admits that he may even have been “young and stupid” once, but is determined now to face the consequences as a man, and in a strange and unexpected way, adds to the debate over Malaysia’s ongoing struggle to define its secular-Islamist identity.

TMI: What are your feelings now compared to when you were charged on July 18 last year, given what you have been through?

Tan: My focus now is to start afresh and pursue my dreams in the greatest country in the world, now that there is no tyrannical government in the way. Upon leaving Malaysia, I felt a huge burden being lifted off my back, and I feel safe enough, because I know that extradition between USA and Malaysia will not be an easy task.

Dr Wan Junaidi (Deputy Home Minister Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar) himself said that an extraditable offence is an offence that is a crime in both Malaysia and the US, otherwise the extradition request will fail.

Remember how the A-G’s Chambers tried to extradite Raja Petra Kamaruddin in 2009 and the UK government essentially told them to sod off? Either way, just because I am in a better position to speak up now does not mean that I will.

The last thing I want to be is one of those exiled dissidents who is forever attacking his home country from abroad, bitter and jaded and never really settling down and starting a new life overseas.

TMI: What can you say about the Malaysian approach to freedom of speech and expression?

Tan: The underlying problem is that we’re somehow brainwashed into genuinely believing that words are dangerous and can cause riots, killings, etc. With this belief permeating every average Malaysian’s mind, they find themselves supporting laws like the Sedition Act with a straight face “in order to keep the peace.”

With the people’s support of so-called hate speech laws as justification, the government thus keeps the Sedition Act around and uses it whenever it sees fit.

But history has taught us that any hate speech law will eventually be abused by the government for unjust censorship, 100% of the time, which is why the American founding fathers stressed that all forms of speech, ESPECIALLY offensive speech, should be immune to prosecution with Article 1 of the 1791 Bill of Rights.

They understood this idea more than 200 years ago, and look where it has led them politically, economically, culturally, and militarily today. The correct way to deal with a difference in opinion, particularly when it is a moral opinion, is education or, at most, social condemnation in the form of disassociation or boycotts, not jailing people.

TMI: How is your family back home taking all this, in particular the fact that you are seeking asylum, are they supportive? What about your friends?

Tan: My family is trying to live their lives as normally as possible. They have ceased to offer opinions on my life decisions at this stage, because, really, they are ill-equipped to understand and advise on what I am up to, considering the depth of the mess that I have got myself into thus far.

My friends seem to believe that my only and best option, for someone of my temperament, is to get out of Malaysia, and undoubtedly I have taken their advice seriously.

TMI: Why are you seeking asylum, is it because you do not have trust in the local justice system?

Tan: I am seeking asylum not only from the tyranny of Umno, but from the ignorance of ordinary Malaysians. The tyranny of Umno is obvious: they want to jail me to show how much of a stalwart of Islam they are. They control the police force, the A-G’s Chambers, the lower courts, the media, and, via the media and the education system, the minds of the people.

The ignorance of ordinary Malaysians is more stealthy but equally lethal. When people believe that it is okay to jail people just because they are immoral or objectionable or offensive, even though they never harmed anyone, you know that this is a primitive country which does not know that immorality and illegality are two different things.

When they call for Ibrahim Ali to be jailed for saying things, I knew it was time to get out as soon as possible.

It is often said that we deserve the government that we get. In Malaysia, Umno manages to stay in power precisely because many people actually subscribe to the Umno mindset, at least in part, without even realising it.

Put simply, the reason I left to seek asylum is that I am powerless to fight against such tyranny and ignorance. The only rational action for me is to leave, instead of wasting my precious life to fight a Sisyphean battle.

TMI: This might mean that you will be remembered among those who do not know you here in Malaysia as a fugitive. Does this bother you in any way?

Tan: Many Malaysians claim that I was a coward for running away. I do not think so at all. When the government and its institutions decide to ruin your life and jail you for years just because you hurt their feelings, you do not sit back and try to fight the overwhelming wave of emotional, irrational force coming down on you.

That is a very unfair situation to expect me to put up any type of fight. I was alone, and even those heartless mercenaries known as Pakatan Rakyat leaders (Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Guan Eng) called for my imprisonment in Parliament just so that they did not lose the Muslim vote. Imagine fighting literally the entire country just on your own and your lawyer.

The only rational thing to do is to leave in an act of self-preservation. First, I was stupid for inviting Muslims to break fast with pork during Ramadan. Now, I am a coward for running away from a trial that will be anything but fair.

Either way, they will have something to criticise me about. What I know is that I am done being stupid. The current Alvin Tan is smart, pragmatic, calculative and mercenary.

TMI: At what point did you decide to seek asylum?

Tan: I first knew about the concept of political asylum when I was in Sungai Buloh prison in July 2013. My Iranian cellmate urged me to apply to the United Nations High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR) for asylum after hearing about my situation. When I was released on court bail, the court, however, took away my passport.

I waited for the right time for almost a year, slowly cutting off my ties in Malaysia (eg liquidating assets, ending contracts), and, when the court approved my going to Singapore to supposedly film a documentary in Singapore in May this year, I seized the opportunity and fled.

TMI: Is there a possibility that your asylum application to the US will not succeed? What happens then?

Tan: I have two layers of appeals, should my initial asylum claim fail. I am still free to put in similar claims in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, England, etc, if I happen to fail in my bid in America.

TMI: Your rebuke appears to be targeted at the government and Muslims, can you explain why this is so?

Tan: The reason I target Muslims is that they do not seem to understand the concept of separation of church and state. They seem to want to legislate every single religious principle or rule into the law book, and they seem to be especially blind to the distinction between immorality and illegality. In any country with such a situation, Islam is really a political idea, not merely personal faith.

If they insist on applying Islam in politics and governance, they should also know that criticism to Islam would be inevitable and part and parcel of political discourse. They can no longer say it is something sacred and untouchable and impervious to flak, because Islam is now used as a basis to govern other people’s lives.

This is, in fact, the basis of my political asylum claim. My satirical attempts at ridiculing Muslims is an expression of my political disapproval of Muslims and Islam. Given how pervasive the influence of Islam is in our government institutions, ridiculing Muslims is tantamount to, say, ridiculing conservatives or socialists. It is the same thing.

The American courts know it. Even my San Francisco asylum officer in his independent assessment agrees that my Ramadan pork photograph was political satire, nothing more.

TMI: On hindsight, do you have any regrets over your Ramadan greeting or do you think it all happened for a reason?

Tan: This is too early to say. If my asylum claim succeeds, I am on track to become a US citizen in five years, an awesome dream come true. If not, well, I just have to be content in knowing that I was once young and stupid, and deal with the consequences like a man. My life is now in the hands of the immigration judge hearing my asylum case.

TMI: What about Vivian, are you concerned about her having to face the charges alone now?

Tan: I did convince her to flee, but she did not see the point of it. I already applied to the court to get our passports released using my personal funds, at no expense to her. What more does she want? What I did not do was to fund her escape, because, why should I? We are both independent adults who are supposed to be able to take care of ourselves.

She has a lot of growing up to do if she believes that it is my responsibility to take her along. I mean, hello, she is the university graduate here, not me. She should be more than capable – much more than me – to take care of herself. – September 27, 2014.


Alvin Tan's and Vivian Lee's sexual exhibitionism, which video has been deleted from public consumption

Alvin Tan’s and Vivian Lee’s sexual exhibitionism, which video has been deleted from public consumption

The above said video landed Alvin Tan into much trouble. Singapore Minister of Education Heng Swee Keat spoke of the matter in Parliament, “The conduct of the student is reprehensible and unbecoming as a scholar”. National University of Singapore withdrew their ASEAN scholarship which Tan benefitted.

Singaporeans are not shy to criticise Tan, for his conduct which is deemed unacceptable even by the values of modern and dynamic society and western-wannabe Singaporeans.

Vivian Lee, who was Alvin Tan’s girlfriend and co-sexual exhibitionist faced a lot of flak from her family for her private acts with Tan being made explicitly public on purpose via social media network.

Tan has since be called a ‘coward’ in bold letters since he abandoned his former girlfriend and co-conspirator in their sexual exhibitionism and insults against the predominantly Malay-Muslim Malaysia in the most holiest month for Muslims, to face the music all by herself.

Another story by recently acquired news portal by Anwaristas

Alvin Tan’s second act – Hanna TGV

Published: 27 September 2014 | Updated: 28 September 2014 12:11 AM

The fugitive and coward is now thriving in the land of the free and home of the brave.

He has upped his homogeneous firebrand of lashing out against the Malaysian authorities by taunting political leaders and the head of police to come at him.

In the current political atmosphere, Alvin knows that’s a fast track to gain popularity.

He thinks he deserves to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Adam Adli, Ali Abd Jalil, Edmond Bon and the resilient few who actually mattered in making a change in Malaysia.
But what has he done, besides uploading raunchy sex postings on their blog and not being able to respect the Muslims during their holy fasting month?

When faced with a fight-or-flight situation – Alvin chose the latter, and not without leaving behind collateral damage. His partner, Vivian Lee, continues to face the charges alone.

He has stated before that he created a new personal Facebook account to disassociate himself from Vivian, on the basis to protect her.

If he really wants to be respected – by doing something more concrete and not merely symbolic for Vivian’s well-being – he should immediately make a Statutory Declaration to absolve her from any and all responsibilities that got them into trouble in the first place.

Such gesture, would earn him even more respect from Malaysians – including myself.

Owing to the fact that if he aspires to start afresh and pursue his dreams in the greatest country in the world, he should not leave a trail of mess for the people who still care for him to clean up. – September 27, 2014.

*Hanna TGV reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

- See more at:


It is clearly Tan was charged for his seditious posting, intended to hurt the feelings and insult the sensitivities of Muslims in predominantly Malay-Muslim Malaysia in Ramadhan last year. Ramadhan is Muslims’ holiest month.

That makes his charge criminal in nature as his seditious posting Facebook posting had malice intention.

Renown human rights lawyer Edmund Bon opined that escaping criminal charges may not be sufficient grounds for United States or any other countries to grant someone like Tan an asylum.

Rakyat Post story:

‘Political asylum not a way out of a criminal charge’

Human rights lawyer Edmund Bon says the success of applying for political asylum depended entirely on the country where refiuge was sought. — TRP file pic
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 27, 2014:
The grounds for applying for political asylum are important and the success depends on the country where refuge is sought.
Human rights lawyer Edmund Bon said a person could seek asylum when he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution, based on sexual, political, religious or racial orientation, as this is permitted by international law.
He told The Rakyat Post that the success of the application, for instance the one said to have been made by sex blogger Alvin Tan recently, depended on the country he applied to.
Bon said Malaysia had also accepted people under political asylum, saying that a very good example of cases of political asylum in Malaysia were the refugees.
“Refugees who are prosecuted, like the Rohingya community from Myanmar, are given political asylum in Malaysia and are protected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

“However, this is granted only after a strict assessment of the case.”
Bon said for Tan’s application to be successful. there must be evidence of well-founded fear and truth.
“The application can’t be applied just to run away from a criminal charge.”
When asked if Tan had a strong case, Bon said it depended on the facts of the case which, at this time, he was not familiar with.
Bon said Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail had the right to request the government for Tan to be returned from where he was seeking asylum to stand trial..
It was reported earlier that Tan was currently in the United States and that he was seeking for political asylum.
Speaking to a Singaporean blogger, Tan detailed his journey from Singapore to Mexico, after which he made it to the US-Mexico border and expressed his desire to be granted political asylum there.
Tan had gone missing after he failed to return his passport to the Sessions Court on June 3, which was the date set to enable him and his then girlfriend, Vivian Lee, to be allowed to go to Singapore.
Both were undergoing trial for two charges under the Film Censorship Act and the Sedition Act.
Lee, who returned to Malaysia, was reported to have surrendered her passport. However, Tan failed to do so, following which an arrest warrant was issued for him.
His last known Facebook and Twitter update was in late May before “resurfacing” recently, with Facebook postings indicating he was in Los Angeles, California.
He then began taunting the government, Umno and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar and Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, among others.
Read more:


Tan is not so smart for blaming the Malaysian Government for the troubles that he is currently facing by his own misconducts against the law. Especially, when President Barack H. Obama regarded Malaysia as a progressive Muslim state where “positive change need not come at the expense of tradition and faith”, in his United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) speech on 24 September 2014.

Excerpts of the speech:

And such positive change need not come at the expense of tradition and faith. We see this in Iraq, where a young man started a library for his peers. “We link Iraq’s heritage to their hearts,” he said, and “give them a reason to stay.” We see it in Tunisia, where secular and Islamist parties worked together through a political process to produce a new constitution. We see it in Senegal, where civil society thrives alongside a strong democratic government. We see it in Malaysia, where vibrant entrepreneurship is propelling a former colony into the ranks of advanced economies. And we see it in Indonesia, where what began as a violent transition has evolved into a genuine democracy.


Americans also regard Malaysia as a ‘moderate Muslim nation’ and Islam drives predominantly Malay-Muslim forward and towards progress, on top of being tolerant. Until recent times, Non Muslims are free to carry on with their daily lives without any of the majority predominantly Malay-Muslims encroaching into their belief and cultural system.

It is social rogues like Tan and Lee who are interpreting and taking their opinion on the ‘freedom of speech and expression’ beyond the extreme end, especially at the gross displeasure within the value system of the majority of middle Malaysia.

It is obvious for Alvin Tan was a very stupid young man for attempting to gain attention for his abuses of social media, which include postings of his sexual relationship act and deliberately insulting the Muslims in Ramadhan.

Now, it seems that he is making a bigger fool of himself by seeking asylum instead of being a man and standing by his former girlfriend and face the music, like what a responsible and accountable gentleman should be expected to do.

Published in: on September 29, 2014 at 01:00  Comments (16)  

Semenanjung lucifers instigating Sabah secession

The Jalur Gemilang and Sabah flag

The Jalur Gemilang and Sabah flag

This is the perfect time for the Sedition Act be used against Semenanjung lieutenants of the Devil, who are actively going around Sabah and instigating the fire of secession call, in the midst of Sabahans being proud of being Malaysians.

Daily Express story:

Sabah DAP launches new movement

Published on: Thursday, September 18, 2014

Kota Kinabalu: Sabah Democratic Action Party (DAP) has initiated the Post Malaysia Generation Movement (PMGM) meant to be the platform for political advocacy especially on issues affecting the natives of Sabah.

The launching ceremony of the new movement was done by DAP Adviser Lim Kit Siang on Aug 31 in Keningau. “Well-known activists Adrian Lasimbang and Kit Siang’s political secretary Dyana Sofya spoke during the event where they expressed their generation’s dreams and aspirations for the country.

“They are well aware that the future of the country depends on the young generation and they must have good, committed and responsible leaders to carry the nation forward,” said DAP Sabah Secretary and Kapayan Assemblyman Edwin Bosi.

At the same time, Bosi added, the young generations must be well informed of the political situation and wellbeing of the country so that they can help steer the country in the right direction.

“This is the right time to take the initiative to fight for the future and for the rights of the young generations,” he added. The objectives of PMGM in Sabah are to build up the leadership capacity as well as to identify and expose the talents of the young people.

It hopes to realise the concept of Malaysians Malaysia, nationalise the native issues and to bring about positive political change in Putrajaya and the country while staying true to its motto of ‘Not Just a Facebook Hero’. Lim (fourth left) during the launching of the PMGM.

Also in the picture are Dyana (third right), Jimmy Wong (third left), Chan Foong Hing (left) and Stephen Wong (second left).


Another is militant and HINDRAF extremist Wathyamoorthy and a long time Sabah secessionist Dr Jeffrey Kittingan, who is the ADUN for Bingkor.

Malaysiakini story:

Monday, June 16, 2014

Borneo nationalists mull Putrajaya protest

A group of Borneo nationalists are mulling a protest in Putrajaya on the federal government’s continued refusal to revisit the Malaysian Agreement over complaints that Sabah and Sarawak are being short-changed.

“Why not (protest)? We should do anything that will advance our cause for a solution.

“It is a choice between doing something or doing nothing,” Bingkor assemblyperson Jeffrey Kitingan said at a forum on The Malaysian Agreement 1963 in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

Jeffrey was responding to a suggestion raised at the forum organised by the Sarawak Association for People’s Aspiration (Sapa) and Borneo Heritage Foundation.

Jeffrey said the forum was deliberately held in Kuala Lumpur to send a signal to the federal government.

“We are trying to send a message to the federal government to open up and respond.

“Don’t leave us hanging and boiling down there (in East Malaysia),” he told journalists later.

He added similar forums were also being held overseas to mobilise support.

Sharing his views on building political momentum, Persatuan Hindraf Malaysia (PHM) chairperson P Waythamoorthy said the group should learn from Hindraf’s massive protest in 2007.

“I told them if you do this in Kuching or Kota Kinabalu, they (Putrajaya) can’t care less.

“But if you do it in Kuala Lumpur, they get worried, so it’s time for them to be worried.

“I was told that there are 120,000 Sarawakians and Sabahans in Johor alone, imagine if you can get 20 percent of them to do a roadshow or whatever,” Waythamoorthy told an audience of some 80 people.

Waytha: Sue the British government

Waythamoorthy, who served a short stint as a deputy minister in Najib’s cabinet, also suggested that Sabah and Sarawak should consider taking the British government to court for the seemingly lopsided Malaysian Agreement.

He said Hindraf is also suing the British government for bringing Indian immigrants to then Malaya without adequate protection for their rights, resulting in today’s marginalised Indian community.

Meanwhile, Sapa president Lina Soo argued that the Malaysian Agreement 1963 was invalid as Sabah and Sarawak were not independent states when they formed the Malaysian Federation.

Soo argued that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, only independent states may enter into treaties.

She added that Putrajaya’s failure to comply with the agreement’s terms – such as the Borneo-nisation (hiring locals only) for the civil service in Sabah and Sarawak – and Singapore’s expulsion without consulting the two other partners, also made it void.

Among the other speakers at the forum were Sabah Progressive Party supreme council member Ken Yong, anthropology professor Awang Hasmadi Mois and Angkatan Perubahan Sabah vice-president Kalakau Untol.

Participants at the forum also passed a resolution on the right of self-determination for Sarawak and Sabah.

‘Form reconciliation committee’

The motion reads: “We, the peoples of Sarawak and Sabah in the Convention assembled, do hereby unanimously declare and ordain on this 15th day of June 2014 that it is the peoples’ wishes that the nation-states of Sabah and Sarawak shall seek the right to self-determination as enshrined in international law on human rights and civil liberties by people of independent states.

“And to do so would protect our citizens’ standard of living and re-secure our inalienable rights and freedoms in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which have been compromised by the rule of the Malaysian government.”

Jeffrey said if this problem was resolved and power was redistributed to Sabah and Sarawak, it would only serve to strengthen the Federation of Malaysia.

To this end, he called for a “Reconciliation and Reform Committee” comprising East Malaysian stakeholders and the federal government.

Sabah and Sarawak have become more assertive in recent years as BN has become more reliant on the two to retain federal power following declining support in Peninsular Malaysia.

BN has often boasted the two are their ‘fixed deposits’ owing to the large number of parliamentary seats in Borneo.

Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah last year called on Putrajaya to review the 20-point Agreement for Sabah and 18-point Agreement for Sarawak, which are safeguards for the states when forming the Federation of Malaysia.

Tengku Razaleigh, who is the MP for Gua Musang, said the agreements were supposed to have been reviewed 10 years after the formation of Malaysia but this never materialised. However, his call fell on deaf ears.

Msiakini News


Sabahans are not interested in all these.

They are proud to be part of the Federation of Malaysia and striving hard to make their home a much better place. Hence, they want better deals from the Federal Government on how more programs of infrastructure, development and progress in nature can could be brought and benefit the state and the proud Sabahans.

That, would naturally derive on the more opportunities for Sabahans to better themselves. The state has a lot of potential and they want these potential to be developed, so that more Sabahans would benefit from them.

In short, Sabahans are like the Scots. They want to remain in the union but getting better deals.

They want the sort of deals where more opportunities can be made available to them, from programs being developed as a mid and long term strategy for Sabah to grow.

It is not the kind which did not happen when Tengku Razaleigh was the Bank Bumiputra Chairman, Petronas Chairman and eventually Minister of Finance and Trade and Industry. It was the period where he had the clout and power to invoke changes for more than twenty years.

After all, the political failure Kelantanese prince actually had the first chance to do so in Sabah’s toddler years within the Federation of Malaysia.

Neither it is the sort of radical and hatred politics that Chinese Chauvinist Emperorissimo Lim Kit Siang trying to sow to Sabahans for an anti-Federal sentiment.

It has been a wet dream of Lim in his hard tries to sow hatred sentiments against the BN Sabah leaders. But it is proven to be very unproductive.

It is nothing but simply evil for bankrupt Semenanjung political extremists, radicals and rejects, to waltz around Sabah and instigate the rakyat to rise against the Federal Government and the Sabah State Government, which backs the Federal Government and BN strongly.

This is what the much dreaded Internal Security Act (repealed in 2011 to be replaced with SOSMA and PCA) and Sedition Act designed for. They are the true secessionists and anti-Fedralists.

Home Ministry should focus on this lot carefully.

Published in: on September 21, 2014 at 20:00  Comments (20)  

Anwar: Saya senang mengalu ngalukan Wee Choo Keong

Something of the past, to remind us what and where our future lies. This is what Santaya taught us and still relevant, then and now.

“Sahabat lama saya, saudara Wee Choo Keong”, Anwar Ibrahim.

“Lawan tetap lawan. Kita nak gulingkan Barisan Nasional. Parti Barang Naik. BN itu Bangkrap Negara!”, Wee Choo Keong. “Kertas (undi) itulah yang puak puak UMNO-Putra takut. Kita akan gulingkan, hancurkan Barisan Nasional pada hari itu!”

Published in: on September 18, 2014 at 18:00  Comments (14)  

Prostituting cyber-terrorism

It has come to our attention that some of our supposedly more learned blogging brothers have prostituted themselves to be cyber-terrorists.

They do incessant postings despite poor or no response by the target. Definitely, not by other like minded bloggers.

The intention is very clear. They wanted attention, especially when their writings are no longer relevant and became flavourless, without inability to capture the interests or imagination of blog readers.

They also crave for attention from the leadership, be it the political masters or corporate leaders.

This particularly one, even got the attention on the Minister in-charge of overseeing the particular agency where his rabid incessant target reside. He threatened to take his complain to the Parliament when he met the Minister, where as in actually the this pathetic blogger no longer enjoy any clout in that forum.

So the Minister coyly answered “Please do that. Better still, I can give my answer in Parliament”.

That enraged this blogger further, so self-proclaimed to be a ‘mercenary’.

The fact is that, he was a failure where he had been and the tracks he laid. Now that his true colours have bloomed, his integrity is questionable.

Another important point to note that he jumped or being thrown off ships more often than the late Elizabeth Taylor’s marriages.

Probably some point along that line, he earned some moments of glory as the ‘barking mongrel’. Then again, he wasn’t much use to anyone, especially to the Prime Minister except as an occasional ‘barking mongrel’.

He was also banking that he gets a position, probably as the Head of Mission somewhere or Chairmanship, for his stint as an ‘occasional barking mongrel’. He even claimed that it was promised to him.

Probably he did not posses any qualifications nor qualities, for him to be ascended to the much desired posts.

Now, considering almost everyone side lined him for obvious reasons of his usefulness or the very least, effectiveness whatever he thought he was good at, he resorted to prostitute himself as a cyber terrorist.

Today it is a good day to remind that exactly six years ago this time, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim tried to install himself as the Prime Minister of Malaysia, purely by maneuvres of manipulation and deception in nature. This pathetic man also prostituted himself to be part of that regime.

History also demonstrated that the feat failed.

Lately, the scruffy mongrel allowed himself to be prostituted for another demented scheme. No wonder he was never successful at anything, but taking fights through guerrilla warfare and attempting to stretch it long term.

Just like the Malayan Communist Party. Or so it seemed.

Published in: on September 17, 2014 at 18:00  Comments (3)  

(Not) Getting wiser after the event

Sedition Act

Sedition Act

In the wake of the recent public outcry for the support of doing away with the Article 15 of the Federal Constitution, the Sedition Act and equivalent vocal and thundering defence of the same act, Minister of Information, Communication and Multimedia Dato’ Seri Ahmad Shabery Cheek assured that the new law would be a better one. story:

Sedition Act to be replaced with comprehensive law

14 SEPTEMBER 2014 @ 4:13 PM

SUNGAI BESAR: The current Sedition Act 1948 will be replaced with a new act which is more comprehensive, says Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Shabery Cheek.

He said the act was needed to monitor writings and publications which could disrupt the harmony and unity among people of various races.

“As such, any seditious writing or words if not nipped in the bud, could lead to more serious problems,” he told reporters when asked to comment on calls by some quarters who wanted the act to be retained, while others wanted it repealed.

Ahmad Shabery said this after opening the Sungai Besar Umno division delegates meeting in Sekinchan here today.–BERNAMA


In theory, the newly enacted laws should be better for the Malaysian society in moving forward and making the nation and her people better. However, that is not true for the Internal Security Act (ISA) which was repealed by the surprised announcement made on this day exactly three years ago.

Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 which came into affect on 22 June 2012 did not have the necessary ‘fangs’ for the security agencies particular the Ministry of Home Affairs, Royal Malaysian Police to ensure the protection of internal and homeland security and prevention of hedious crimes.

This include other law enforcement agencies such as Immigration Department, National Anti-Narcotics Task Force, Royal Malaysian Customs, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency, Malaysian Maritime Enfrocement Agency, Military Intelligence coupled with Attorney General’s Chambers  powers to prevent hedious crimes.

The Policemen brutally killed in the Lahad Datu and Semporna, March 2013

The February 2013 incursion of Sulu MILF bandits armed with military weapons in Kampung Tanduo near Lahad Datu, the brutal killings and cold blooded murder of Policemen in Kampung Simunul, Semporna, both in East Sabah.

This is on top of the incessant public killings and assassinations and increased activities related to drug processing, manufacturing, importation, exportation and distribution believed to be related to lords of the underworld criminal groups and vices released after the Emergency Ordinance was repealed together with the ISA.

This is reflective in the calls made by the Home Minister and Inspector General of the Police.

The sudden rise of serious and violent crimes related to the release of more than 2,500 detainees held under ISA and EO was felt across the board by Malaysians in all walks of life.

The Malay Mail Online story:

Former EO detainees involved in 67 violent crime cases
JULY 16, 2013
KUALA LUMPUR, June 16 – Police have detected 67 violent crime cases committed by former detainees under the Emergency Ordinance (EO) 1969 over the first six months this year.

Bukit Aman Anti-Vice, Gambling and Secret Societies Division (D7) principal assistant director Datuk Abdul Jalil Hassan said the number was a 100 per cent increase from the 33 cases detected in the corresponding period last year.

“The number of violent crime cases committed by former EO detainees has increased after 2,473 of them were released in July last year following the abolition of the EO in 2011.

“Among the violent crime committed by the former EO detainees are murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, criminal intimidation and rioting,” he said here today.

He said although the police were aware of the former detainees’ latest addresses, the police had no power to order or ensure that they would stay at the given addresses.

“Following release, some of them have to work and this forced them to move to other places. When opportunity exists like this, some of them may have returned to crime,” he said.
Abdul Jalil said police could only monitor them in terms of job movements, besides asking their families to inform the police of their whereabouts.

Recently, Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was reported as saying that 90 per cent of serious crime were committed by former EO detainees released from Simpang Renggam Detention Centre.

Meanwhile, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said the police had given their input and suggestions to the ministry for the drafting of a new law to replace the EO. – Bernama


This is not withstanding the fact during the campaign of the 13GE, Deputy Director General of Royal Customs Dato’ Shaharuddin Ibrahim was assassinated near Putrajaya Police HQ, on his way to work.

Without the ISA, the work to prevent anti-terrorism activities which include Malaysians suddenly became more uphill. Malaysians are being networked by international terrorist organisations such as cells of Al Qaeda to recruit gullible Malaysians for so called ‘Jihad’ fights, in places like Syria and Iraq.

They guised themselves through social media such as Facebook, blogs and Twitter to recruit, sow their ideology and issue instructions for cells to be activated. Pockets of Malaysians leave the country as ‘tourists’ or even some as ‘Umrah pilgrims’, with the intent to join all these terrorist organisations such as ISIL.

Today, it was reported about former PAS Kedah Information Chief Ahmad Lotfi and other members were killed recently in Syria for fighting for the so-called Islamic Jihadists in the rebellion against Bashar Assad’s legitimate government.

The Sun story:

Sacked PAS member Mohd Lofti killed in Syria

Former PAS Kedah Information Chief Lotfi, killed while fighting in Syria

Former PAS Kedah Information Chief Mohd. Lotfi Ariffin, killed while fighting in Syria

Posted on 15 September 2014 – 12:32am
Last updated on 15 September 2014 – 02:40am
Charles Ramendran

KUALA LUMPUR: Sacked Kedah PAS information chief turned jihadist Mohd Lofti Ariffin (pix), who was seriously wounded in an air raid in Syria last week, died just days after slipping into a coma on Saturday.

The 46-year-old was among a group of Isis militants and other Malaysian jihadist engaged in a gun battle when Syrian military fighter jets bombed their location during the skirmish last Tuesday.

It is learnt that Malaysian authorities are aware of his death following intelligence reports received from their international counterparts.

It was also reported that Mohd Lofti’s older brother had confirmed the death of his sibling when contacted by the media.

It is learnt that another Malaysian, Mohammad Fadhlan Shahidi Mohammad Khir, 21, was killed instantly during the air strike while another, identified only as Abu Afghan, was injured.

Mohammad Fadhlan, who was also from Kedah and the youngest among Malaysian jihadists in Syria, left to join the group in May.

Mohd Lofti, a father of eight children was last seen in Malaysia in January before he left for Syria without informing his family in Kuala Ketil.

He posted several photos of himself in military fatigues with other militants at a Syrian battlefield on Facebook revealing that he had joined a hardline Islamist group called “Ahrar al-Sham” to fight “Allah’s cause”.

PAS distanced itself from Mohd Lofti, condemning his participation in the Syrian civil war, before announcing his sacking from the party in May.

Mohd Lofti, who was the fourth Malaysian to be killed in Syria, had previously been involved in several other holy wars in other countries. He is said to have undergone extensive militant training during that time before heading to Syria where he was tasked to take charge of the Malaysian factions.

There are about 30 Malaysians including a family of four and five former detainees of the repealed Internal Security Act (ISA) who are in Syria fighting the civil war alongside the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) militants.

Malaysian police sources said it was highly unlikely the remains of locals killed in Syria will be repatriated here as the process was complicated and the cost of doing so is high.

Police are powerless in acting against those who leave for Syria or planned to do as these individuals leave the country on a “multi-point” air travel to avoid detection, sources told theSun.


This include the first Malaysian suicide bomber. It is unsure how many Malaysians have been recruited to fight as terrorists in these rebellions, which have now become fashionable globally in the skewed guise and excuse for Islam.

The Malaysian Insider story:

More than 100 Malaysians still fighting in Syria and Iraq, say intelligence officers


Published: 28 June 2014

Shia volunteers, who have joined the Iraqi army to fight against the predominantly Sunni militants from the radical Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), taking part in a parade on a street in Kanaan, Diyala province. There are more than 100 Malaysian jihadists fighting for Isil, say the police. – Reuters pic, June 28, 2014.
Shia volunteers, who have joined the Iraqi army to fight against the predominantly Sunni militants from the radical Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), taking part in a parade on a street in Kanaan, Diyala province. There are more than 100 Malaysian jihadists fighting for Isil, say the police. – Reuters pic, June 28, 2014.
More than 100 Malaysian radicals are in the Middle East fighting for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil), police revealed today.

The number is based on intelligence reports which Special Branch had received, a senior police officer from Bukit Aman told The Malaysian Insider.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the officer said an accurate figure was difficult to estimate as there were many different routes to troubled Middle East countries.

On Tuesday, Wisma Putra released a statement saying 15 Malaysians had been killed in Syria while allegedly fighting for Isil, a splinter group of al-Qaeda seeking to set up an Islamic caliphate encompassing both Iraq and Syria.
Putrajaya is still waiting for confirmation on the “dead Malaysians” as it was difficult to ascertain the identities of the victims because of a lack of documentation.

“Those who have been detected travelling to Syria and Iraq to wage jihad come from different walks of life,” the police officer told The Malaysian Insider.

“Some are students, some hold regular jobs, some are school dropouts. They are easily influenced by ‘Internet clerics’.”

The police officer said unlike 10 years ago when militant sympathisers conducted their recruitment in religious schools, most of the recruitment now was online.

“Social media has emerged as a powerful tool for these groups to generate support and new manpower. There is also plenty of extremist material on the Internet.”

The police officer revealed there were many videos posted on the Internet which challenged Muslims to rethink their lifestyles.

“Are you willing to sacrifice the fat job you have got, the big car you have, the family you have? Are you willing to sacrifice this, for the sake of Allah?

“Definitely, if you sacrifice something for Allah, Allah will give you 700 times more than this,” the police officer quoted one of the videos.

“These are among the many videos available on the Internet used to influence youths and impressionable Malaysians.”

The police officer warned that Malaysians who participated in jihad abroad posed a threat to national security when they returned home.

“If any Malaysian is found to have participated in a Middle East jihad, they can be charged with promoting acts of terrorism,” the police officer revealed.

“Police have already detained about 16 people over the past two months for planning to participate in jihad in the Middle East.”

Isil, which has seized large swathes of territory in Iraq, is also fighting in Syria and has become a magnet for jihadists from Asia and Europe.

The Sunni insurgent group reportedly seized large amounts of weaponry from the Iraqi army which fled.

On Thursday, PAS revealed that it had sacked cleric Lotfi Ariffin last month after learning the latter had signed up with a militant group fighting in Syria. – June 28, 2014.


It is very damning the problem of more Malaysians getting involved in global terrorism is getting chronic. It is not surprising at all very soon, this so called ‘Jihadist War’ would eventually reach our shores.

Not at the Al Maunah scale but much more lethal and damning proportions. Especially when these battle-hardened fighters with the tight and well networked international terrorist groups come back, as if they are tourists or even pilgrims wandering all over West and Central Asia for convenient excuse of “spiritual journey “of some sort.

The fact is that, ISA was designed for hedious crimes against the His Majesty, the Federation of Malaysia Constitution, His Majesty’s Government and law enforcement and security agencies and the defense of the realm.

Even immigration officers involved in the illegal sales and distribution of MyKads and passports and Royal Customs officers involved in smuggling activities were arrested and detained under ISA and EO.

The law enforcement system is already impaired without both laws and now the Malaysian Government wants to do away with the Sedition Act, the very law inacted and validated by the democratic system via the Parliament to ensure that individuals and pockets of notorious and obnoxious persons do not spew voracious and poisonous opinions that would enrage any groups within the Malaysian society.

These are the provisions as the most important bits of the Sedition Act:

Under section 3(1), those acts defined as having a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency:

“ (a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of the Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.


The fact is that sedition is an act of crime against Malaysian society. There are notorious individuals who continuously, systematically and structurally challenge and provoke sentiments and emotions of the majority, the law, Islam as the religion of the Federation of Malaysia and even the position and role of His Royal Highness Rulers and His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong, with voracious and poisonous opinion and uttering.

In in effort to do away with the Sedition Act now on top of throwing away the necessary laws such as ISA and EO which has been described by too many law enforcement professionals and analysts as “A big mistake”, may come as a compounded mistake. Considering there are growing pockets of notorious Malaysians which include the Bar Council that continuous challenge many sensitive matters and pushing the envelope further to the edge.

Fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is very stern in his opposition against the doing away of the Sedition Act.

The nation lost its powerful tool to prevent and preserve the internal security three years ago today. Malaysians are on the brink of losing another one, where obnoxious individuals and groups could after this freely challenge insult the position and role of HRHs as the Constitutional Head of Islam and protector of the State Constitutions, Islam as the religion of the Federation of Malaysia in the pre-text of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and human rights.

53% of Malaysians are the Malays who proudly want status quo to be maintained and many of them are not shy in reciprocating against any attempts to demean the position and role of HRHs, specific provisions in the Federal Constitution and most of all, whenever Islam as the religion of the Federation of Malaysia is being challenged for what ever excuse or punt intended.

Any challenge against this in any form which include the skewed interpretation by professionals in intellectual discourses would just invite reciprocity by a large number of Malaysians who felt the matter is close to their heart as the role and position of ‘Islam as the religion of the Federation of Malaysia’ is a defining  provisions for the nation itself.

Until recent times, there have been little attempt to openly challenge the position and role of Islam as the religion of the Federation of Malaysia and HRHs as the Constitutional Head of Islam in their respective states. Hence the problem is escalating where as the tool to defend this is being threatened to be changed.

Article 3.1 & 3.2 of the Federal Constitution

Article 3.1 & 3.2 of the Federal Constitution

The challenge is if the Harmony Act which is supposed to be ‘more comprehensive’ compared the Sedition Act is unable to curb the growing challenges and insults against Islam, HRHs and the process to manage and bring matters pertaining to Islam through the Syariah High Court system. This would simply invite ill feeling of the majority and compounded, it could turn into something ugly.

In the complex but compelling reality, all the challenges and insults against the position and role of Islam and HRHs as the Constitution Head and Custodian of Islam could be portrayed and manipulated in the tone and perspective where Islam is being threatened. Compound this with frequency and intensity, then the battled-trained ‘Jihadists’ would eventually come out of the woodworks and network themselves to start a Jihad War here in Malaysia, which has now a major international problem in Syria, Iraq and India.

If it is not clear why Sedition Act needs to be maintained as status quo, then it is only apt to relate the famous quote by philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” is as relevant today as it ever was.

Let us hope learning from past cock-ups isn’t a defective virtue identifiable to the Malaysian Government under Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak’s leadership. In the era of vast agenda of transformation, too much hope rest on Shabery’s statement in UMNO Sungai Besar Annual Division meeting.

*Updated 0900hrs

Published in: on September 15, 2014 at 00:01  Comments (32)  

Healthy growth of industry under MCMC’s watch

The communication and multimedia industry grew by a healthy 4.5% with an extra RM2.3 billion into the Malaysian GDP, since a year ago. Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission Chairman Dato’ Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi presented the performance report card on the communication and multimedia industry this morning. story:

Communication & Multimedia posts 4.5pc growth

Business Times  – 6 hours ago KUALA LUMPUR: The communication and multimedia industry’s revenue grew 4.5 per cent to RM53.4 billion last year compared with RM51.1 billion in the previous year. Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) chairman Datuk Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi said telecommunication was the main contributor, accounting for nearly 85 per cent of the revenue, followed by broadcasting (11 per cent), and postal sector and others (four per cent). “Our focus over the past few years was to get more people connected via broadband services. Until 2013, there are 20.3 million broadband subscribers, 88.7 per cent of them were mobile broadband users while the rest were fixed-line users. “In 2014 and beyond, Malaysians will continue to benefit from telecommunication infrastructures provided over past 10 years. “However, we need to build more infrastructures and accelerate the growth of telecommunication in order to move towards a productive digital lifestyle,” he said when presenting the Industry Performance Report 2013, here today. Citing online credit as yet another growth sector, he said the value of internet banking in 2013 was RM3,457 billion with the number subscribers increased to 15.6 million from merely 2.6 million in 2005. Sharil said the MCMC would strive to provide a wider coverage of wireless broadband services through the 4G LTE rollout in 2013 to reach the population coverage of up to 50 per cent by 2017.– Bernama   *********************

According to Sharil, there are more opportunities on convergence platforms of communications and multimedia and would be the new engine of growth for the industry, which already saw the telecommunication sector monopolising 85% of the revenue generated within the industry.

MCMC: Converged Platforms Of Communications And Multimedia Will Generate New Economic Opportunities

11/09/2014 KUALA LUMPUR, September 11, 2014 — The Industry Performance Report for 2013 was published by MCMC today. The communications and multimedia (C&M) industry performed respectably, recording a 4.5% growth in revenue to RM53.4 billion from RM51.1 billion in 2012. This steady performance of the C&M industry was contributed mainly by telecommunications with nearly 85% revenue share, broadcasting 11% and the remaining from the postal sector and others. In terms of market capitalisation, the C&M industry performed moderately based on market capitalisation in Bursa Malaysia with a 2.3% growth to RM195.3 billion in 2013. This represents 11.5% of total market capitalisation of RM1,702.2 billion. According to MCMC Chairman, Dato’ Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi, MCMC has been focusing in getting people connected with broadband services over the last few years. This is reflected in the 20.3 million broadband subscribers recorded for 2013; of which 88.7% are on mobile broadband i.e. 3G, and the remaining are on fixed. With the service providers committed to provide wider coverage of wireless broadband services through 4G LTE rollout in 2013 and to reach 50% population coverage by 2017, the mobility aspect is ready to make traditional Internet usage even more ubiquitous. For example, online shopping can reach a bigger number of customers and transactions like billing and payment can be enabled in real time, online. Higher speed internet connection will enable the usage of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to be further intensified in many areas of business. This will ensure savings on time and operational costs thereby increasing business efficiency. Additionally, the aspect of being ‘connected’ can provide valuable information for business decision-making through availability of dashboards or enable Big Data analytics of customer behaviour to obtain relevant information to enhance a business’s agility to respond to changes in the marketplace. Such converging platforms provide more avenues for diverse range of products and service offerings which are easily available and are becoming more affordable as a result of digitalisation. Applications and services such as, data centre services, connected healthcare, authentication services and e-Commerce services along with improved postal and courier networks are increasingly in demand. Content services incorporating video in many aspects of usage such as online education, workforce collaboration, mobile advertising, social networking aside from online entertainment provide enhanced user engagement and increased competitiveness, but also tests telecommunication network capacities. “In 2014 and beyond, Malaysia is expected to continue to ride on the telecommunications infrastructure built over the last 10 years. We need to accelerate and build more to catch up in order to progress towards a productive digital lifestyle in Malaysia,” said Dato’ Sharil. Moving forward, it is envisaged that the infrastructure and coverage made ready by the C&M industry will be leveraged by other sectors towards improving productivity and value creation, with more innovation and creativity. “MCMC has a key role to help steward Malaysia as a focal point for C&M information and content services. It is timely that MCMC, KKMM and Finas is organising an inaugural KL Converge, from 17 to 19 September to provide a platform for experts, users, developers, producers and entrepreneurs to come together to forge partnerships and expand our content and creative industry’s footprint internationally,” added Dato’ Sharil *************

The regulator for the communication and multimedia industry with specific powers of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998, also provided the strategic framework for the development and growth in the industry.

An interesting conclusion

An interesting conclusion

In his industry report presentation, the MCMC Chairman gave an emphasis for the improvement of security and quality and service of the communication and multimedia eco-system, as most important for continued growth for the industry.

When contacted, Sharil’s remark “The focus on the continued improvement and service delivery, particularly for the rural areas. This will promote stronger eco-system for e commerce. We also need the capacity building of the eco-system, for e-commerce growth”.

Market capitalisation of the communication and multimedia industry

Market capitalisation of the communication and multimedia industry

“Content and creative industry direct contribution to the GNI currently is at RM32 billion. We are targeting at RM57 billion by 2020″.

There are vast opportunities and rooms for all sectors under communication and multimedia industry to work together and capitalise and synergise on the various strength and value added which are available to be realised.

The industry performance report showed the communication and multimedia industry cornered 11.5% of the market capitalisation of Bursa Malaysia. Axiata Group Bhd. and Celcom Axiata Bhd. leads with RM59 billion of market capitalisation where over 27,000 people are employed. Axiata and Celcom revenues are RM18billion and 8billion respectively.

ICT Development Index (IDI) for Malaysia, as compared to the other Asian countries

ICT Development Index (IDI) for Malaysia, as compared to the other Asian countries

The past two years also saw the market capitalisation communication and multimedia industry grew from RM138.5 billion to RM195.3 billion.

In the report, MCMC also outlines the ICT Development Index (IDI) for Malaysia is 5.04, which above the global benchmark of 4.35. The broadband penetration rate achieved 67% by end of 2013, which is almost 70% way above the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and Digital Commission target of 40% penetration by 2015.

Broadband penetration rate for Malaysia by end of 2013

Broadband penetration rate for Malaysia by end of 2013

One point interesting to note, amidst intense competition and despite declining Average Revenue Per User (ARPU), the communication and multimedia industry continue to grow by 4.5%. Either pricers steadily dropped or more value for money packages already offered.

It is obvious that MCMC is gearing up as a catalyst, if not towards realising Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak’s agenda for the economy based on creativity and innovation to take more centre position, as part of the economic transformation plan for the nation.

Published in: on September 11, 2014 at 20:00  Comments (3)  

Ingkar membatasi politik, politicking dan politikus

Kemelut politik tahap Menteri Besar yang melanda dalam Selangor hari ini semenjak Januari lalu apabila Ketua Pembangkang Anwar Ibrahim menggerakkan ‘Langkah Kajang’ kunun kunun sebagai persiapan PRU14 untuk kerjasama haram rakan-kongsi-tidur-sebantal-tetapi-mimpi-lain-lain DAP-PKR-PAS untuk mengambil alih Putrajaya, makin kronik. Keingkaran DAP dan PKR untuk memenuhi aspirasi Sultan Idris Shah agar pemimpin yang berwibawa diangkat sebagai MB, mengeruhkan keadaan.

Laporan portal online pro-PKR The Malaysian Insider:

Sultan Selangor murka DAP, PKR derhaka, mungkin pilih Adun Pakatan lain jadi MB

OLEH JAMILAH KAMARUDIN Published: 8 September 2014   Sultan Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah (kanan) murka DAP dan PKR ingkar arahan hantar lebih 2 nama sebagai calon pengganti Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim (kiri). Gambar fail The Malaysian Insider. Sultan Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah (kanan) murka DAP dan PKR ingkar arahan hantar lebih 2 nama sebagai calon pengganti Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim (kiri). Gambar fail The Malaysian Insider. Sultan Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah kecewa dengan tindakan PKR dan DAP yang mengingkari arahannya supaya mengemukakan lebih 2 nama untuk dipertimbangkan sebagai calon menteri besar Selangor bagi menggantikan Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim. Pada masa sama, baginda tidak menolak kemungkinan mempertimbangkan nama Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) lain daripada parti Pakatan Rakyat (PR) yang berkelayakan untuk dilantik memimpin negeri terkaya itu. “Sultan Selangor a mat merasa dukacita di atas tindakan parti DAP dan PKR yang ingkar terhadap titah baginda bertarikh 27 Ogos 2014. “Tindakan parti DAP dan PKR ini menggambarkan kebiadapan kepada institusi raja dan merupakan satu perbuatan derhaka kepada Sultan Selangor,” kata Sultan Selangor melalui kenyataan yang dikeluarkan Setiausaha Sulitnya Datuk Mohamad Munir Bani, hari ini. Munir berkata, Sultan Selangor akan meneliti senarai calon yang dikemukakan PAS, PKR, dan DAP dan mengambil kira segala aspek sebelum keputusan dibuat. “Dalam masa yang sama memandangkan kuasa melantik menteri besar Selangor terletak pada budi bicara Sultan Selangor, maka baginda juga akan meneliti nama-nama Adun yang lain daripada Pakatan Rakyat yang berkelayakan dan pada fikiran Sultan Selangor mendapat kepercayaan majoriti Ahli Dewan Negeri,” katanya. Katanya, hanya PAS yang akur dengan titah Sultan Selangor dengan menyenaraikan 3 nama calon menteri besar Selangor. Manakala DAP dan PKR masing-masing mengemukakan hanya 1 nama saja, iaitu Presiden PKR Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. Katanya, titah baginda supaya mengemukakan senarai lebih 2 calon adalah amalan bagi membolehkan baginda membuat pilihan dengan melihat bukan saja sokongan majoriti Adun malah daripada segi kemahiran, pengalaman, integriti dan kebolehan seseorang Adun tersebut. “Ciri ini amat penting bagi menjamin perjalanan pentadbiran negeri agar berjalan dengan baik dan lancar demi keharmonian rakyat negeri Selangor. “Sultan Selangor berkeyakinan terdapat ramai calon dalam parti Pakatan Rakyat yang mempunyai ciri kepimpinan yang tinggi seperti disebutkan tadi bagi menerajui kerajaan negeri Selangor,” katanya. Sultan Selangor pada 27 Ogos lalu menitahkan ketiga-tiga parti dalam PR mencadangkan lebih 2 nama sebagai calon menteri besar sebelum 3 September bagi memudahkannya membuat pilihan, namun DAP dan PKR bertegas mahu menghantar nama Dr Wan Azizah saja. PKR pada 3 September kemudiannya menerima surat amaran daripada istana yang mengingatkan mereka supaya menghantar lebih 2 nama selain Dr Wan Azizah. Presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang dalam penjelasan terbuka di Marang, Terengganu pada Jumaat minggu lalu berkata, keengganannya mengikut kata DAP dan PKR dan menghantar 3 nama adalah kerana tidak mahu ingkar titah Sultan sambil menegaskan parti itu menghormati prinsip Raja Berperlembagaan. – 8 September, 2014.   *******************


Jelas Anwar dan gerombolan Pembangkang dikalangan DAP dan PKR tidak langsung menghormati Raja dan sistem Raja BerPerlembagaan, malah mereka memang lebih mengutamakan kepetingan politik sempit mereka.

Published in: on September 8, 2014 at 15:00  Comments (19)  

Disini Lahirnya Sebuah Cinta

Selamat Hari Kemerdekaan ke 57. May God preserve the Federal Constitution and the spirit, values and virtues that it stood for then and now.


Published in: on August 31, 2014 at 00:01  Comments (30)  

Anwar Vs Anifah: Liar lying left, right & centre

The transcript of the legal case for Opposition Leader and former abuse-of-power-convict Anwar Ibrahim against Foreign Minister Dato’ Sri Anifah Hj Aman for the former being called “A liar”

SIVIL SUIT NO: S-21-146-2009





Notes Of Proceeding of trial held on 25.8.2014
Plaintiff’s Witness: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
Yang Arif, yang pertamanya Yang Arif saya ingin memohon maaf sebab terlambat pagi ini. Saya telahpun tulis surat kepada Federal Court untuk membayangkan bahawa kes itu tidak akan berjalan. Tapi malangnya sungguhpun surat itu telah dihantar, kes saya hanya dipanggil pada pukul 11.30.
I have been instructed Yang Arif to put on record my application for an adjournment Yang Arif whether Yang Arif allows it or disallow it I put on record to put on record Yang Arif
Q:​Datuk seri, could you be kind enough to look at the amended statement of claim. In the ikatan pliding terpinda, datuk seri will see this from page 5, the official bahasa Malaysia version and seems dato seri is giving evidence in English, datuk seri would also refer to page 30 the English version re emended statement of claim. Page 30 is your re emended statement of claim. You have read the re emended statement of claim?
Q:​now I take dato seri to some parts of the claim, if dato seri were to look at paragraph 5 at page 31 where there is a massive amount of amendment that was undertaken, page 31,32,33 all has been removed and replace with another publication. If dato seri look at page 41, you will have to look at page 34 as this is a continuous of the publication material. If dato seri look at page 41, that amended publication, the pleading called as the said state department release. The Plaintiff has taken to label that particular publication as the said state department release.
Look at paragraph 6, would dato seri agree that paragraph 6, the question is that what is stated in paragraph 5 in the publication as describe in the statement of claim.
Paragraph 6 at page 41 is dato seri agree is a quotation or statement taken from the Star Newspaper that on 16 may 2009. This is not a publication that has been cited in paragraph 5, this is concentrating only the Star newspaper. Based on paragraph 6 in your own pleading at page 43, Dato has called those quoted para contain in the star as the impugned statement.
If dato seri refer to page 44, paragraph 7, dato seri used the word the said impugned statement. Therefore dato seri would agree that paragraph 7 the complain of dato seri is the publication in the Star Newspaper. And then at page 44, there is also another description, where you have described, you used the impugned words all in reference to the star newspaper.
Then paragraph 8, where you said the Plaintiff pleads the impugned words…is in direct or indirect in referring to the Star Article.
A: ​Yes it is right that the impugned words refers to the article in the Star Newspaper.
Q:​Similarly in reference to paragraph 7, 8 and 9 refers to impugned meaning. Collectively, Dato seri will see at page 11 onwards, are all refers to the immediate reference to the Star Newspaper.
Now Dato seri agree that the Defendant, he only made one statement v​erbal in the press release in Washington.
A:​to my knowledge, as far as I was aware the reference made to that particular statement in Washingston
Q: ​what dato seri can do here, to limit the claim to what emanates to the press statement made by anifah aman in Washington DC. Datok seri agrees that conduct of Datuk anifah aman in Washington dc in tortuous wrong would be a slander as he says it verbally
A: ​yes, agree
Q;​Dato seri action in this case is for libel because even though he said it slander, but he caused the publication in the Star Newspaper.
Q:​Datuk seri made reference to the release from the State Department release at page 41, where dato seri made reference to it as dato seri states that there is a nexus to the release in the Star newspaper.
A:​Yang Arif I can only say that there is the connection but the star has a specific connection with the star release as the Star reporters may be there during the press release
Q:​when Datuk seri wants to make a statement when dato does not intend to be published by newspaper, isn’t it common for dato seri to say that I want to make it off the record, isn’t that a common practice among politician?
A:​yes Yang Arif but not during the general media conference
Q:​Are you saying that during a general media conference, you cannot say anything off the record?
A;​Clearly Yang Arif it is unwise for the political leader to say that in the presence of the full media recording throughout the world. There is a possibility in a private press conference. This is not certainly the practice
Q:​Isn’t it possible for him to say that this is off the record?
A:​Yes I don’t think this is something we can assume it can happen especially for a foreign minister.
Q:​Dato seri can you look at page 42, do you accept this is the statement that the defendant made just for the information to the audience here. Do you accept this as the statement made by FM at the press release?
A:​Yes this is certainly the statement made by the foreign minister
Q:​Do you agree with me he meant by that phrase this information given by him is not for the public?
A:​I cannot agree with that
Q:​We go on to paragraph 7, having quoted the statement from the star at page 41 onwards. You have zeroed in on 3 matters under particulars of libel p44. Roman numero 1, Dato seri said that FM revealed that Dato Seri has offered FM the post of deputy prime minister as bait to switch side after the general election last year. Would you agree with me that verbatim this is not what appears in paragraph 5, the full verbatim words here. Do you agree with me the words as ‘bait’ all does not appear? That is not what he said. If we are to believe that the state department statement or rather recording is accurate. We have to assume that it is accurate. It is not identical.
A:​Yes, it is not a verbatim report I took in the context what was said based in the newspaper.
Q:​In this particular paragraph, whether it is said like that or accurately or otherwise doesn’t matter but we assume for the moment we are dealing with that paragraph, is there any statement there where if this taken to be true where dato anifah aman is saying that you are bribing him in order for him to switch side?
A:​It is not 7(1) it is on 7(3)
Q:​Now, so we now agree that 7(1) there is no suggestion that he is accusing you of bribery?
Q:​Now lets go to 7(2), he says I was personally, this is obviously from datuk seri anifah aman, I was personally offered a very lucrative position which is the deputy prime minister ship this facts are not known to the world at large. Basically, he was saying in order for dato seri to make him hop across the floor of parliament, dato seri has offered him a lucrative position. This is what dato seri is complaining about.
Q:​But dato seri agree that he is not suggesting that dato seri is bribing him.
A:​Not bribing in terms of money
Counsel for the Plaintiff:​My lady im sorry to object, in order to know there is a bribery or not, it is on the point of law. It is for the court to decide.
Q:​Yang Arif, the short answer is this Yang Arif, this is a statement that a layman will read it, whether this statement in fact can be interpretative of a bribe being offered by dato seri to dato seri anifah aman. Just that particular one, and dato seri says that this one it doesn’t. although this question that invited his answer, lastly Yang Arif will decide his answer. Whether this is a bribe or this is not a bribe.
A:​I didn’t say that it did not involve money
Q:​Ok, shall we say that it does not involve money, but whether it is bribery or not but Dato seri does not in position to comment
A:​It does not involve money, but lucrative position means higher salary as the deputy prime minister
Q:​Now we go to the 3rd one which is the interesting one, and he has started trying to buy other legislative members. I think he has not accepted the result of the last election. Now, here Dato Seri I supposed you have got your own interpretation of trying to buy other legislative members. Could you state on record to the Court what do you understand by this?
A:​It is very clear Yang Arif that he has started or taken a move or action to try and bribe people to jump
Q:​So datuk seri is equating trying to buy other legislative members as buying with money.
A:​Yes, Yang Arif
Q:​Buying with money or money’s worth
Q:​Now, datuk seri just as number 2, isn’t it possible that one can interpret that to mean, as dtuk seri is about to form the next government 16 September 2008 issue. Now in the context of Datuk Seri genuinely thinking to form the next government, is it an offence or is it unlawful for Datuk Seri to offer to the member of the government then (BN) and say if you cross I give you a ministership or I even can give you a deputy prime ministership. Is it an offence?
A:​It is not related to 3
Q:​Im not referring to 3, im just saying is it an offence for Datuk Seri to say “ why don’t you cross over, I need somebody in Sabah, if you do cross over I will give you this position. Because I need someone in my cabinet. Is it an offence?
A:​There is a presumption, but it is not an offence in this scenario
Q:​Can paragraph 3, when someone offers like Datuk Seri says by assuming that Datuk Seri were to say” alright 2 of you, if you cross over I will give you this position. Would not that be something that we can describe as buying over some of the legislative members?
A:​Yang Arif, that presumption is not acceptable. Because the negotiation must undertake the issue of policies. Not to the matter of position.
Q:​As far as Datuk seri is concern, the word buying other legislative member will only mean buying with money worth and cannot be open to other interpretation.
A:​Money worth means position also right?
Q:​It could be but it has got to be computed. Or datuk Seri wants to be more direct and say it is in reference to money?
A:​My understanding Yang Arif, different between 2 and 3. Number 2 made reference to lucrative position, number 3 made reference to money
Q:​At least we stick to it, that number 3; trying to buy is in reference to money.
Q:​Now, one other general question Datuk Seri is of course because we have established a few cases now, that party hopping in this country is not illegal.
Q:​Now, we go to page 45, you know Dato Seri you have said that the impugned words were and are defamatory or libelous of the Plaintiff and in their natural and ordinary meaning and or by implication or imputation were understood to mean that, i) those statement means that the Plaintiff is a dishonest person both in his private and his official capacity. Now, why do you choose that to be the meaning that can be attributed to the 3 statements at paragraph 7. Why Do you say that that means im dishonest person in private and official capacity?
A:​Yang Arif, we talk about good governance and the whole clever to reform against corrupt practices. And here he is trying to allege that we are buying lucrative position and although some are seem to be under qualified for that particular position for deputy prime ministership for example. It is not consistence to my profess view on issue of good governant and anti corruption drive.
Q:​Now therefore Datuk Seri is making reference in relation to 9(1) more of 7(3) and (2). Is that correct?
A:​And also 7(2),(3)and(1), you cannot be expected to be consistence on your views on governant and integrity when you choose to offer someone deem under qualified with poor track record to the post of a deputy prime minister
Q:​So Datuk seri is therefore saying that because Datuk Seri Anifah Aman is so under qualified for Datuk Seri to offer him the Deputy Prime Minister’s post is unthinkable?
A:​Yes Yang Arif, my apologies because I want to avoid any personal references to my college my foreign minister, but clearly I want to avoid having that personal reference.
Q:​Now, number 9(2), you have given a meaning that the Plaintiff is a liar, where do you get this meaning from Datuk Seri? How do you come out with the meaning that you are a liar?
A:​Yang Arif when we talk about the possibility of a change of Government, we talk about or to observe the principle of good governant. If by imputing that I bribe people to join, then clearly im lying to the members of the public.
Q:​I don’t understand Dato seri
A:​Why I professed publicly, the new government based on the reform agenda, the transparent taking people with integrity. And suddenly he is suggesting that im making move buying people who is under qualified. Of course people will say that im lying to the public
Q:​So it is connected to this fact Dato Seri, namely that because you were advocating, the governants of the highest tier, offering to an under qualified person would put you in a position of lying to the public. If is that what you were saying?
A:​Yang Arif again I apologies, I wish the learned counsel to craft it in the context which it covers the issue of offering position which did not happened, the issue on bribing people and not to personalize the issue on one person.
Q:​Now, dato seri, to cut the matter short, If you look at paragraph 9(1) write up to (8) all this meaning which you have provided, would I be correct to say that it is only attributable to 7(1)(2)and (3) if 7(1)(2)and(3) can be interpreted to be exchange of money or some kind of bribery.
A:​Yes, both in terms of money as quoted here number 2, offering lucrative position.
Q:​My question is, (1) until (8) becomes only sensible if the interpretation would give to 7 is in that line.
Q:​Now, if you were to take paragraph 10 now, paragraph 10 no doubt it is by innuendo it is identical to your claim in paragraph 9. So we don’t have to go through it. Then we go on to page 48, paragraph 17, let me read that quickly “by reason of the utterances and the publication of the impute words…” Now 17, may I ask you is it not correct that you have crystallized your claim that although he said it by words in Washington DC but your claim here is the re publication. Is it only the Star?
A:​Well we could adduce the evidence from the Star but there could be other publication.
Q:​Now we go to page 49, paragraph 19 no doubt that you disagree with my suggestion that this is only for the audience here and it is not enough and it doesn’t happen in such a setting. In 19(b) under particulars, that the Defendant caused the impuned words to be written and to be published and re published despite the Plaintiff had vehemently denied similar allegation and innuendos at all material time. You are accusing Datuk Seri Anifah Aman of causing the re publication in the Star Newspaper
A:​Yes it is only to be expected that the Government party control media
Q:​That is your accusation that Datuk Anifah Aman has caused the re publication.
Q:​Now Dato Seri we have finished with your statement of claim, now we look at the Defence has raised at page 71 the same bundle. Now just have it handy, not that I want to refer to anything extensive there but let me say this first of all, if we assume of course you deny it Datuk Seri, assuming that Dato Seri has actually made that offer to Datuk Anifah Aman, isn’t that of public interest especially in Malaysia.
A:​It is certainly not a public interest.
Q:​Asssuming Datuk Seri offered him Deputy Prime ministership, isn’t that of public interest especially in Malaysia?
A:​Specific reference, if it is assume not in the public interest. For that proposition to be made, for the public
Q:​What im saying is, if Datuk Seri has made that kind of offer, isn’t that an issue of public interest?
A:​That means at all, the scenario where the proposal has been made, of course the public should know.
Q:​Now, in that situation of course with a big presumption, I want to be fair about this because you have been denying it, in that circumstances someone like Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, when he mention that doesn’t he comes under fair comment and as well as qualified privilege to say that?Because there is a public interest
A:​If it is the truth, not when you create the story or fabricate the story.
Q:​So if it is the truth, you agree that he can make a fair comment when he disclose it to the press?
A:​I mean not even a qualified privilege, if it is the truth then everyone has the right to tell the story.
Q:​You are basically saying Datuk Seri that not everyone has the privilege to tell lies.
Q:​Now Datuk Seri, you are aware that the Defence has put up various kind of defences, I just run through a few of them; one datuk Seri is that, afull justification to say that they could justify fully the meaning that you have provided. You aware of that?
Q:​But they also gone, they have said there is a lesser meaning defamation is still defemation but not as defamatory as you have suggested. Dato Seri is aware that they have provided a lesser meaning?
A:​Yes, ive read and aware of that
Q:​Now let me take datuk Seri quickly over that page 76, in the alternative the 1st Defendant would content the word uttered by him bear a different or lesser meaning; 1)the plaintiff has offered a political inducement in a way of similar standing to the post of the Deputy Prime Minister and to convince other members of the parliament to party hop…. 2) that his conduct in this context was unprincipled 3) that his conduct in this context is undemocratic .. Do you agree with me datuk Seri that all the 3 numero roman in paragraph 7 in fact is capable of being interpreted as you have offered political inducement in a way of similar standing in order to support him in the parliament.
A:​Not in this context, I disagree
Q;​Now, do you agree with me that taken all 3 roman that It can come in the lesser meaning in the context assuming you are unprincipled. Number 3 the similar conduct as your conduct will be undemocratic in luring people to crossover is also undemocratic is also a lesser meaning?
A:​Yes, it is lesser meaning
Q:​Lastly, the lesser meaning that is provided in terms of National and international image what u did that will reflect poorly in the International image as what they were alleging in the lesser meaning
A:​I only agree on the lesser.
Q:​Now, Datuk Seri perhaps I should ask you some question now in relation to substantive issue.
(however the court stand down)

R :​Dengan izin Yang Arif, nama saya Razlan Hadri bin Zulkifli, bersama saya Cik Lela dan Cik Latheya Koya, kedua-duanya mewakili pihak Plaintif. Maaf, kami bertiga mewakili Plaintiff. Manakala yang mewakili pihak Defendan ialah Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah dan Encik Jeffrey John, Cik Sarah Abisegam, Encik Syed Ismat Syed Muhammad dan pelatih dalam kamar, Cik Noor Farhah. Tan Sri Shafee masih belum hadir tapi kita semua ada. For the Plaintif, we have only one witness which is the Plaintiff himself.

JJ : ​Yang Arif, Tan Sri Shafee is engaged in the Federal Court on a matter. I understand that it has just started about 15 minutes ago and he has requested for the matter to be stood down to at least 11.45 to enable him to attend before Yang Arif for the purposes of the trial. He requested for the matter to be stood down.

J:​​…for the Plaintiff to give statement first so that….can proceed..

JJ : ​​Very well Yang Arif.

R :​​May I call the first witness

A : ​Bahawasanya saya Anwar Ibrahim dengan sesungguhnya dan suci hati mengaku dan berikrar bahawa segala keterangan yang akan saya berikan dalam perbicaraan ini adalah benar tidak ada apa-apa yang tidak benar melainkan yang benar-benar belaka.

R:​​May I proceed Yang Arif.

Judge:​Saya akan dapatkan butir-butir yang saya mahukan sendiri.
I: ​​Your full name, age and address.

A ​Anwar Ibrahim, age 67 years. Address according to this ( refer to IC) is Pinggir Pelangi Pagi, Country Heights, Kajang, Selangor. Tapi saya duduk di Segambut.
I : ​Alamat di Segambut?

R:​Its in the witness statement, Yang Arif.
Datuk Seri, can you just sit down because I have few questions for you. My lady, we have prepared a witness statement and I just got one additional question before I marked this and I asked my Lady’s leave to ask this question. Ah sorry Yang Arif, could we just marked the document. Datuk Seri, may I bring you to question 5, question and answer 5.
Judge: ​Saya rasa masukkan dulu.

R: ​Sorry Yang Arif, Datuk Seri, have you read this witness statement and do you agree with the content of the witness statement?
A : ​Yes, Yang Arif.
R: ​May I ask the leave of Court for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to sign the witness statement

​( A signed the witness statement)

I:​The witness statement is marked as “SEPW1”

Judge: ​Statement of Evidence of Plaintiff Witness 1


R : ​May I proceed Yang Arif. Datuk Seri, in front of you there’s a bundle of document. May I take you just to the thin bundle, the common bundle. Ikatan dokumen bersama. Do you have that with you?

A : ​Yes.

R : ​May I proceed, My lady. Datuk Seri, question and answer 5, the answer refers to a copy of the reports from the United States, Department of States website. May I take you to the page 1 to 3 of the Bundle? Would you confirm that this is the document that you refer to in your witness statement?
A : ​Yes, Yang Arif.

R:​Pohon ditanda Yang Arif, ini ikatan dokumen bersama sebagai ekshibit. “P1”
Yang Arif, next question 6. Datuk Seri, at question 6, the answer to question 6 refer to article in Star newspaper, and that article can been seen at page 4 of the same Bundle. May I confirm that is the article that you refer to in question 6?


R: ​P2. And Yang Arif, jika saya boleh bawa saksi ke soalan dan jawapan 13. Datuk Seri, at question and answer 13, you referred to letter of demand of your solicitors, your then solicitors. That letter is at page 5 to 10 of the Common Bundle. Can I confirm that indeed is the letter that you instructed your solicitors to write to the Defendants?

A: ​Yes Yang Arif.

R: ​P3. Saya memohon satu lagi soalan Yang Arif, soalan berkaitan Q & A 10 Yang Arif. Datuk Seri, refer to question and answer 10, the question read as follows,

​Is there any direct discussion with the Defendant regarding the forming of a new government?

Your answer was, there was no meeting with the Defendant but there was one occasion when the Defendant telephoned me while I was overseas.

My supplementary question is this, could you please tell the Court, the circumstances of this telephone call?

A : ​Yang Arif, I was in Hong Kong to attend the Credit Suisse and Foreign Relations Conference, a friend, Mr Tony Woon informed me that Mr Anifah Aman wished to speak to me and I said its okay, please proceed. So probably next hour or so, he came back with a phone and I spoke to Anifah Aman. From Tony Woon’s phone. I don’t have Anifah Aman’s number, phone number.

R: ​Could I confirm this Datuk Seri, Do you know for a fact who called who? did Tony Woon called the defendant, or the defendant called Tony Woon. Do you have any knowledge on this?

A :​I’m not sure. The only thing i knew happened is that
Tony Woon surrendered the phone to me saying that Anifah is on the phone waiting for my response. Thats all.

R: ​​That’s all Yang Arif, I don’t have any further questions.

(Matter stood down until 3m to enable Tan Sri to cross examine A)

Cross- Examination

Q: ​Datuk Seri, I’m going to another topic, but just before I go,
Can you confirm by looking at the press statement either from the
department, or even the shorter version in the Star newspaper,
that the Defendant here, was on an occasion where he was performing his duty as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the occasion where he was present at the press release?
A : ​Yang Arif, as Foreign Minister though the statement is personal in nature.

Q : ​His presence there was as the Minister of Foreign Affairs?


Q:​You agree with me, there was a joint press release
that was also made prior to the Q&A?

A: ​​Yes.

Q :​Next question, would you agree with me the question from the press, forget the answer Datuk Seri, the questions from the press to the defendant was in relation to his capacity as a minister of foreign affairs?

A: ​​Yes.

Q: ​We move to the next subject Datuk Seri, would you agree with me
As a general principle, both sabah and sarawak were both important states for the purpose of securing the support in parliament? Sorry, the numbers in Parliament?

A: ​​Yes.

Q : ​Would you agree, that you concentrated on sabah and sarawak quite strongly during your election campaign? For the 2008?

A : ​​I covered the whole country, Yang Arif.

Q : ​​At this, you covered both Sabah and Sarawak equally well?

A:​​Extensively but certainly more time in Semenanjung.

Q: ​Would you agree that to an extent that you covered Sabah and Sarawak extensively, but more in Semenanjung.

A: ​​Yes.

Q: ​Now Datuk Seri, the election for the purposes of the record, in 2008, if you remember what the exact date was?

R:​8th March.

Q: ​​8th March.

R: ​​We’re not disputing that Yang Arif.

Q: ​You agree with me that either PKR or pakatan rakyat, as far as Sabah and Sarawak was concerned; there was a manifesto for Sabah?

A: ​​Yes, Pakatan Rakyat manifesto for Sabah.

Q: ​​Would you have a copy of the manifesto?

A: ​​Any notice but I think..dont know whether we have it here or not..

Q: ​Let me leave my question. Do you remember the manifesto, one of the manifesto in sabah was the promise that Sabahan would have their first DPM?

A:​Sabah or Sarawak
Q:​So sabah or sarawak will have their DPM?
Q:​I can ask you now, direct question as the election is over, between Sabah and Sarawak, at that time, where would you think the DPM was going to go if you had taken over the government? Sabahan or Sarawakian?
A:​We had to negotiate with the Sabah and Sarawak MPs in the event we take over and the option is still open but certainly, for the question of more qualified candidates.
Q:​At the minimum Datuk Seri, a sabahan could be a possible candidate for DPM?
A:​Sabah or Sarawak.
Q:​Who among the Sabahan could you have in mind that you might possibly have as a candidate? You must have somebody.
A:​I don’t know that you will insist on me answering, it will not only compromising but difficult for the certain candidates concerned because they are in Barisan Nasional. My reference to them will just embarrass or compromise the position of certain BN MPs. But if the question is specifically in relation to position of Datuk Anifah, then I can answer.
Q:​You have said that Datuk Anifah is less than qualified, so I want to find out, who do you have in mind possibly qualified for the position in Sabah to be DPM?
A: ​Yang Arif, clearly there has to be a person more qualified, able to influence more support in the state. But this issue must be reached through consensus among Pakatan leaders. I’m not at liberty to name.
Q: ​You’re not at liberty to name; my question is not for you to name your selection. My question is since Datuk Anifah is not qualified, he’s probably Grade C, there must Grade A and B and we want to know, I want to judge your judgment, we want to know the name of who you think is qualified?
A : ​There are some possible candidates that we’re considering, but that is not for me to decide. We work as a consensus. I’m not in a position to decide.
Q: ​We’re not asking to name anyone as a candidate Datuk Seri. But see, since you said yourself that Datuk Anifah is not qualified; sure you have someone in mind that you think is qualified?
A:​Yang Arif, I’m not at liberty because it’s not personal view. It’s a collective view of Pakatan Rakyat leaders.
Q:​But you did express your personal view about Datuk Anifah Aman, the defendant as not qualified, so why can’t you say who is qualified?
A:​With due respect to the learned counsel, I’m not arguing but the case is that you asked a specific question, did I offer to Datuk Anifah, and I said no based on the following reasons, but I cannot come here Yang Arif on behalf of party’s leadership to say that I have preferences for so and so.
Q: ​Datuk Seri, we’re not even asking one person. We’re asking who could possibly be in your mind that you could think possibly qualified. I just want to know whether there is one, two or three, or maybe none from Sabah?
A:​I’ve given my answer, Yang Arif.
Q: ​I’m putting it to you, that your answer about Datuk Anifah is not true, and that the defendant is one candidate you favour, and did in fact offer in your quest to take over the government as position of DPM?
A:​No, Yang Arif. I has good reasons to support that.
Q: ​You disagree with my suggestion which is expected. But, you are saying there are people in Sabah at the time who could be qualifed to be DPM?
A:​I’m quite certain.
Q:​When you say certain, so there were?
A: ​There were.
Q:​Was this expressed in the Manifesto, namely the quest to get a DPM from sabah or Sarawak?
A:​I believe so
Q:​Could you produce the manifesto?
A:​I believe we could do it.
Q:​Refer to question 10 of your witness statement. (quotes question and answer). May i inquire from you, when was this call made to you?
A:​I said earlier, it was during a conference in Hong Kong, the Credit Suisse Conference.
Q :​Roughly what date?​
A:​I made a reference to that.
Q:​Not in the witness statement

A :​We can ascertain the dates by looking at the dates of the conference
Q:​What do you call the event?​

A: ​Lecture organised by Credit Suisse, on the financial prospects for the region, economic prospects, organized by Credit Suisse and foreign correspondence club.
Q :​You were in hong kong?​
Q:​He called on your phone?​
A:​No, I said earlier Yang Arif, it was from Tony Woon, from sabah. It was communicated to Tony Woon, and he passed the phone to me.
Q:​It was from Tony Woon phone you spoke to the defendant?
Q:​Who is Tony Woon?​
A:​A common friend for both of us.
Q:​Who is he? A businessman? A banker?​
A :​I think he’s a business man from Kota Kinabalu, who is also an acquaintance of the defendant?
Q :​Tony Woon is available?​
A:​I believe so
Q:​Available in KL or Sabah?​
A:​In Sabah.
Q:​He was with you in Hong Kong?​
A :​Yes, he was there in Hong Kong. He suggested that I should speak to Dato Anifah Aman.
Q : ​He was there with Datuk Seri for the Conference.
A:​No, he wasn’t there for the Conference. He was a businessman, he was in Hongking and he was in touch with me. He said that he wanted to convey certain messages from Datuk Anifah Aman.
Q: ​Datuk Seri, this is an important point whether Datuk Anifah called Tony Woon or Tony Woon on your behalf called Datuk Anifah Aman, this is important to show who was trying to get who. Don’t you agree with me?
A:​Yes, I agree.
Q:​He conveyed the message and received the message from the Defendant.
A:​Yes, I don’t know who call who but the phone was passed to me.
Q:​Now, its important. Now Datuk Seri is saying that you’re not sure whether Datuk Anifah called Tony Woon or otherwise? So your earlier statement was that he called Tony Woon?
A:​No I did not say that. I said he was in communication with Datuk Anifah Aman.
Q:​No, it was in fact your statement that he called wanting to speak to you.
A:​Yes, I said he wanted to speak to me but I didn’t know started the call.
Q:​Let settle this, Datuk Seri is not sure who called who?
Q:​If Tony Woon were to call the defendant, will that be at your behest?​
A: ​ no, he flew in to represent, or to send to convey a msg from Anifah Aman. I heard he said that the defendant wanted to speak to me. so i said why not.

Q:​you are sure, physically you were in hong kong, and so was tony woon.?

Q: ​​Do you agree, this point can be settled by doing a check of the billing of thetelephone provider?​
A: ​​Yes.

Q: ​ are you sure you were not in Malaysia when the telephone call was made?
A: ​the call took place in Hong Kong.

Q: ​if we get a service provider to search the phone call, it would help to resolve the issue to an extent? yes?​
Q: ​You claim that you do not have the telephone number of the defendant? until today?​
A: ​no, i do not have.
Q : ​Datuk Anifah might have your number?
A : ​he may have my number, but he never call me
Q :​He never called you on your personal no?
Q : ​You are using personal mobile at that time?
Q:​What is the number?
A:​017..221 at the end. I cant remember my number..
Q: ​you can provide it?
A :​yes
Q: ​would you know tony woon’s number?
A:​yes, i believe so. my staff would have it.
Q:​I will also require tony woon’s number at the time.
A: ​You would have to ask him.
Q: ​if you know him, first you know his number in 2008. is that correct?
A:​yes, its fair to suggest i know his number in 2008.
Q: ​Would you have his present number?​
A : ​i believe so, my staff at the office.
Q: ​you can provide it?
A : ​Yes.
Q: ​Datuk Seri don’t remember the date or the month?
A: ​a few month after the election, the date of the Conference is available at public domain.

Q: ​would it be between may and august 2008?
A: ​its possible.
Q :​it is my instruction from my client. I put to you that the defendant’s version is that the defendant received suddenly a phone call from tony woon, as he was coming out from a particular airport in malaysia, then Tony won called him then told him that you wanted to have a word, and the phone is passed to you. That is the version he wants to pass to you.
A : ​I’ve said that, tony woon was in communication with the defendant. he met me that that defendant wanted to have a conversation with me, and i said yes. But i dont know who called whom.
Q:​Is the scenario could have happened?
A: ​yes, it’s above 5 o’clock he called me.
Q: ​i put to you, according to the defendant, when you came onto the phone; there was quite a long conversation with the defendant, and during that conversation, that you made that offer. that he were to cross over, you would offer him, in the event you took over the government post of something like DPM or akin.
A : ​there was a convo, i accept. there’s a possibility it went for 10 mins or so. But it can be long. We’ve been friend for long, it’s a long time since we have conversation, I ask about his family etc but i did not offer him a position DPM as he claimed.
Q:​but you describe him as a good friend for a long time?
A: ​Yes
Q: ​but being a good friend, you wouldn’t have discomfort talking to him?
A: ​Yes.
Q: ​the reason i ask, because you suggested such offer you wouldn’t make over the phone. i suggest because of your good relationship, and the overall circumstances, and it was urgent, the offer was made?
A:​not in this country. I’m aware of the communication system in this country. I don’t normally make such careless mistakes, serious discussions, or matters of such importance’s over the phone. it’s not feasible to make an offer over ten minutes.
Q: ​you are aware, that the defendant has influence of at least 6-7 other MPs?
A:​I believe. I follow the UMNO and Opposition politics.
Q: ​how many did he have influence?
A:​1 or 2
Q: ​not as many as 6-7
Q: ​for purpose of record, who was the Chief Minister?
A: ​Defendant’s brother, Musa Aman.
Q:​Who was still current CM, you know, Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee?
Q: ​He was the former Chief Minister of Sabah. prior to Musa Aman?
A:​Yes, correct.
Q: ​Was there a meeting that the two of you arranged in Hong Kong?
A : ​Yes, Yang Arif.
Q: ​between Yong Teck lee and you?
A: ​Yes
Q: ​This was in 2008?
A : ​Yes
Q:​​and, he spent several days with you?​
A:​​i had one meeting, i’m not sure how many days.
Q: ​could you tell the court the nature of the meeting?​
A:​he came to my suite, and we had discussions on the issue of sabah. and the possibility of change of government.
Q:​Prior to him meeting you, you gave a speech in sabah where he attended. A very signifanct speech, pertaining to giving sabah autonomy? Do you remember?​
A:​No, i can’t recall a specific speech, but certainly in line with the Pakatan manifesto of the autonomy of sabah and sarawak.

Q: ​so the issue of Sabah having autonomy was the subject of that speech?
A:​Maybe so, but i think the reference to autonomy was made prior to elections.
Q: ​but the meeting in HK was after elections?​
A: ​yes
Q:​a couple of months after elecion?​
A:​yes, i believe so.
Q:​Would it be during the period you were trying to muster support to form government ?​
A: ​Yes, there was a period where a lot of MPs had expressed dissatisfactions of BN policies. Many chose to meet me, including SAPP President, Datuk Seri Yong Teck lee.
Q: ​would you remember, in that meeting, which lasted quite a while, did you remember talking about party hopping amongst sabah MPs?
A:​There were discussions concern the strong reservations expressed by many MPs with regard to neglect, poverty and also the immigration policy in Sabah. This has of course led to many of them to say they may consider seriously joining or Supporting PR, on condition PR honor the election manifesto, on issue of governance and autonomy.
Q:​You discussed the possibility of DPM from Sabah with YTL.​
A:​There is a possibility. Public were aware, consideration will be given to a Sabah or Sarawak to be considered as DPM. It is not something that is critical to be discussed in private with any sitting member unless it is suggestion to offer YTL which does not arise.
Q: ​On the Sabahan Mps as DPM?
A:​Not the Sabahans in particular according to Pakatan Rakyat manifesto. And again, I’m not at liberty to decide on behalf of Pakatan leaders.
Q: ​Apart from that discussion, and this is another discussion, where you said to him, if SAPP were join PR, there will be at least 1 Minister from SAPP and 2 MPs.​
A: ​At that time, there had only 2 MPs, so I don’t know how can you suggest 1 Minister and 2 MPs.
Q: ​So one of the MPs is the Minister?
A:​That is not in the discussion. I wouldn’t deny, but it must be discussed further to be considered.
Q: ​Did you not tell Yong Teck Lee, “I’m looking more at sabah because i’m not getting anywhere with Taib Mahmud”​
A:​ Not true, I will not share that much informations with YTL of what transpired with other party leaders.
Q: ​how are you’re relationships? Friend or enemy?​
A: ​No, but he choses to oppose us in the last election. Im afraid that I am okay with everyone. That’s not an issue.
Q: ​there is no enmity?​
A:​they certainly have enmity. They have chosen to be rancorous in their exchanges in their personal attack. But i have refrained from doing so. My position is to be as civil as possible.
Q: ​You finally told , you told Yong Teck Lee that after saying that you’re not getting anywhere with Yaib Mahmud. The defendant is a logical choice, and the fact that his brother is CM, it would better.​
A: ​No. I did not.
Q: ​You deny?
A: ​Yes, they must be reasons why he said so after so long being silent.
Q: ​Can you tell the court, about the famous September 16 2008 all about?​
A:​After the elections in 2008, the first time in history opposition did reasonably welll, there was a lot of sentiment of judicial sentiment, media freedom, governance and corruptions not only in Semenanjung and Sabah Sarawak. Sarawak felt under represented, such as September 16. So there was this support that I received. But then we did not succeed for number of reasons. I wrote to the Speaker, the Prime Minister to ask them to convey immediate session of Parliament to pass vote of no confidence. But it was ignored, there was not even a reply from them.
40 MPs who committed to us were suddenly taken by private jet to Taipei, to study culture. And that’s the end of the story. We were not successful. We failed. But nobody explained that 40 MPs were brought to Taiwan to study agriculture development or production there.
Q:​Were the defendant among the 40?​
A:​its a possibility.
Q: ​Is there a possibility he was among the 40?​
A:​ I dont know. i’m not sure.
Q: ​Would you say, they were mostly East Malaysian?​
A: ​Mostly from sabah and sarawak. and some from semanunjung.
Q: ​These were among a majority you had hoped to cross over?​
A: ​Some were on the list, some gave firm commitments. Then they left to Taipei.
Q:​These 40 were interacting with PR?​
A:​ Yes, some chose to contact. Many other Pakatan leaders met them to have separate discussions.
Q: ​among these 40, was Zahrain Muhammad Hashim one of them?​
A: ​He was a sitting MP for Keadilan.. why would he cross over unless to cross over to other side?
Q: ​Simply, he was not?
A: ​Of course he was not. He was member of PR.
Q:​Wasn’t he at one time, a right hand man for you in Penang?​
A: ​No, he was just an MP, joined prior to the election in 2008.

Q: ​Wasn’t he your confidante when you were DPM?​
A: ​the counsel is aware as he attended the meeting for UMNO Tanjung, he was as not claimed to be a right hand man. He was a division leader. Sometimes he won, sometimes he lost.
Q: ​but he became your PKR MP?​
A: ​Yes, in 2008.
Q: ​Which division or constituency?​
A: ​Bayan Baru, he won.
Q: ​Were you in parliament when Zahrain made the statement in parliament that virtually attacks you, he said you went all out to lure BN Mps to form a new government?​
A :​Of course their speech is vulgar and rigorous. Sometimes I attend, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I …
Q: ​You know he made the speech?​
A: ​I know, im aware of it.
Q: ​He accused you of making false promises. He was then PKR MP​
A : ​He was no longer a PKR MP. After left, he offered became ambassador to Indonesia.
Q: ​That speech was made before he became ambassador. He made that speech where he acussed you not fulfilling your promises, empty promises, isn’t that correct?​
A :​You know what he said, and that’s it.
Q: ​In his speech, one of the person you wanted to take was Kimanis. i’m not surprised. Kimanis refers to Anifah Aman. ​
A : ​Yes. it was after the defendant make the statements to the media.
Q: ​He said, “You secured 32 MP to form a new government” did you make that statement?​
A: ​I didn’t mention numbers.
Q: ​But you said you had the numbers?​
A: ​Yes. That was before Taipei.​
Q: ​Did you not tell him that one of these illustrations was from Kimanis?​
A :​No, its not something you would discuss over coffee.
Q: ​Did you have this meeting?​
A : ​No
Q : ​Do you remember having this meeting with Vee Chew Keong?
A :​Yes
Q: ​Zulkfily Noorden was there, Chu Tian Chan, Datuk Johari Abdul, Datuk Rashid Din. At this meeting, you made the statement, Kimanis would be joining us.​
A : ​No such meeting took place. It is preposterous to suggest that at such informal meeting you could announce such a major thing that affect the states of the nation or our strategy of action.

Q: ​I was wondering if you would entertain stopping here, and start on Wednesday. Adjourned to Wendesday, 9am.​



they were not attending the agriculture course?
no such course took place
you were aware that these two went to taipei?
was that with your blessing?
i was informed

was that with your blessing?
we’re not the form of party that gives blessings like this
did you allow it?
i had no objection

not full knowledge
you’re saying as adviser you did not know with full knowledge what they intended to do?
they went to taipei to secure support from the 40 to cross over?
no, that was much after the event

they went there for reasons your not sure?
late september was almost the deadline.
certaintly before 16th september?

you said there was a letter (for the vote of no-confidence) you submitted to the PM?
did you give it to the PM
You promised me the sabah manifesto?
do you have it with you?
(Raslan) we dont have it. but we’ll give it when we have it.

I’m not disputing the manifesto. Because there was a state declaration we endorsed, we have to get it from … (PKR Sabah)
now, the reason why i asked for the manisfesto because, whatever is in the press, we need to call a press member. we require the manifesto to put it clear it is a manifesto. I may have asked you this. You have the name of the 40 who went to taipei.. who PKR was trying to seduce to cross over in parliament?
That assumption, i don’t accept… I don’t have the names now.
you had it at some time?
some of my MPs would know
would you be able to make a list?
i would have to get the list from other MPs
would you produce the list?
its on BN record. a BN lawyer like you would know of it.
You cant produce it?
i don’t have it
so you cannot produce it?
if yang arif instruct, i will.
can you produce now or later?
very difficult unless instructed to from yang arif.

the learned counsel can get it from the BN office
we want to know to test, the credibility of the witness… he claimed the 40 would cross over,
I never said the 40 would cross over. i said there were members among the 40 that were in the list.
You cannot produce the list of the 40, but you can produce the list of the ppl who were keen to join you
that would be unfair
i’m testing what he claimed. now the event is over… if he says its unfair, then let them say it…
(plaintiff counsel) i understand where my learned friend is coming from, about testing the credibility of my client.. the matter is about whether the plaintiff did offer the defendant a position of DPM if he cross over.. (plaintiff counsel appears to be questioning the relevance of attaining the list of names)
Let me give a quick answer to the reason why i want the list is to test. The defendant was in fact someone influential in sabah. i mentioned the number 6-7 or 8 MPs that would cross over. it has a nexus…

(Yang Arif) It is the right of the counsel to test the credibility. i have to allow.

Although it is uncomfortable, this is the court of law, the court of truth. we want to know who among the 40 that was ready of thinking of crossing over
we mooted the PM that we have the confidence vote… the motion of no-confidence would not have been done if i did not have the numbers.
among the 40 you say were already ready to cross. can you produce the list of those who were sympathetic to cross over?
the list would have been clear if we had the motion of non-confidence
do you have the list?
of course. but the list was not meant for the court, but for parliament.
If you cant produce, then say so.

can you produce the list among the 40?
it’s unethical for me to.
Can you produce it?
No, i’m not going to produce. its not whether I can or cannot. its whether I have it or i don’t have it. (*PLEASE CHECK NOTES OF PROCEEDINGS HERE)
so you wont produce it?
yes, (he won’t produce it)
are you aware in a publication in Malaysianinsider in 2008, the defendant said he had accused you of the same thing as he did in the US, but you never took him to court and you denied it?
what article is he referring to?
there was an article. the defendant had said it before and accused you of trying to buy him. are you aware of it?
i’m not sure what article you are referring to.
you’re not aware..
i’ll let you reproduce it to me.
you have answered in some way that you did not make the offer to the defendant for DPM or otherwise. Did you at all invite the defendant to cross over?
can i reiterate what i said.. anifah aman sent an emissary to talk to me, that was the position
you never invited Anifah Aman to cross over?
The circumstances werent right. yes or no is very confusing. it is a politically loaded quesiton. i have to explain it in the context..
Did you invite anifah aman at all to cross over? you can explain why it is a no.
I did not
did you in some BN MPs to cross over? maybe you did not invite due to technical definition
There was a public invitation. I did invite all BN MPs.
including Anifah Aman?
If defendant were to cross over, would it be advantageous to PKR or pakatan rakyat?
to the poeple, for good governance…
would you consider the cross over of the defendant into PR as advantageous to PR?
would you consider if the defendant crossed over, he could create a catalyst for others to crossover?
not necessarily.
who is lawyer ansari from KK?
who was he to PKR?
2008, a head of division
at the launching of the second manifesto, he was present
yes, but ansari is a member of keadilaan, i recall, in 2008, he was probably one of the division leaders of PKR.
one of the more influential leaders in Sabah?
yea, one of the leaders there
is he still in PKR?
i don’t believe so, he was not fielded as a candidate
he is not in PKR because he was not fielded?
i’m not sure, but he’s certainly not fielded
someone like you would know if he’s still a member of PKR?
we have half a million members
so you’re not sure if he’s stil a member
i’m not sure. i’ve not seen as official statement of resignation.
you mentioned Tony Voon as a person from Sabah. a businessman?
A businessman

can be voon or vun?

would you know if the defendant has your number?
i wouldn’t know if he has my number. he has not called me on my phone. possibility in the UMNO days, but not from 1998 till now.
Had he perhaps had called you in your days in BN?
15 years ago, yes
but you never change your number?
yes, from after i was released from prison 2005.

the convo that you had with the defendant, when you said there was no invitation. what was it all about?
he mentioned his willingness to support our agenda. and support Parti Keadilaan Rakyat in a vote of no-confidence, if and when we vote in parliament.
the conversation, was pertaining to the subject of crossing over?
did he express interest to cross over?
yes, and there’s also evidence that his earlier statements in the media, that he did make an indication that he’s completely disgusted with UMNO and BN policies then
but he also made statements that he’s never thought of crossing over. you’re aware?
that was after. prior to that, he was quite sympathetics.
could you produce such a report?
.. i will try yang arif.
can we agree that if you can’t produce this document, it doesn’t exist?
no, i will try to produce it.
Do you know Dr. Puad Zarkashi?
yes, former deputy minister defeated in last elections by PKR
so you know?
did anyone from PKR or PR contact him in 2008 for crossing over?
i’m not aware.
Dr.Puad is from Johor. are you aware that PKR or PR attempted to get him to cross over?
no, i’m not.
Are you are that Dr. Puad was one of those who went to Taipei, Taiwan?
i’m not sure
is he on the list of the 40 that was sympathetic to you?
i’m not sure
what is YB Nasution in PKR or PR in Septmber 2008?
he is not secretary general to PKR. at the time, director of strategy. i’m not absolutely certain. but he was a prominent leaders of PKR
what was Tian Chua then?
a prominanent leader. Head of information.
what about the MP for Kuantan, Fauziah?
Head of womens wing. MP for Kuantan
You’re aware all went to taiwan?
i’m not sure about Fauziah
Are you aware that all the three were trying to get Dr. Puad? to contact him to cross over the floor of parliament?
i’m not aware. of what they did in Taipei? no, i’m not aware.
Are you aware that on 19 September 2008, 3 days after 16 September… actually, before that, i need to ask.. who is Dr.Abdul Rahim Gaus?
he is a proiminent leader of keadilaan.
what about Azman Hussein? is he in PKR now or in 2008?
he is one of the supporters
Are you aware that on 19 September, at about 2 or 3am in the morning, Dr. Gaus, and Azman tried to meet Dr. Puad at a bus stand lama at batu pahat to plead with him? because you said he is a key man in Johor.
How would i know. it’s 16 september. 2/3am is ridiculous.
Are you aware at 2 or 3 am in the morning that they were trying to get Dr.Puad to cross over?
I’m not aware.

you’re not aware?
i’m not aware.
did you have a strategy for people to sign a statutory declration, cause you intended to send it to the Agung to show that you had the majority confidence in Parliament?
no, it was a motion of no-confidence. a letter to the PM.
i don’t want to take you by surprise, that’s why i’ve asked you these questions.So i’m not accused and you’re given a chance.

i’ve been instructed by Dr.Paud that Dr.Rahim Gaus at the Batu Pahat bus stand, that he made a phone call to you, and you spoke to Dr.Paud at that time, at that night?
at 2am?
i cant recall, but not likely
Then you said to Dr. Puad, he put it on loudspeaker. You said “Puad, we have enough numbers, we still need a malay MP from Johor like you to be with us”, do you remember?
No. not on the 19th, makes no sense.
Dr. Puad replied, “I’m a johorian, Umno was born in johor…the Agung won’t allow it”, remember Puad saying this to you?
doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t make sense for a sitting MP to do such a thing, just because the Agung won’t allow it.
you then retorted to him, “Puad we have strong support from the 4 sultan. perlis, Terranganu, perak..”
i’m not in conversation with the sultan.
But you may have claimed.
there was no such claim.
the conversation then ended on a simple note, Dr. Puad then told Dr.Gaus that he will have to do a special prayer to get directions. he came back to Dr.Gaus on 19th September, and he said, “i’m prepared to be opposition, but i’m not prepared to cross over…”

You’re familiar with Datuk Seri Ghafur Salleh.?
in 2008 was he a member of PKR?
he’s in umno
so he’s never crossed?

are you aware that YB Nasution contacted him to cross over?
i’m not aware, but there is a possibility.
two more persons. YB Nassir Ibrahim Fitri, MP for Kuala Nerus?
yes, terranganu MP.
Are you aware that this MP was also approached to cross over?
no. there’s a possibility, but im not aware
you know YB Richard Riot?
MP from Sabah?
are you aware that an approach was made?
possibly. i’m not prepared to discount the possibility.
are you aware of Dauk Ramie bin Unggi? sabah?
not sure
You’re not sure of who he is?
I’m not sure. was he an MP?

14 April 2008, you made a ceramah.. Kampung baru?
in short you said, ramai kawan kawan want to cross over?
22 April 2008, you had an interview with Jim Middleton?
you reiterated a very focused question by him. you said Pakatan will take over the government of the day in malaysia. you said “we already have the numbers”. we have recorded this. are you aware?

8 June 2008… you again reiterated the same position that you got the numbers?
30 June 2008, you made a statement outside the Turkish embassy. you made an announcement for your position to stand for the bi-eleciotn. you reiterated that you had the numbers to take over.
yes, substance is right. dates not sure
28 August 2008, you gave an interview to Al Jazeera. you again said that you are just waiting to take over of Putrajaya? ya?

Then 12 September 2008, YB Tian chua and you said that you had the numbers, and would take over on 16th September?
15 September 2008, ceramah Anwar di Kelana Jaya, where you say… have submitted a letter to Badawi.. about handing over.. is this correct?
16 September, you had a persidangan akbar.. there was an interview. you said. “we had a slight majority, of course an excess, more than 31”. the interviewer asked… , you said “… we will announce by the hour. this morning I received a signed note”.. did you say that?
yes, possiblity.
18 September, another presiding akbar.. the interviewer asked you, “if you have the numbers, go. how long do you have to wait?”… you said, “you are too kind…….” is that correct?
10 October 2008, ceramah di Kota Bharu. you said.. (you had the numbers) did you say that? more or less?
13 October, sidang parliament bermula. the question was asked, “are you going to move for the vote of no confidence”, you said, “for now, our focus is on the budget”.
yes. … i have also avoided giving dates, except for the motion of non-confidence.

then the reporters asked, what happened to September 16? you said “don’t ask, …. mungkin sebelum raya”, did you say that?
yes, possibly.
no where do you blame (the failure of 16 September on) the visit to Taipei.
yes, but i have many other statements where i have.
i put to you that, you had devised a mechanism to garner support from the Barisan National MPs so that there will be a massive cross over in parliament, and therefore, PR would be the new government? you had devised a method for you, PKR, PR, to pursue BN MPs to cross over.
not qute coorect.
i put to you, one of the method that you employed to make the method work was to say “i’ve got these numbers already”, but in actual fact you didn’t have it. It was instead to instill fear.

One of the mechanisms you employed was to create a scenario of fear and confidence that you’ve got numbers when you don’t have numbers.
not true, we had the numbers.
the other strategy was to make promises, to leading members of BN, that if they cross over, this is the deal. nothing corrupt. the strategy was to make promises about possible positions these BN MPs would hold if they cross over.

do you agree that at one time you contemplated if you became PM, and take over the government, there would be more than one DPM. you contemplated?
a possiblity, yes.
you considered a body of states to have one DPM?

i further put it to you, because these strategies were based on facts that did not exist, that is why you kept postponing the date of 16 September several times.
i don’t agree.
Shafee completes cross-examination. Shafee asks for right to recall witness.

Raslan (Plaintiff Counsel)

you have been cross examined at length. i have a few questions. yesterday, you were asked about the state department interview by the defendant, and the statements made by the press conference in Washington. You were also asked about the star newspaper report. you recall?
you are today suing for defamation. are you suing based on the star or based on the state department report?
you were questioned and it was suggested that you had a meeting. Zahrain, Noordin, Wee Chew Keong was there. You mentioned that Kimanis was to be the designated DPM. You disagreed. you called it preposterous. please explain to court.
any such deliberations.. I would not discuss such decisions in such a informal gathering. especially such hyper sensitive issues such as this. secondly, these members were not of importance in the leadership council to be given such information. i cannot accept such statements.
who do you mean are not in the leadership council
Zulkifli Noordin was not, Zahrain was not in the leadership council. He was a state chief and head of division. and so was Wee Chew Keong. Tian Chua was part of the leadership council.
you disagreed that you would not consider the defendant to be a DPM. why?
he was an MP, leader of UMNO division, and clearly would not meet our guidelines, our criteria as a possible candidate of a DPM. i certainly do believe as i look to yesterday, there were more qualified candidates from Sabah and Sarawak.
there were more qualified to your mind?
you mentioned, you were pressed to reveal names of then BN MPs whom you stated had informed your party that they were willing to cross over. can you explain why you cant divulge those names?
do we have the numbers? we do. otherwise i wouldn’t have asked for a special session from the Prime Minister. Secondly, where members and leaders confide with you… you can then choose to unnecessarily deny. i have strong evidence otherwise. If i had no confidence to take over, i wouldn’t have embarrassed myself or entire PR, to ask the parliament to convene in a special session to vote on a no confidence. i have a letter to that effect.
you were asked about a meeting you had with Yong Teck Lee. You supposedly discussed a Sabahan to be a DPM. you disagreed strongly. Why?
i did discuss with Yong Teng Lee. He represented a small party. He (the party, SAPP) had two MPs. I certainly did not make specific reference to the case of only a Sabahan would be appointed as DPM. I also persistently said from Sabah and Sarawak.
It would be politically unsound to confide with Yong Teck Lee, who represents a small party, on an issue that would jeopardise our interests. It is political suicidal. We would be in a disarray.
you were worried if you told Yong Teck Lee of any plans to appoint the defendant as DPM, that news would leak?
that would be to the expense of PR, as there were more qualified contenders…
when my learned friend asked you, did you invite the defendant to cross over, you wanted to say yes, but finally you said no. could you please explain to the court what your answer would be. did you invite the defendant to crossover?
the suggestion by the learned council… it was TonyVoon who was in communication with the defendant. Tony Woon had alerted me that the defendant wanted to talk… there was a conversation by the defendant, that i would accept.. it’s nice, its time for Sabah and Sarawak to stand up for you rights. and the poverty in sabah and sarawaks is serious….
We (PKR) can compete in terms of policies and dispersement of funds for more effect, that we can compete.
you were taken to several dates by my learned friend. he ended by saying that at no time did you suggest that (the events in) Taipei was the reason for your inability to follow through (with 16 September). do you recall where you made statements with regard to Taipei, as to why you couldn’t form a new government?
At that time, i said this is the way they choose to steal MPs, there is a problem. two reasons i have always used.
1. it was the government, that was not willing to face us in parliament. they were fearful that i could produce the numbers. in parliament. in our case, there was no response to my letter for no-confidence.
2. i did refer to specifically to the taipei visit. (to the public)

Next date, 3pm, after prayers, Friday Afternoon



Published in: on August 29, 2014 at 16:54  Comments (5)  

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,104 other followers