Mat King Leather durhaka pada Sultan Perak?

 

Mat King Leather

Mantan-banduan-salahguna-kuasa Anwar “Mat King Leather” Ibrahim memang terkenal sebagai pemimpin politik yang sanggup berbohong, manipulasi fakta dan menghasut dan menabur perasaan benci demi untuk memanipulasikan emosi, dalam usaha strategik untuk ‘merampas kuasa’. ‘Politik Pembohongan’ dan ‘Politik Kebencian’ merupakan strategi untuk meraih sokongan dan kemudian kuasa, kerana secara demokratik dan dasar konvensyenal beliau tidak mungkin dipilih.

Namun menghasut agar rakyat membenci Raja Raja Melayu, yang menjadi payung sistem sosial dan penaung Perlembagaan dan undang undang adalah sesuatu yang ramai tidak percaya beliau tergamak lakukan.

Setelah dipecat dari jawatan Timbalan Perdana Menteri pada 2 September 1998 dan UMNO keesokan harinya, Anwar telah dengan jelas membuktikan bahawa beliau tergamak untuk memperkuda emosi orang awam dengan ‘Politik Kebencian’ untuk rakyat bangkit menentangkan institiusi, sebagaimana lahirkan pergerakan politik jalanan dan rusuhan ‘Reformasi’. Anarki merupakan modus operandi bagi mencapai cita cita politik.

Namun, kami diberitahu bahawa ujud bukti yang jelas dengan visual video bahawa Ketua Pembangkang ini tergamak untuk menghina dan menghasut rakyat menentang DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan Perak dalam kemelut ‘peralihan kuasa’ dari Pakatan Rakyat kepada BN pada 5 Februari 2009, apabila dua ADUN PKR Osman Jailu dan Jamaluddin Radzi dan seorang ADUN DAP Hee Yit Foong keluar meninggalkan parti mereka dan menyokong BN.

Sekiranya bukti ini benar, maka amat malang bagi rakyat Malaysia apabila ada pemimpin politik yang tergamak BIADAP dan DURHAKA sebegini!

Mari kita sama sama tunggu perkembangan ini.

 

Published in: on January 31, 2011 at 23:45  Leave a Comment  

Keyakinan ‘Tradisi Membela Rakyat’ kembali

 

Calon BN dalam PRK DUN N05 Azahar Ibrahim menang

UMNO menang lagi mengalahkan PAS. Calon BN Mohd. Azahar “Tok Ai” Ibrahim bagi Pilihanraya Kecil DUN N05 Tenang telah menang mengalahkan Normala Sudirman.

Keputusan rasmi: BN menang di Tenang dengan majoriti 3,707

30/01/2011 10:11pm

LABIS 30 Jan. – Barisan Nasional (BN) mengekalkan kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Tenang di Johor apabila calonnya, Mohd Azahar Ibrahim mengalahkan calon Pas, Normala Sudirman dengan majoriti 3,707 undi.

Mohd Azahar memperoleh 6,699 undi, manakala Normala 2,992 undi.

Keputusan penuh:

N05: TENANG, JOHOR

Jumlah pengundi: 14,753

KEPUTUSAN:

Normala Sudirman (Pas) 2,992 undi

Mohd Azahar Ibrahim (BN) 6,699 undi

Jumlah mengundi 9,833 pengundi

Peratus mengundi 67 peratus

Undi rosak 142 undi

Majoriti 3,707 undi

Penyandang: Sulaiman Taha (BN)

Undi diperolehi: 6,367

Majoriti: 2,492 – Bernama

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

Peningkatan majoriti PRK ini meningkat sebanyak 48.75%. Peti undi Labis, Labis Timur dan Tenang Station memperlihatkan undi masyarakat Cina meningkat berbanding PRU 12 8 Mac 2008 dimana BN kecundang. Jelas dakyah Pembangkang terutama usaha parti Chauvinis Cina DAP untuk mempengaruhi masyarakat Cina Johor gagal. Isu yang dibawa PAS untuk menjejaskan masyarakat Melayu terutama FELDA juga amat meleset.

Dari data ini, calon BN mendapat 68% dari undi yang dibuang manakala calon PAS hanya mampu meraih 30.4% sokongan dari pengundi DUN Tenang. Ini menunjukan BN mampu meraih 2/3 keyakinan dan sokongan masyarakat Labis. Sekiranya cuaca lebih baik dan tiada kejadian banjir sekitar Labis dan jika jumlah mereka yang keluar mengundi pada tahap 80%, maka dari polar undi yang  berjaya diraih BN berkemungkinan besar mempamirkan jumlah mutlak BN sebanyak 8, 025 undi atau majoriti sebanyak 5, 000 undi . Ini merupakan prestasi yang amat memberansangkan iaitu peningkatan undi mutlak sebanyak 26% dan majoriti sebanyak 100%.

Tahniah di ucapkan kepada jentera BN yang diterajui Timbalan Perdana Menteri Tan Sri Muhyiddin Mohd. Yassin merangkap Timbalan Pengerusi BN, MB Johor Dato’ Abdul Ghani Othman merangkap Pengerusi BN Johor dan Pengarah PRK DUN Tenang dan seluruh jentera BN.

Kemampuan MCA Johor terutama Timbalan Menteri Pertanian Chua Tee Yong merangkap MP Labis untuk meningkatkan undi masyarakat Cina juga wajar diberikan penghargaan. Presiden MCA Dato’ Seri Chua Soi Lek juga berkerja keras untuk menentukan masyarakat Cina Labis didekati.

‘Tradisi Membela Rakyat’ dengan nada dan gagasan ‘1 Malaysia’ berjaya dikekalkan dan keyakinan majoriti rakyat sudah jelas kembali. Ini berkat program Economic Transformation Plan (ETP) yang sudah sedikit sebanyak mengembalikan keyakinan dalam cabaran suasana ekonomi global yang gawat.

 

Published in: on January 30, 2011 at 23:45  Comments (2)  

When will Mat King Leather & Azmin be issued of ‘show cause’ letter?

 

Lied to and Liar

Another one bites the dust. PKR Padang Serai MP Gobalakrishnan threw in his party towels this morning, via Twitter. He joins five other PKR MPs namely Dato’ Seri Zahrain Hashim (Bayan Baru), Zulkifli Nordin (Kulim-Bandar Baru), Tan Tee Beng (Nibong Tebal), Hj Mohsin Fadzil (Bagan Serai) and Wee Choo Keong (Wangsa Maju) to turn their backs against PKR, namely Former-abuse-of-power-convict Anwar “Mat King Leather” Ibrahim.

Published: Saturday January 29, 2011 MYT 11:57:00 AM
Updated: Saturday January 29, 2011 MYT 3:58:57 PM

Padang Serai MP Gobala quits PKR (Updated)

By S. ARULLDAS

KULIM: Padang Serai MP N. Gobalakrishnan has quit PKR, saying that the party leadership, especially, adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been deaf to grievances.

He will continue to serve the people as an independent MP until the next general election.

He also plans to form a non-governmental organisation to fight for the people’s rights, he told a press conference in Lunas on Saturday.

Gobala, a former MIC Youth leader and founding member of PKR in 1999, has been slamming the party leadership for weeks and was issued a showcause letter recently.

He said Saturday he chose to quit because the leadership was planning to remove him.

“So, I thought it would be wiser for me to quit the party now rather than being forcibly removed.”

He reiterated his allegation that Anwar’s blue-eyed boy Azmin Ali (deputy president) was now in total control of the party.

“Azmin’s boys are predicting that Anwar will go to jail in two or three months time so he (Azmin) will take control of the party in the absence of Anwar.

“Azmin is powerful and has the money to control the party. This was evident during the recent party elections,” he said.

He also alleged that Anwar was practicing a divide-and-rule policy where Indians in the party were concerned by appointing his lawyer N. Surendran as a vice-president to look into Indian affairs when there were far better qualified Indians in the party.

Gobala reiterated that he has lost confidence in Anwar, who had long advocated reforms but failed to deliver it in his own party.

He said he has also lost confidence in the ability of Pakatan Rakyat to capture Putrajaya as the Opposition leader (Anwar) could not even settle his internal party matters.

He denied that his announcement on Saturday had anything to do with Sunday’s Tenang state by-election in Johor but was made due to the political developments within the party and that he had just returned from an overseas trip.

He also pledged that he would not be joining any other party, including MIC.

He also blamed Anwar for failing to resolve the problems in Perak, which led to the loss of the state to Barisan Nasional and resignation of several other PKR elected representatives in Kedah and Penang.

Asked if any of his supporters would leave PKR, he said it was up to them to decide.

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

Gobala cited the same reasons that the five cited. It is also the same storyline that many notable others left PKR and the realisation of Anwar’s sordid dreams. Dr Chandra Muzaffar (former Deputy President), Abdul Rahman Othman (former Deputy President), Dato’ Dr Jeffrey Kitingan (Vice President), Ezam Md Nor (former Youth Chief), Dato’ Sallehuddin Hashim (former Secretary General), Dato’ S Nalla Karupan (former Treasurer General) and others.  This is without withstanding personalities such as Anwar’s own blue-eyed-boy Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim, Anwar’s own personal solicitor Zainur Zakaria, Anwar’s Private Secretary Anuar Shaari, Ruslan Kassim, Lokman Noor Adam, Marina Yusuf and ADUNs such as Osman Jailu, Jamaluddin Radzi and Badrul Hisham Abdullah are amongst tens of thousands who left PKR when the reality sets in and realisation points them towards the worthless struggle guised by deceit, lies and false hopes.

PKR Leaders who realised they were deceived by Anwar

Now what is left about PKR is all about Anwar & Co and nothing else. Anwar ‘The Compulsive Liar” Ibrahim is the Adviser, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (wife) is the President, Azmin Ali (confidante and probable ‘partner’) is the Deputy President and Nurul Izzah Anwar (daughter) is the Vice President. Everyone else is simply complementary to Anwar achieving his sordid dreams.

How and why PKR members stommach all these is simply baffling. During the ‘Political Tsunami’ of 12th General Elections on 8 March 2008, PKR got a earth shattering improvement of 3,100% seats in the Dewan Rakyat from one single seat (Permatang Pauh) in 20004 to 31 in 2008. PKR managed to get an aggregate of 1,503, o80 votes in 2008 as compared to 578, 481 in 2004.  That is an amazing improvement of 259.8%, within a single electoral term.

Kabinet Pakatan Rakyat Anwar Ibrahim yang masih belum berjaya dilunaskan janji 16 Sept 2008 itu

For the first time, Anwar led Oppositions now calling themselves ‘Pakatan Rakyat’ managed to unprecedentedly denying  BN the 2/3 majority in the Dewan Rakyat and 5 + 1 control of states. In less than six weeks later, the ‘Ketuanan Rakyat’ basis of ideological motto if ever they take over the Federal Government was given birth in Sultan Sulaiman Club, Kg. Baru, Kuala Lumpur 23 Aoril 2008. Then they became very ambitious when in less than five months later, in front of a crowd in Kelana Jaya Anwar promised that Pakatan Rakyat would be taking over the Federal Government “Within a few days after 16 September 2008″.

The Star report on that event:

Tuesday September 16, 2008

Anwar insists he has enough Barisan MPs to form government

By LOONG MENG YEE, LISA GOH, STEVEN DANIEL, LESTER KONG and CHEOK LI PENG

PETALING JAYA: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim insists he has the numbers to form the next Government.

However, he did not give details of how many Barisan Nasional members will cross over, or their names.

At Pakatan Rakyat’s 45th Malaysia Day celebration yesterday, Anwar said he had sought a meeting with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to discuss a smooth transition of power.

Showing support: The Pakatan gathering at the Kelana Jaya Stadium last night drew thousands of supporters.

“We have handed a letter signed by all Pakatan Rakyat leaders to Pak Lah. We will give him one or two days to give his response,” he said during his speech at the rally in Kelana Jaya stadium last night.

A group of Pakatan Rakyat MPs had turned up at the Prime Minister’s Office earlier in the day to hand over a letter from their leaders to Abdullah.

The MPs – PKR’s Johari Abdul, DAP’s Loke Siew Fook and PAS’ Dr Hatta Ramli – claimed the letter was “definitely something related to the planned Sept 16 takeover”.

PAS secretary-general Datuk Kamaruddin Jaafar, in his speech, said the celebration marked “a clear and concrete plan towards the change in Government”.

When interviewed later, Kamaruddin claimed that the new Government would be formed in the next few days.

(From left) Khalid, Dr Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Anwar, Kit Siang and Guan Eng.

Asked why Anwar did not reveal the numbers or the names of the MPs, Kamaruddin replied that it was due to logistical reasons.

“Some of them are still overseas as you know. Some have been told to stay put in Macau,” he said.

He said Pakatan had obtained the MPs’ word to cross over via signed documents and in other various ways that satisfied the Pakatan leaders of their commitment.

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

The take over never materialised and its over two years now. In fact, today PKR is in far worse situation when they only have 25 out of 31 seats won in 2008. In the final analysis, PKR members who gave the rakyat so much hope for the thumping mandate seemed to be short changed when it is just a little over half term to the end of the electoral period.

Pakatan Rakyat partners should be worried about this grave downtrend of PKR. DAP now holds the majority control in the Oppositions’ bench with 28 MPs against PKR’s 26 and PAS’s 24. PKR lost of 19.35% MPs within less than 36 months is by far should be deemed ‘unacceptable’.

Anwar “Mat King Leather” Ibrahim and Azmin Ali have now become a liability to PKR, if not PR.

Shouldn’t the party which was supposed to fight ‘justice for the rakyat’ demand that Anwar and Azmin themselves should be issued with a showcause letter, first? After all, PKR did insist that Gobalakrishnan reply the showcause letter. Thereafter, Pakatan Rakyat should also issue PKR with a show cause letter.

 

Published in: on January 29, 2011 at 20:02  Comments (12)  

Fearing own past: Leave Abdullah Hussain’s work alone

 

Abdullah Hussain: A nationalist & national laureate

History is a very important and integral component of a civilisation to understand their past and learn, so that they can move forward and achieve greater heights. History is very much the soul of a civilisation and its race. Philosopher George Santayana once quipped the failure to recognise history as:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

The enrichment of any ethnic legacy and history is by far should not be demeaned on how, why, where, what and when the history or historical legacies and heritage did happen itself. It could be shameful or even a heritage embarrassment but it only serves as a reminder what should or should not be done or avoided. Nor should it be latched for an indefinite punishment for the descendants.

Lately, the controversy raised by MIC President Dato’ Murugiah on the novel “Interlok” by national laureatte Dato’ Abdullah Hussain really got a lot of the Malaysian Indians stirred up when the word ‘pariah’ is used to depict an Indian immigrant character ‘Maniam’ in the book. In the book, Maniam found that he is no longer treated as a ‘pariah’ when he found his new livelihood here in Malayan Peninsular, which is much different from his motherland, the Indian sub-continent.

MIC wants offensive word dropped from novel



KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 15, 2011):
The ‘Interlok’ issue on the word, ‘pariah’ should be “locked”, said MIC president Datuk G. Palanivel.

Palanivel (centre) and Devamany (left) at the
Ponggal celebrations. At right is MIC Youth
Chief T. Mohan.

While it was not a political issue, it was nevertheless, a sensitive one to the Indian community in the country, he said, adding that the party was adamant in wanting the offensive word dropped from the novel.

‘Interlok’, written by National Laureate Datuk Abdullah Hussein, is currently used as a literature textbook for Form Five, beginning this year.

Palanivel hoped the five-man panel shortlisted by the party to have discussions with the education ministry over the usage of the word in the novel, would be able to bring closure to the sensitive issue.

He was speaking to Bernama after attending the 1Malaysia Ponggal celebrations at the MIC headquarters here today.

The MIC has selected Hindu Sangam president R. S. Mohan Shan, Universiti Malaya’s former head of Indian Studies Department Dr S. Singaravelu, the department’s current head, Associate Professor Dr S. Kumaran, MIC education bureau chairman Datuk Dr T. Marimuthu and former education ministry official G. Krishnabagwan to be in the panel.

MIC vice-president Datuk S. K. Devamany hoped the issue, which he described as “just a small issue”, should not be blown out of proportion and taken advantage of, by certain groups out to get political mileage.

However, the deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department disagreed over the usage of the novel as a text book for Form Five students whom he felt were too young to understand the caste system as portrayed in the novel.

“We don’t want this issue to create disharmony between teachers and students,” he said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk T. Murugiah said the public complaints bureau under his supervision had received 27 complaints against the novel.

MIC Youth secretary C. Sivarraajh said the movement, in cooperation with Koperasi Buku Malaysia Berhad, was planning to organise a debate on the subject at Rumah University, University Malaya on Jan 26.

Representatives from the party, teaching profession and the national writers association are expected to take part in the discussion.–Bernama

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

It was politicized to a point of an ultimatum issued, at the juncture where BN is facing a by-election. It should be seen as a political black-mail, since the Indian ethnic form a very crucial ‘deciding factor’ in the N 05 Tenang by-election where no single race form the majority of the constituency.

A discourse was actually held on Wednesday to dislodge the ‘stand-off’. Despite its well representation of the Indian ethnic community, the discourse did not achieve anything. Some quarters felt that the issue was blown way out of proportions by quarters with ulterior motives.

The controversy created a polemic to the point where Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education Tan Sri Muhyiddin Mohd. Yassin had to explain that ‘Interlok’ is a work of fiction and not a historical document, where “Words can be changed”.

‘Interlok’ stays

2011/01/28
By V. Shankar Ganesh
shanky@nst.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: Interlok will be retained as a literature textbook but sections deemed sensitive to the Indian community will be amended.

Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said the decision was reached following discussions yesterday between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, MIC president Datuk G. Palanivel, MIC deputy president Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam and himself.

He said in a statement they had come to an agreement to continue using the novel for the literature component of the Bahasa Malaysia subject for Form Five students. The novel will continue to be used in Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, Selangor and Negri Sembilan.

Muhyiddin, who is also deputy prime minister, said an independent panel would be set up to study what amendments were needed and it would then submit recommendations to the government. He said the panel would comprise linguists, academicians, literary figures and representatives from Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka and the Indian community.

Muhyiddin said the novel would be used nationwide only after the amendments had been made and pending that, the Education Ministry would direct teachers to continue teaching the subject using the existing syllabus. “I believe we have enough time to make the detailed amendments so that there will not be any more disputes over the novel.” Muhyiddin said the decision was made after taking into account the views of various parties that Interlok was a good novel to nurture and strengthen unity among the multireligious and multicultural population in Malaysia.

“As such, the decision to retain the novel with amendments is the best solution. We will ensure that any amendments made will not affect the storyline of the novel and the noble message that the author wants to convey.” Palanivel, meanwhile, said he wanted independent panellists to have a careful look at what was being edited so that no further dispute would arise.

Federation of National Writers Association (Gapena) executive secretary Abdul Aziz Mohd Ali said the body supported the ministry’s decision to use Interlok as a textbook. He said the only acceptable change that could be made to the novel was to add a glossary for the word “pariah” to better explain it.

The move to adopt the novel, written in 1971, as a literature text for Form Five students from this year, had sparked a heated debate over its suitability, in particular between Indian community leaders and Malay literary enthusiasts and academicians.

The former has called for the word “pariah” to be removed from the novel or for its withdrawal altogether from the syllabus.

The latter, on the other hand, insists that the value of the book lies in its overall theme of unity and ethnic integration.

The novel is set in Malaya between the early 1900s and the country’s independence from Britain. It focuses on the challenges faced by three deprived families — Malay, Chinese and Indian — in eking out a living.

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

The word ‘pariah’ which was used one a single page in the novel was made to stir up sensitivities of the Malaysian Indians is about a social stratification system known as the ‘caste system’. Lets ask these questions:

1. Why is the word “pariah” be ‘offensive’?

2. Isn’t that part of the ‘caste system’?

3. Didn’t Indians of the Hindu faith practice in the Indian sub-continent practice the ‘caste system’?

4. Did Indians immigrants in Malaysia (then Malaya) practice the same ‘caste system’ or any of it derivatives?

5. Where there ever any non Indian ethnic impose this ‘caste system’ onto the Indians?

If any if not all the answers to questions is a ‘yes’, then what is the problem with the novel “Interlok”? Abdullah Hussein did not make up the ingredients in his novel. Neither did he attempt to manipulate the circumstance relating to how the word was used in his novel.

The over-zealot in the sensitivities of the issue is seen as very much an effort to harp on something very trivial. Then again, Murugiah is a champion of controversies. Why he is still having a Deputy Minister’s position is still baffling. Not so long ago, he was expelled from PPP for the controversies that he created.

By the way, this ‘pariah’ issue is a very much a BN-raised issue. This is because it is apparent that MIC is the only viable champion of the Malaysian Indians. DAP is very much a Chinese Chauvinist party where they could not care less about the Indian ethnic (as per the Kg Buah Pala episode). Despite harping on the emotions and sentiments of the Malaysian Indians (as per the HINDRAF episode November 2007), PKR actually lost its relevance to ‘defend’ the interest of the Malaysian Indians when the Deputy President candidate and darling of party Supremo Azmin Ali called Gobalakrishnan as ‘pariah’.

A reminder what happened three months ago entrenched deep within the PKR virtuoso of deceit:

 

Azmin called Gobala a pariah and Anwar says nothing.

KUALA LUMPUR: The PKR party election saga has taken a new twist with Padang Serai MP N. Gobalakrishan threatening to quit the party unless election irregularities are addressed.

He also accused deputy president aspirant Azmin Ali of manipulation and criticised the election committee, calling it spineless.

He said the committee was not independent and would only make decisions after consulting certain people.

“If the party fails in ensuring democracy and transparency, it is pointless for me to continue,” he told a press conference at the Parliament lobby yesterday.

Asked if Azmin was the power behind the election committee, Gobalakrishnan said: “I think there is no one else but him.”
He claimed that Azmin had been manipulating the party election results and that his working relationship with Kedah and Selangor had suffered because of Azmin.

Gobalakrishnan also accused Selangor executive councillor Xavier Jayakumar of teaming up with Azmin.

He claimed that Xavier’s family members were involved in manipulating the elections in several divisions, including Kelana Jaya and Hulu Selangor.

“Yet, no action has been taken against him. Is it because Azmin had taken him along to Jakarta for a meeting?” he asked.

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

Whether or not Gobalakrishann is a ‘pariah’ is not the concern at the moment. That matter will probably be looked into at another juncture, when the appropriateness is established.

Since the ‘caste system’ is very much exclusively an Indian trait, then the Malaysian Indians should do more to educate their own of their dark past in the effort to move forward and not do the mistakes of the past. We are tired of being blamed for the etymological embarrassing mistakes of one of Asia’s great civilisations.

MIC should be more productive in their approach to win the hearts of the Malaysian Indian ethnic. The Federal Government have been very generous in the concessions made towards the Malaysian Indians. MIC Leaders should be careful on the sensitivities that they intend to pick on and harp for the wrong reasons.

They are in a very precarious political patronage position where their ‘power’ is on the strength of the Malay majority vote. The Malays revere their sense of literary works very close to their hearts. In fact, literature is part of the defining traits of the Malay identity. The ability to command the imagination and resolve of the Malays via literary works was one of powerful tool to harness the cohesive and overwhelming support that managed to solidify an intense political pressure seen in the failure of The Malayan Union in mid 1946.

Dato’ Abdullah Hussain is a very respected laureate. His works of literary art defines and colours the typical Malaysian life. He is the 8th National Laureate, an award invested by the grace of His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong in 1996. Even Negara Brunei Darussalam recognised his literary expertise.

By far, it is sacrilegious to even think of amending a national laureate”s work. More over when the call comes only 40 years later, for mentions on the subject of ‘pariah’ was just a passing description at the times where the ‘caste system’ was still very much a practice within pockets of Malaysian Indians, throughout this nation.

The Malays consider literary works as part of their much protected culture. Amending great literary works should be considered as ‘adulteration’ or worse still, ‘molestation’ of one of the defining traits to the race. Malay linguists may take this very far that would adversely affect the Indians via MIC politically.

In short, leave Abdullah Hussain’s 40 year old novel alone. Its a masterpiece as is.

 



 

Published in: on January 29, 2011 at 00:34  Comments (4)  

Phang resigns: The Tricky-Bobby plot thickens

Another one bites the dust. This afternoon, recently rogue MACC member of panel of Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel (CCPP) Tan Sri Robert Phang quit his position. Citing that he paving the way of MACC to conduct a full investigation against him as the reason why he is quitting.

Robert Phang resigns from MACC panel
Karen Arukesamy

newsdesk@thesundaily.com

KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 27, 2011): Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel member Tan Sri Robert Phang today announced his resignation from the panel after a graft allegation against him was posted in an anonymous blog recently.

“I am resigning to pave way for the MACC authourity to investigate independently, without fear or favour, and also to prevent speculations that I could use my influence to interfere in the investigations,” he told a press conference here.

Phang said he wants the investigation to be carried out to clear the allegations and his reputation, and that he would assist the authority is any possible way.

He believed that the allegation was hurled at him following his strong call for Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to clear the air surrounding his Haj pilgrimage with a proxy to former Malaysian Airlines chairman Tan Sri Tajudin ramli, who was investigated for graft in MAS.

Explaining that he wanted to preserve his integrity and the reputation of the MACC, Phang said he is determined to quit his post despite his fellow panel members asking him to stay.

“On Tuesday, when my panel convened a meeting, I have informed the Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Abu Kassim Mohamed and all my panel members that if they consider that I have caused disrespute to the MACC, I would resign. They have advised me not to do so,” he said, adding that he sees a compelling reason to resign to “walk the talk”.

MACC had said that Phang remained a member of the panel although he had informed of his resignation.

Denying the allegation in the blog that he allegedly tried to induce a secretary-general to secure a contract, Phang, who is also Social Care Foundation chairman said: “I am not here to attack, challenge or character assassinate anyone but I am clearing matters involving me.

“For merely asking Gani to be accountable for all these controversies that were already in the public domain, I suddenly became the subject of these venomous attacks.”

Phang denied claims that his resignation was also due to him coming under fire for making public statements on MACC and high-profile graft cases.

He said as a panel member, he has to promote integrity and anti-corruption fight and also to obtain honest feedback from the public, and as such he spoke as a concerned citizen.

On whether he would get a fair investigation, Phang said: “I still believe that Abu Kassim, Mustafa and Shukri are people of strong integrity. Their ways may not be correct and they may have constraints but their integrity is indisputable.”

He said the “attack” was an orchestrated attempt to discredit his reputation by “rogues from within and outside the government”.

He said he was not surprised that the attacks are also centred on his past business in Sabah as Abdul Gani and Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk V.K. Liew, are also from Sabah.

Liew had also reportedly urged MACC to investigate Phang over the allegations.

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

Phang was rabid against his snarls on AG Gani. On 30 November 2010, Phang insisted that AG Gani comes out and explain on the latter’s recent Hajj trip. He did. CCPP Chairman Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam said that AG Gani’s explanation to 42 MACC panelists and senior officers was acceptable and stated “No case against him (Gani)”. As soon as Navaratnam’s statement was aired by mainstream media,  Phang immediately flipped and called for a media conference vehemently rubbishing Navaratnam’s statement.

This resignation came as a total surprise, from the MACC perspective. This is because since 24 hours earlier, MACC’s seven-0ut-of-eleven panel members decided that Phang should be able to continue in the CCPP. At least till 24 Feb 2011 when his term expires.

Robert Phang to remain MACC panel member
Husna Yusop

newsdesk@thesundaily.com

PUTRAJAYA (Jan 26, 2011): The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has decided that Tan Sri Robert Phang Miow Sin will not release his position and will continue to sit in its Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel.

The decision was made by the panel during its meeting today which was chaired by Tan Sri Dr Ramon Navaratnam and attended by seven out of 11 members.

“The meeting discussed several issues as according to the agenda. It has also looked into the offer made by one of its members, Phang, to let go of his position.

“All those present during the meeting have decided for Phang to continue his membership until his term expired on Feb 24 this year which is the last day of the first term for all panel members,” MACC said in a statement today.

MACC said Phang has informed the meeting that it was only proper for him to release his membership so that MACC could carry out an independent investigation against him.

This was in relation to an allegation made in a blog that he had attempted to bribe a ministry secretary-general last year.

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

This becomes more interesting because he dismissed the Another Brick in the Wall’s 17 Jan 2011 posting as being “Utter rubbish and amusing”. That created a national level attention since a graft-fighter is being alleged of committing the graft crime itself. The ‘Paper that cares’ published a story that the public wanted Phang to go.

So why did Tricky-Bobby quit if he could remain as ‘on indefinite leave’ whilst investigations are being carried out?

This is suspiciously illustrating that Phang is in the wrong. If not exactly as mentioned in the blog, he must have done something ‘not so kosher’. Had Phang been all ‘kosher’, he would have stood his grounds. Just like Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and Tan Sri Musa Hassan, who have been accused of being very ‘naughty’ crime fighters, Phang should have sued Another Brick in the Wall.

Phang arrogantly said these phrases to the Malay Mail, “I am normally very reluctant to respond to anonymous blog postings. But here, I take them on for the sake of establishing the truth because this is clearly an effort made to shut me up”, “These are mercenary writers and spreaders of falsehood as aptly described by the Malay saying Lempar batu, sembunyi tangan (throw the stone and hide the hand)” and “Do not think I can be cowed by such delinquent antics. I will not dignify these acts of cowardice in seeking cheap publicity at my expense”.

All the Anwarista-friendly blogs were vehemently against the call for Phang to resign. They even dubbed Phang is under “Shameless conspiracy”. Is Phang bigger than the crime fighting agencies such as MACC, PDRM and AG’s Chambers that the public, represented by right wing bloggers cannot ask Phang to resign?

It is an Anwarista and Opposition’s prescribed method to alleviate themselves into power via the ‘Politics of Hatred’ and demonisation of all law enforcement agencies. They can’t possibly go up through democratic channels because they have really proven themselves as unable to manage and deliver when given the mandate and the Oppositions never really have tangible ideas on how to develop the country further.

This is getting more interesting. The resignation gives the impression that Phang is guilty of being a “Mr Fixer and attempted to bribe a KSU for a RM 900 M contract”. Then again, it was said that the KSU is willing to give full co-operation whenever the investigation commences.

Phang wasn never a good MACC panelist member. He did not defend MACC when DAP went after the commission. The fact is that, Phang is politically motivated and he is a tool if not an agent of some sort in the Opposition’s strategic agenda to destroy all Malay controlled law enforcement agencies. He is even very inclined towards the Chinese Chauvinist and anti Malay party, DAP. The proof is very apparent when as a ‘philantrophist’, he donated RM 50,000.00 to the party’s dinner in Melaka on 21 May 2010.

That is very unacceptable for MACC CCPP member and considering that it is widely known DAP give ‘patronage’ to the Lords of the Underworld Vices, Phang is being dubbed as ‘disloyal’ to the graft fighting commission.

We believe that the investigation will uncover a lot of ‘worms in the can’. These worms must also include Dato’ Ramli Yusuf’s and Rosli Dahlan’s names. After all, Phang was very vehement in his crusade to go after Gani in the episode of Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli’s MAS Cargo case.

Never the less, the plot thickens.

P/S Phang should not wear the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation jacket, as he wore shown in the photos. He is demeaning the NGO which is about fighting crime

 

Published in: on January 27, 2011 at 19:08  Comments (4)  

The ‘Team Lotus’ court room race is on

The current Tune Group’s Team Lotus Vs Proton-owned Lotus in the ‘race’ for the ‘Team Lotus’ positioning has gone into a twist. On Monday, High Court in England decided that the hearing shall continue.

Yahoo sports reported this:

Fernandes ‘happy’ with initial Lotus court ruling

Tue, 25 Jan 08:00:56 2011

Team Lotus boss Tony Fernandes has said that he is ‘very, very happy’ with the outcome of the first day of legal proceedings in the drawn-out naming row with Proton-owned Group Lotus, even though nothing of note was decided.

The Malaysian insisted that ‘the good do always eventually win’ after being told that a resolution would be reached before the F1 season gets into full swing, having previously faced the prospect of having to wait almost until its conclusion to get the unwanted distraction out of the way. High Court judge Justice Peter Smith announced on Monday [24 January] that the matter would be brought to a head on 21 March, although he urged both sides to try to and find an amicable solution well before then.

The two sides – who are on course to both field Lotus-Renaults in the 2011 F1 campaign – appeared at the High Court in London as Group Lotus’ new CEO Dany Bahar sought a summary judgement against Fernandes’ Team Lotus in an effort to prevent the case from going to full trial, but that request was rejected by the judge, who also decreed that allowing the situation – which looks likely to cast an embarrassing shadow over F1 until resolved – to rumble on until November would be pointless and potentially damaging. The subsequently-agreed March date comes between the season-opening Bahrain GP and round two of the season in Australia.

“Very very happy over the judgment today,” Fernandes wrote on his Twitter feed, “And extremely happy that full trial brought forward to 21 March.The good do always eventually win.”

The Malaysian, who brought the Lotus name back to F1 in 2010 as one of three expansion teams added to the grid alongside Virgin Racing and HRT, had hoped to run as Lotus Racing for at least five years, the length of the licence granted by Proton-owned Group Lotus. However, after a solid campaign, he was angered by the latter’s decision to rescind the licence in order to itself enter the top flight, agreeing a tie-up with the Renault F1 team, which will now run as Lotus Renault from 2011.

Fernandes contends that Group Lotus illegally terminated the branding licence granted to his 1Malaysia Racing Team operation, but faces an additional showdown with the Malaysian manufacturer after snapping up the Team Lotus name – under which the original Lotus team ran – from businessman David Hunt, the younger brother of 1976 world champion James, who acquired the rights to use it before the team’s demise in 1994. Proton, meanwhile, argues that the rights were never Hunt’s to sell in the first place, despite the Englishman claiming that he had previously offered them to the Malaysians.

“Today’s case is Group [Lotus'] desperate attempt to use their one-way unlawful termination of license agreement of Lotus Racing,” Fernandes claimed in a separate post, “Saying One Malaysia can’t use Lotus. Part of post-termination clauses. So nothing changes on Team Lotus.”

He also accepted that the on-going row was not exactly clear for many fans, with both sides having sought legal proceedings for different reasons.

“Many confused about case today,” he continued, “It’s not about Team Lotus name, who owns it, which is in November. We brought that case to prove once and for all.”

Fernandes’ team, meanwhile, is pushing on with its construction programme ahead of the first pre-season test next month. Chief technical officer Mike Gascoyne, another prolific Twitter user, used his personal feed to report that the team’s first car was gradually edging towards completion.

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

Fernandes’s isn’t entirely accurate.  This is strongly believed to be the Tune Group CEO’s statement, extracted from the F1 Times dated Monday 24 January 2011:

“Team Lotus is delighted that we were successful at the Summary Judgment Application hearing today and that the Jusge threw out Group Lotus’ application even before hearing the arguments of the barristers on either side.

Although this decision was never in doubt, it means that we start the 2011 season under the Team Lotus name. Whilst we expected that the Judge would refuse this application, it is good to have the decision in black and white.

The Judge also felt that it was in everyone’s best interests to bring the hearing date for the full trial forward and that is now fixed for 21st March rather than us having to wait until Autumn 2011 or even later. We remain confident that we will succeed at the full trial ans we can now focus on the challenges ahead in the 2011 FIA Formula One World Championship.”

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

The High Court Judge never threw the Group Lotus’s application out. In fact, the High court Judge asked for a ‘mediation’ and “team of lawyers that they should think about settlement before they spend 10 days in court “.

Excerpts from what the High court Judge said:

“If you ever reach that stage.  The only other thing is that dreadful word “mediation”.  Is there any prospect of a mediated settlement in this case?  I would suspect that the only possible time for mediation is after you have had your disclosure and exchange of witness statements. My experience is mediation does not take place when everything  is still inchoate.  Maybe I do not need to say to such an experienced team of lawyers that they should think about settlement before they spend 10 days in court”

 

It is very manipulative for Fernandes to suggest otherwise. How could he be sub-judice on what the High Court Judge will decide. Then again, he is known to use some degree of virtuoso of deceit t as his ways of getting things done.

If Malaysians are confused about the case, then probably Malaysians should read the transcript of the legal proceeding in the London High Court on Monday and make their own conclusions.

It is posted here verbatim for the public consumption of the Malaysian bloggosphere:

1     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE          Claim No. HC 10 C03151

CHANCERY DIVISION.

2     INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

3                                           Royal Courts of Justice,

4                                           Monday, 24th January 2011

5                                    Before:

6                            MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH

7                                 ————–

8         B E T W E E N:

9                                GROUP LOTUS PLC

Claimant

10

-and-

11

12                        (1) 1MALAYSIA RACING TEAM SDN BHD

(2) TEAM LOTUS VENTURES LIMITED

13                             (3) TUNE GROUP SDN BHD

(4) ANTHONY FRANCIS FERNANDES

14                    (5) 1MALAYSIA RACING TEAM (UK) LIMITED

Defendants

15

———————-

16

Computer-aided transcript by: Marten Walsh Cherer Limited,

17          1st Floor, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.

Telephone: 020 7067 2900  email: info@martenwalshcherer.com

18

———————

19

MR. MICHAEL SILVERLEAF QC and MR. BRIAN KENNELLY (instructed by

20         SNR Denton UK LLP) appeared for the Claimant.

21     MR. GUY MORPUSS QC and MS. PATRICIA EDWARDS (instructed by

MacFarlanes LLP) appeared for the 1st Defendant.

22

———————

23

PROCEEDINGS — DAY ONE

24

———————

25

1

2      MR. SILVERLEAF:  May it please you, my Lord.  In this matter I

3          appear with my learned friend Mr. Kennelly for the claimant

4          and my learned friends Mr. Morpuss and Ms. Edwards appear for

5          the defendants.

6      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Do you appear for all the defendants

7          today or are you just doing one?

8      MR. MORPUSS:  Only 1MRT and that is the only defendant to this

9          application, although MacFarlanes and I and my learned junior

10          do represent the other defendants as well.

11      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Yes.

12      MR. SILVERLEAF:  My Lord, this application today before the court

13          is for summary judgment on a single isolated issue arising

14          under the trade mark licence granted by Group Lotus to

15          1Malaysia Racing (whom I will call “1MRT” for short, if I may)

16          in 2009 to race in Formula One under the name LOTUS RACING.

17                Your Lordship has had a rather voluminous set of

18          papers —-

19      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  But no reading list.

20      MR. SILVERLEAF:  I am very sorry, my Lord.  Have you had the

21          opportunity to read at least the skeleton arguments?

22      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I have read the skeleton arguments, I

23          have read the pleadings and I have glanced at the witness

24          statements and I have read most of the historical agreements

25          and the 2009 —-

1

1

2      MR. SILVERLEAF:  I am very grateful, my Lord.  That should speed

3          things up enormously.

4      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I think things could be sped up

5          enormously another way.  When are you proposing to have the

6          trial of the rest of the action?

7      MR. SILVERLEAF:  We have, I think, been given a trial window of

8          early next year.

9      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  How long do you estimate the trial?

10      MR. SILVERLEAF:  I think it is 10 days, my Lord.  There are two

11          problems.  One is, obviously the 2011 racing season is about

12          to start.

13      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  It starts in Bahrain, 17th March?

14      MR. SILVERLEAF:  The middle of March, yes.  The other is that I

15          think the parties are agreed we need to ask the court to

16          expedite the full trial in any event so that it takes place

17          before the 2012 season.

18      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  No.  I think we should expedite it so

19          that it starts before the 2011 season.  I think we should have

20          a speedy trial of the whole action before, certainly, the end

21          of March.  I think we should set a timetable to hear the whole

22          action then.  There are no resource issues in this case, given

23          the schedules of costs that have been provided to me.  Let us

24          get it all sorted in one go.

25      MR. SILVERLEAF:  My Lord, obviously I will have to take

2

1

2          instructions on that.  I suspect my learned friend will as

3          well.

4      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  We have had the pleadings.  There has

5          not been a reply and defence to the counterclaim yet, has

6          there?

7      MR. SILVERLEAF:  The pleadings are closed.  I believe there is

8          still outstanding a request for further information from us to

9          the defendants which has not been answered.  Apart from that,

10          I suspect the pleadings are terminated.

11      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I think both ought to take instructions.

12          I am sure we can get this trial on.  I have already made

13          inquiries of the Listing Officer and we can get a 10 day trial

14          on this term.  It is a shame you did not apply for this back

15          in front of Briggs J in November, but the parties can do it,

16          so far as I can see.  There are no resource issues — just for

17          lots of people.  That is it.

18      MR. SILVERLEAF:  My Lord, in that case —-

19      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I will rise if you like and you can

20          both —-

21      MR. SILVERLEAF:  I do not think I can take instructions without

22          your Lordship rising.

23      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  No.  It is best I do not hear what you

24          say — good or bad.

25      MR. SILVERLEAF:  Indeed, my Lord.  Can we have 10 minutes?

3

1

2      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Have as long as you like.

3                              (A short adjournment)

4      MR. SILVERLEAF:  My Lord, thank you very much for the opportunity

5          to take instructions.  Our position is that it is a tough call

6          to do a trial that quickly but we think we can do it and if

7          your Lordship wishes to direct a speedy trial we would be

8          delighted.  Obviously, we would like to dispose of this

9          dispute before the season begins and, frankly, if we can

10          dispose of it early in the season that is almost as good.  I

11          have to tell your Lordship that the only reason we did not ask

12          for a speedy trial at the outset is that we did not think the

13          other side would agree.  I wait to hear what my learned friend

14          says.

15      MR. MORPUSS:  My Lord, much as we would like to see this resolved,

16          with the best will in the world we do not see that it is going

17          to be capable of being resolved by March or even the end of

18          March as a trial.

19      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Why not?

20      MR. MORPUSS:  It is all very well, my Lord, to just throw

21          resources at a case, and your Lordship is right that there are

22          plenty of solicitors and there are plenty of funds on both

23          sides.  But we have all seen cases where solicitors simply

24          throw trainees and resources at cases.  Unless those are well

25          managed and well directed what one ends up with is people

4

1

2          simply running round like headless chickens and it does not

3          get one anywhere.

4      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  That is a matter of getting resources

5          sorted out.

6      MR. MORPUSS:  It is, my Lord, but simply saying there are endless

7          resources is not the answer.  The question is what we can

8          actually achieve in six to eight weeks.  The concern —-

9      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  You ought to look at my decision in Re

10          Crowson Fabrics where I directed a trial on the Friday to

11          start on the following Wednesday.

12      MR. MORPUSS:  Yes, but of course —-

13      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  And it did.  That was a lot shorter than

14          this, obviously, but I see no reason why this cannot be put in

15          in six weeks.

16      MR. MORPUSS:  That is what I was going to say to your Lordship.

17          Of course, it depends very much on the case.  There are a

18          couple of concerns that we have.  One is that this application

19          was made on 20th October last year.  If we had been approached

20          then for an expedited trial it could have been approached with

21          a view to seeing whether we could get it on in February or

22          March before the season started — an expedited trial properly

23          arranged and managed.

24                It is the claimant who chose to make this application

25          for summary judgment which we submit, if we get to it, is a

5

1

2          hopeless application and the only way of resolving this is a

3          trial.  Because of their application everyone has been focused

4          for the last few months on that.  As far as the other four

5          defendants go that I act for, we have not been focusing at all

6          on the rest of the case beyond pleading out the issues in the

7          pleadings.  It has all been focused on dealing with this and

8          we have not been off exploring the evidence that we need to

9          produce.

10                My learned friends have turned up with Mr. Monk, the

11          Group Lotus employee from 1978.  He criticises my side for not

12          having an equivalent.  We have approached some other witnesses

13          may be able to call but we are at a very early stage in those

14          inquiries.  We can get on with those but trying to do it in a

15          matter of weeks is going to be pretty difficult, my Lord.

16      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  The history is very interesting but the

17          history involves examining the chains of devolution of the

18          various marks through various companies and through various

19          agreements, does it not?  That is the primary issue as to

20          whether or not the defendants have an independent right to use

21          TEAM LOTUS, is it not?

22      MR. MORPUSS:  There are two limbs to it, my Lord.  Your Lordship

23          has rightly identified one of them, which is whether the chain

24          of agreements passes through Mr. Hunt to my clients.  But

25          there is another limb to it which is the one that my learned

6

1

2          friend takes in his skeleton on this application, which is

3          whether the goodwill in TEAM LOTUS and Group Lotus is

4          divisible or indivisible.  That is a central question on the

5          historic relationship between the two companies.  No one has

6          bottomed that out yet.  Your Lordship has looked at the 1985

7          agreement and one of the things that appears in the 1985

8          agreement is a reference to a 1986 agreement.  There is some

9          suggestion in the papers that things changed after 1968, in

10          the same agreement, that after 1968 there was a clear

11          separation of the companies.

12      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Mr. Hunt is still around, presumably, is

13          he not?

14      MR. MORPUSS:  I believe so, my Lord, yes.

15      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  And Mr. Hunt has been around during the

16          whole of the period of these operations.  You will be able to

17          speak to Mr. Hunt.  He has sold his interest in the companies,

18          presumably for some money, and he will, no doubt, co-operate

19          with Mr. Fernandes.  Given Mr. Hunt’s stated belief that since

20          1995 he has been trying to get TEAM LOTUS back on to the

21          Formula One front, he would be very keen to see this happen,

22          would he not?

23      MR. MORPUSS:  One would have thought so, my Lord, and it is likely

24          he can give some helpful evidence from that period onwards.

25      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  My view with these things is that if we

7

1

2          pick a date and we say the trial will start then and we set a

3          timetable and we police what goes on between now and then –

4          it is no good looking backwards and saying, “But the claimant

5          could have made an application earlier.”  That is gone now –

6          if there are any difficulties what I do with cases like this

7          is I police the operation of the order to ensure that it

8          happens.

9      MR. MORPUSS:  Of course, my Lord.

10      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  It is very difficult for parties, in my

11          view, to come to court and say, “We have got this big point to

12          be decided before the commitment of the Formula One season”

13          and then, when they are offered a chance to have the case

14          heard, say, “Ah but we want to kick it into the long grass for

15          another year”.

16      MR. MORPUSS:  My Lord, it is certainly not our desire to kick it

17          into the long grass but we didn’t come to court saying, “We

18          want to have this resolved”.  It is my learned friend’s

19          application for expedition which Briggs J granted.  I am not

20          trying to be difficult, but I am simply looking at the

21          practicalities of —-

22      MR. SILVERLEAF:  With your consent.

23      MR. MORPUSS:  No, without our objection.  We did not consent to

24          it, if it matters.

25                But, my Lord, there is also the question of disclosure.

8

1

2          What is going to happen is that there are a lot of documents

3          to come out of Group Lotus.  If disclosure is going to be done

4          in a matter of a few weeks, inevitably there will be arguments

5          about what is proportionate to do in the disclosure exercise

6          and, given how important the history is and how important it

7          is to dig out documents where there are not witnesses —-

8      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I had the same arguments in the Candy

9          Bros. litigation last year when they told me in March they

10          could not possibly meet a trial timetable in May.  I rejected

11          that, I set a timetable and the trial was heard in May.  Their

12          arguments there were the same point:  thousands of pounds of

13          documents hidden away in various places and disclosure cannot

14          take place.

15                My view is that we set a timetable, the parties approach

16          it with their best endeavours and if there are any

17          difficulties then you come back to me on a liberty to apply

18          provision and we will see where we are going.  I firmly

19          believe the parties should make an attempt to have this issue

20          resolved before the Formula One season starts this year or has

21          gone too far.

22      MR. MORPUSS:  My Lord, could I just pick up on that last point

23          which is getting it resolved before the Formula One season

24          starts.  The season, I am told, starts on 11th March in

25          Bahrain and then it moves on to Melbourne at the end of March.

9

1

2      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  And then there is a bit of gap.

3      MR. MORPUSS:  On 8th April they are in Malaysia and then, on

4          15th April, in Shanghai.  The concern we have is that from

5          early March onwards, when the team have all gone out there,

6          everyone is going to have disappeared and in terms of

7          witnesses that we need from the clients or witnesses from

8          Formula One, they are all out in the Far East for a couple of

9          months.

10      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  The only area where you are likely to

11          have witnesses is over the allegations concerning the 2009

12          agreement as to whether or not it was broken by your clients

13          or not and whether the claimant broke it.

14      MR. MORPUSS:  Yes, my Lord.

15      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Once again, we can always adapt, in the

16          modern world, to the hearing of evidence in the modern world

17          to the hearing of evidence by video link or an appropriate

18          timetabling of the case.  I firmly believe that parties have a

19          right, and, of course, have a duty to have their dispute

20          resolved quickly and, given the importance of this case, I

21          think it ought to be heard, if possible, sometime in March.

22          You might lose two.  It may slip into April.  But the vast

23          bulk, subject, of course, to anybody’s right to appeal (but

24          that is a different story, that is not my concern), of the

25          Formula One 2011 ought to take place with at least a first

10

1

2          instance decision as to the rights between the parties.  That,

3          of course, also assumes that the parties do not become

4          sensible in the meantime and negotiate a settlement.  Speedy

5          trials concentrate people’s minds in that regard as well.

6      MR. MORPUSS:  Of course they do, my Lord.  May I add one other

7          point, then, my Lord, which is this.  An application of this

8          sort is not going to resolve the use of TEAM LOTUS by my

9          learned friend in the 2011 season.  It is not the purpose of

10          this application that his team can use the name TEAM LOTUS.

11          All the entries have been made for the Formula One

12          championships.  They are sponsoring the Renault Team who have

13          to use the word “Renault” in their name because that is their

14          chassis name.  So even if there is a speedy trial it is not

15          going to result in my learned friend being able to use the

16          name TEAM LOTUS this season.

17      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Has he got an application to do that?

18      MR. MORPUSS:  No.  That was my point, my Lord.

19      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  No.  The whole point is stopping you

20          using it, is it not?

21      MR. MORPUSS:  Yes.  That is what they want to do.  It is a dog in

22          the manger application.  They do not want to use it

23          themselves.  They want to stop us using it.

24      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  It is a commercial dispute between two

25          commercial organisations as to their respective rights.  This

11

1

2          regularly happens.  No doubt there will be the prospect of

3          money changing hands one way or another as leading to an

4          inducement to resolve the dispute.  If they have a right to

5          stop you using TEAM LOTUS, they are entitled to seek to

6          exercise it.  Equally, if you have a right to use TEAM LOTUS,

7          you should be able to do that free from them.

8      MR. MORPUSS:  Yes.

9      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I am giving both sides an opportunity to

10          have this resolved now rather than later.

11      MR. MORPUSS:  My Lord, as I say, we are keen to have it —-

12      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  If you do not have that and it goes off

13          to another year and there is no application by the claimant

14          for interim relief, you will then have, hanging over the 2011

15          season, the question as whether or not your clients,

16          legitimately, are entitled to use TEAM LOTUS.  If, at the end

17          of next year, the court determines you were not, then there

18          are going to be all manner of arguments about the relief, is

19          there not?

20      MR. MORPUSS:  My Lord, as I said, we are enthusiastic about

21          getting it resolved early.

22      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Good.  I am glad to hear it.

23      MR. MORPUSS:  But we would like it to be done in an orderly way

24          and we feel that March is too soon.  From our point of view,

25          if we win the trial, we want to stop them, for example, using

12

1

2          the black and gold livery of TEAM LOTUS which they use —-

3      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Have you claimed that in your

4          counterclaim?

5      MR. MORPUSS:  That is something that we need to amend, my Lord,

6          because it has only happened after our last round of pleadings

7          was served.  If we get into a discussion about directions,

8          that is a direction I would ask, for leave to amend the

9          defence and counterclaim to bring that claim.

10                My Lord, the reality is that if you order this we will

11          work towards it with the best will in the world but we may be

12          coming back in a few weeks and saying it is just not possible.

13          But, obviously, if your Lordship wants to have a trial in

14          March we will do what we can.

15      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I will, of course, entertain

16          applications, by either side if they come and tell me, “The

17          timetable is so strict that I cannot fairly present my

18          client’s case”.  I will not force a trial if it is going to an

19          injustice in that way, but I do believe the parties ought, at

20          least, to make a serious attempt to have a trial as early as

21          possible in March.

22      MR. MORPUSS:  The final point, I would say, my Lord, is we have

23          not been able to take any instructions from the clients and

24          the points I have been putting to your Lordship are simply the

25          considerations that the legal team has come up with.  Our

13

1

2          clients are out in the Far East, obviously.

3      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I understand that.  They are all

4          probably safely in bed now.

5      MR. MORPUSS:  Yes.

6      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I would, in any event, give you liberty

7          to apply on 24 hours’ notice back to me on any issue.  That is

8          my standard case management direction anyway.

9                Given that, we need a timetable for a speedy trial, do

10          we not?

11      MR. SILVERLEAF:  It would appear so, my Lord, yes.

12      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  If we look at March and you want 10

13          days, a start on either the 14th or 21st March would be a good

14          idea, I would have thought.  I think it is probably optimistic

15          to say that we can start it for 10 days before that first

16          Formula One in Bahrain.

17      MR. MORPUSS:  In the interests of having the extra week, I would

18          go for the 21st, my Lord.

19      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  What do you say, Mr. Silverleaf, 21st

20          start?

21      MR. SILVERLEAF:  Would your Lordship just give me one moment.

22          (Counsel took instructions)  Yes, my Lord.

23      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  21st March?

24      MR. SILVERLEAF:  21st March.

25      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  21st March for 10 days.

14

1

2                Do you want to attempt to agree a timetable between

3          yourselves first?

4      MR. MORPUSS:  I think that would be more sensible, my Lord, yes.

5      MR. SILVERLEAF:  I am sure we can, my Lord.

6      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Yes, adding a clause, my standard

7          clause, which is:  “Liberty to apply to me at ten o’clock on

8          any day, subject to my availability, for 30 minutes on two

9          business days’ notice or less if urgent on any matter arising

10          out of this order”.  I am not suggesting the case comes before

11          me at trial.  I suspect it will probably go before a different

12          judge given the IP issues, but there is no reason why I should

13          not at least drive through the case management to trial.  That

14          is a very important provision.  My experience over the years

15          has been that that stops people taking silly stances because

16          they come in front of me and I shout at them.

17      MR. MORPUSS:  I am not sure we have time to take silly stances on

18          this timetable, my Lord, anyway.

19      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I believe in this timetable but it is

20          when things disappear into correspondence.  Do not get

21          involved in correspondence about issues.  Come and see me

22          informally on that liberty to apply.

23                Take as long as you need over the directions.  I will

24          notify listing that that is the time you are aiming for.

25                             (A short adjournment)

15

1

2      MR. SILVERLEAF:  My Lord, we have a provisional timetable subject

3          to your Lordship’s approval.  Unless you want to, you do not

4          need to write it down.  We will prepare one.

5      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Yes.  I am just listening.

6      MR. SILVERLEAF:  The defendants should have leave to amend their

7          counterclaim by 28th January.  We would have liberty to amend

8          the reply and defence to counterclaim in response by

9          4th February.  Disclosure on the 14th.  Inspection on the

10          16th.  Witness statements on 7th March.  Trial on the 21st.

11          If your Lordship is happy with that, the parties are.

12      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Is no expert evidence going to be

13          called?

14      MR. SILVERLEAF:  Not as far as I can see.  This is a case which

15          turns entirely on fact.

16      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  The only areas possible — No, I am not

17          going to encourage you to think of expert evidence.

18      MR. SILVERLEAF:  I am very pleased to hear that, my Lord.  Subject

19          to your Lordship’s approval —-

20      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Yes.  The only add-on I would have is

21          that skeleton arguments, reading lists, bundles, lists of

22          authorities should be lodged by, shall we say, Wednesday the

23          16th and make Monday the 21st a reading day for the judge.

24          And put my liberty to apply provision in.

25      MR. SILVERLEAF:  I am sorry, my Lord.  I was taking that as read.

16

1

2          I do apologise.

3      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  I have spoken to listing and Mr. Bell is

4          very happy to have you in on that day.

5      MR. SILVERLEAF:  Excellent.

6      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Costs reserved?

7      MR. MORPUSS:  My Lord, the effect of this is that the summary

8          judgment application is not going to be heard and was a

9          mistake to have been brought.

10      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  No.  You can have that argument at the

11          end of the trial.

12      MR. MORPUSS:  Okay, my Lord.

13      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  If you ever reach that stage.  The only

14          other thing is that dreadful word “mediation”.  Is there any

15          prospect of a mediated settlement in this case?  I would

16          suspect that the only possible time for mediation is after you

17          have had your disclosure and exchange of witness statements.

18          My experience is mediation does not take place when everything

19          is still inchoate.  Maybe I do not need to say to such an

20          experienced team of lawyers that they should think about

21          settlement before they spend 10 days in court.

22      MR. SILVERLEAF:  We have and we are, my Lord.

23      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  What, you are experienced and you have

24          discussed it?

25      MR. SILVERLEAF:  We have thought about settlement and we are

17

1

2          thinking about it.

3      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Right.

4      MR. SILVERLEAF:  One always does.

5      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Not always.  We sometimes have lengthy

6          cases which attract comments about tanks and things.  Very

7          well.  If the order can be e-mailed to my associate and my

8          clerk, I will sign it off.

9      MR. SILVERLEAF:  Thank you very much indeed, my Lord.  We are very

10          grateful to your Lordship for both suggesting and

11          directing —-

12      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  The other thing that occurred to me is

13          this.  You are going to maintain the status quo in the sense

14          that the defendants are going to be able to enter the existing

15          Grand Prix that will take place before the trial as they have

16          registered, presumably, and with all rights reserved in

17          respect of that?

18      MR. SILVERLEAF:  Yes, my Lord, subject, obviously, to an agreement

19          to the contrary between the parties, whether temporary or

20          permanent.  Also, we are both subject to the rule of Formula

21          One management.  If Formula One management say we can or

22          cannot do something, either of us, then we are not able to

23          gainsay that because they are in control.

24      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  They are not going to stop the

25          defendants because the defendants are already registered to

18

1

2          participate, are they not?

3      MR. SILVERLEAF:  I think that is right, my Lord.

4      MR. MORPUSS:  Yes, that is right, my Lord.  We are already

5          registered.  It is too late —-

6      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  And not calling yourself “Lotus Renault”

7          are you, or anything like that?

8      MR. MORPUSS:  We are not, my Lord, no.

9      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  The claimant is not calling itself Lotus

10          Renault?

11      MR. MORPUSS:  It is, yes.

12      MR. SILVERLEAF:  We are.

13      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  You are?

14      MR. SILVERLEAF:  Yes.

15      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  There are going to be two Lotus ones

16          there.

17      MR. SILVERLEAF:  That is why we are here, my Lord.

18      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  Both wearing the same logo?

19      MR. MORPUSS:  Slightly different colours, my Lord.

20      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  There will be some very valuable

21          memorabilia available, will there not, if some of these come

22          out in the first part of the season?

23                I had a case like that concerning football cards.  I had

24          stopped a rival football cards case and they left an original

25          one because I granted an injunction stopping them selling any

19

1

2          more.  Unreasonably, they asked for the original back.

3      MR. SILVERLEAF:  Suddenly acquired added value.

4      MR. JUSTICE PETER SMITH:  My former clerk’s son looked interested.

5          Very well.  Thank you very much.

6                                   ————

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

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

This is Lotus’s media statement on the post High Court decision.

MEDIA INFORMATION

25 January 2011

Announcement

Group Lotus and Proton are delighted with the outcome of yesterday’s hearing in which the Judge ordered a full trial of this matter to be heard as soon as possible given the proximity of the start of the new 2011 Formula 1™ season in a few weeks. The trial has been fixed at the English High Court for 21 March 2011.

Group Lotus and Proton have been made aware of the press release issued by 1Malaysia Racing Team (1MRT), it is completely incorrect and a misrepresentation of the Judge’s decision suggesting that Group Lotus’ application was “thrown out”. No decision was made on Group Lotus’ application. The Judge proposed that the better procedural route was to order a speedy trial of all the issues in dispute in the case. 1MRT initially resisted the Judge’s approach to resolve all matters quickly and before the start of the 2011 Formula 1™ season but the order was subsequently made and the first available date was 21 March.

Group Lotus and Proton have always held the view that this matter should be resolved as soon as possible in the interests of Formula 1™ and the fans. We therefore welcome this decision and look forward to the full trial. We are confident that at the trial Group Lotus will succeed in preventing 1MRT, Mr Fernandes and his companies, from using the Lotus name in Formula 1™ once and for all.

ENDS

*******

Malaysians should know what their business leaders are made of.  We don’t need rogues and/or liars to run our plcs. The public could be deceived and/or manipulated to invest in the wrong ventures conned by some individuals’ hair-brain scheme.

 

 

 

Published in: on January 26, 2011 at 22:30  Comments (6)  

Chauvinis Cina cemari legasi Tun Razak

Malam tadi, sekumpulan dari kami berada di Felda Chempelak Barat untuk mengikuti siri ceramah Pembangkang sempena PRK N 05 DUN Tenang Ahad 30 Januari 2011 ini. Kami tergamam apabila melihat sendiri Chauvinis Cina, pewaris Anti Melayu dan Setiausaha Agung DAP Lim Guan Eng berceramah, menghina institiusi Melayu.

Lim menerangkan bahawa persepsi beliau dan DAP merupakan anti Islam hanyalah mainan politik UMNO, termasuk Utusan Malaysia yang berniat jahat untuk memburukan beliau.

Namun Lim berbohong. Isu pembatalan Majlis Sambutan Mauludir Rasul 1431H di Pulau Pinang merupakan contoh amat terang beliau dan DAP anti Melayu dan anti Islam. DAP juga menyokong hasrat Ketua Pengganas Chin “Butcher of Malaya” Peng untuk kembali ke tanahair ini, juga illustrasi bahawa mereka anti Melayu. Isu pembantahan ‘Rumah Sembelihan Kg Berjaya’ di Alor Setar, Kedah juga jelas menunjukan DAP ialah parti Chauvinis Cina yang tidak menghirau sensitiviti orang Melayu.

Apa yang mengecewakan ialah Lim datang berceramah dalam satu tanah rancangan Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (FELDA) yang menjadi nadi program yang diusahakan oleh Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak Hussein dalam tahun 1960an untuk menyusun dan memberikan orang Melayu peluang untuk mendapatkan tanah melalui penerokaan terancang dan berkelompok, sebagai memenuhi objektif pembangunan orang Melayu yang rata rata berada diluar bandar. Ini merupakan penghinaan kepada Perjuangan Bangsa Melayu.

Tun Razak memilih rakan akrab beliau sendiri tan Sri Taib Andak sebagai Pengerusi FELDA untuk menentukan agenda pembangunan dan penyusunan tanah bagi orang Melayu ini berjaya dilaksanakan dan berlaku transformasi sosio-ekonomi kepada golongan masyarakat luar bandar ini, Semenjak itu, sebanyak 317 tanah rancangan telah dibuka melibatkan 853,000 hektar dan lebih 103,000 peneroka telah berjaya mendapat pelbagai faedah dari program pembangunan dan penyusunan tanah paling terancang dalam dunia.

Untuk warga FELDA mengundang dan menganjurkan pemimpin DAP yang Chauvinis Cina dan anti Melayu untuk berucap dan menghina Kepimpinan Melayu yang secara tradisinya membela rakyat adalah penghinaan. Bagi Mazlan Aliman sebagai anak peneroka FELDA yang enggan berdebat dengan Timbalan Menteri (menjaga FELDA) Dato’ Ahmad Hj Maslan dan sebalkinya hanya mahu berbincang secara tertutup dan kini untuk berkongsi satu pentas dengan Lim Guan Eng ialah mengkhianati Perjuangan.

Published in: on January 26, 2011 at 11:09  Comments (10)  

Khalid wajar berundur kerana gagal rampas ‘kuasa’ Tuanku

Menteri Besar Selangor Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim wajar meletak jawatan kerana gagal merampas ‘kuasa’ Tuanku Sultan. Ini kerana usul pindaan Perlembagaan Undang Undang Tubuh Negeri Selangor pada sidang tergempar hari ini gagal diluluskan Dewan Undangan Negeri apabila hanya 34 ADUN menyokong manakala 20  ADUN lain menentang.

Selangor gagal pinda undang-undang tubuh kerajaan

24/01/2011 8:21pm

SHAH ALAM 24 Jan. – Kerajaan negeri Selangor gagal meminda Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri apabila ia tidak diluluskan setelah gagal memperoleh majoriti dua pertiga dalam undian belah bahagian dalam sidang khas Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) hari ini.

Speaker Datuk Teng Chang Khim berkata, sebanyak 34 Ahli DUN (ADUN) menyokong pindaan rang undang-undang berkenaan, manakala sebanyak 20 tidak menyokong.

“Namun mengikut peraturan mesyuarat sebarang pindaan memerlukan undian sebanyak dua pertiga dari jumlah kerusi DUN di bawah Perkara 98, Fasal 5 Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri.

“Maka ia tidak boleh dibawa kepada bacaan kedua dan seterusnya,” katanya selepas pengiraan undi belah bahagian itu.

Berikutan kegagalan untuk mendapatkan undi majoriti dua pertiga itu, mesyuarat pada hari ini ditamatkan dan Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim mencadangkan supaya sidang dewan ditangguhkan sehingga satu tarikh yang ditetapkan kemudian. – Bernama

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

Pindaan ini me’wajib’kan baginda Tuanku Sultan merujuk dan mendapat persetujuan Menteri Besar bagi apa apa cadangan Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam (SPA) untuk lantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri (SUK) Selangor akan datang. Pada masa ini, lantikan SUK Kerajaan Negeri Selangor hanyalah berdasarkan cadangan calon SPA yang dirujuk kepada baginda Tuanku Sultan untuk mendapat perkenan.

Undang Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor menggariskan bahawa baginda Tuanku Sultan merupakan Ketua Eksekutif Negeri Selangor.

Kontroversi poliktik ini timbul apabila calon SPA bagi jawatan SUK Kerajaan Negeri Selangor Dato’ Mohd. Khusrin Munawi yang telah diperkenan oleh baginda Tuanku Sultan telah tidak diterima oleh Khalid sebagai MB Selangor. Dipercayai Khalid sebagai MB Selangor dan mewakili PKR telah tunduk kepada tekanan parti chauvinis Cina DAP, yang sememangnya bersifat anti Melayu dan Islam.

Polemik lantikan Khusrin ini bermula kerana beliau merupakan seorang penjawat awam yang tegas, bertindak menurut peruntukan undang undang dan tidak boleh di’perguna’ oleh kepimpinan politik sewenang wenangnya. Isu tindakan keatas MP DAP Serdang Teo Nie Ching memasuki dewan sembahyang sebuah surau di Seri Kembangan Ramadhan lepas dan menimbulkan emosi umat Islam dan menguatkuasa larangan menggunakan masjid dan surau sebagai pentas ceramah politik.

Sebelum itu, Murshidul Am PAS Nik Aziz Nik Mat pernah mempertikai titah larangan baginda Tuanku Sultan atas perbuatan menggunakan masjid dan surau sebagai platform politik. Ini berlaku semasa kempen PRK P094 Hulu Selangor April 2010. PAS merupakan rakan kongsi Kerajaan PR Selangor.

Kesan tindakan biadap Teo ini sehinggakan Tuanku Sultan menitah murka, menunjukan berat salah-guna dan menghina kesucian Islam. Khusrin pada masa itu merupakan Pengarah JAIS dan melaksanakan tugas sebagaimana titah Tuanku Sultan. Baginda Tuanku Sultan pernah menitahkan ada anasir cuba mencabar institiusi Islam. Ini termasuk golongan chauvinis Cina DAP, yang sememangkan anti Islam dan Melayu.

Kemelut politik ini sebenarnya memaparkan jelas ‘perang dingin’ antara Istana dan Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor. Lantikan Khusrin yang diperkenan Tuanku Sultan telah dimanipulasikan Khalid sehingga berbohong, walaupun beliau telah merafak sembah mengadap baginda apabila mula timbul bibit bibit ‘percanggahan’ mengenai keputusan pengganti Dato’ Ramli Mahmud itu.

Ini bukannya isu baru. Baru baru ini, DYMM Tuanku Sultan menitah dukacita baginda institiusi dan peranan Raja Raja Melayu dipertikaikan. Ini termasuk gerakan yang sama dalam Selangor.  DYMM  Tuanku Sultan Selangor telah menitah murka tindakan Khalid cuba menggunakan duit zakat bagi kegunaan pembangunan, yang jelas bercanggah dengan kehendak Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan Malaysia, yang juga agama Negeri Selangor.

Jelas MB Selangor Khalid Ibrahim dan keseluruhan Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor sepanjang menjawat kedudukan sediada semenjak kekalahan BN pada PRU 12 8 Mac 2008 dan tertubuh Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat bersifat durhaka dan perlu diambil tindakan, melalui peruntukan yang ada. Polemik yang mereka timbulkan bukan sahaja menghalang perjalanan pentadbiran, malah kenyataan dan manipulasi bertujuan politik sepanjang hampir 3 tahun ini telah menimbulkan kerasahan rakyat, jika tidak kemarahan.

Isu kontroversi penentangan lantikan Khusrin Disember lepas adalah atas dasar politik. Ianya jelas akan menghalang parti parti komponen PR ‘melombong kekayaan’ dari Selangor (negeri ppaling kaya dalam Persekutuan Malaysia), demi meneruskan agenda strategik ‘Politik Kebencian’ yang menjadi teras bagi Pembangkang kekal relevan dalam persada kuasa.

Dalam pembukaan  hujah dalam DUN Selangor ini, Khalid menuduh BN sebagai ‘penderhaka’ apabila berusaha meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Negeri termasuk Selangor. Hakikatnya, pindaan Perlembagaan tersebut adalah untuk mengekang hak imuniti Raja Raja hanya setakat apabila sekelian baginda melaksanakan tugas dalam kapasiti mereka sebagai Raja dan menurut peruntukan Perlembagaan. Baginda sekelian Raja Raja perlu bertanggung jawab atas tindakan masing masing atas kapasiti mereka sebagai individu dan tindakan sebagai warganegara.

Sebaliknya, usul pindaan Perlembagaan Selangor hari ini ialah tindakan bagi DYMM Tuanku Sultan melepaskan hak sebagaimana yang diperuntukan dalam Perlembagaan kepada MB Selangor. Ini wajar dilihat sebagai tindakan ‘Durhaka’. Bibit ‘penderhakaan’ MB Khalid dan barisan Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor ini bukanlah perkara baru. Baginda Tuanku Sultan menitahkan keresahan baginda semasa majlis sambutan Hari Keputeraan Baginda ke 65, 29 Nov 2010:

Sultan Selangor kurang senang

Oleh SAIFUL HAIZAN HASAM
saiful.hasam@utusan.com.my
 

Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah

 

SHAH ALAM 29 Nov. – Sultan Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah dukacita dengan segelintir pihak yang berhijrah ke negeri ini, terutamanya orang Melayu sendiri, yang sanggup mempersoalkan kedudukan dan keistimewaan orang Melayu, sama ada institusi raja Melayu masih relevan dan peranannya dalam sistem pemerintahan negara.

Baginda bertitah, tindakan golongan terbabit mempersoalkan perkara-perkara itu adalah bertunjangkan matlamat supaya sistem Raja Berperlembagaan yang ada sekarang disemak dan dikaji semula.

Titah baginda, golongan berkenaan juga telah mengemukakan alasan yang amat tidak tepat untuk merasionalkan matlamat itu kononnya negara telah menjalani arus pemodenan dan sistem yang diamalkan sekarang sudah tidak bersesuaian.

“Sehingga ada suara lantang daripada orang Melayu sendiri yang meminta perkataan ‘Melayu’ yang ada pada ungkapan ‘Raja-Raja Melayu’ hendaklah dihapuskan.

“Beta percaya perbuatan ini adalah untuk kepentingan mereka sendiri ataupun kepentingan politik mereka,” titah baginda sewaktu berangkat ke majlis pembukaan Wacana Raja Berperlembagaan – Perspektif Sejarah, Kini dan Masa Depan, di sini hari ini.

Hadir sama pada majlis sempena sambutan Hari Keputeraan Sultan Sharafuddin ke-65 itu ialah Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim dan kepimpinan kanan kerajaan negeri.

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

Usul pindaan Perlembagaan Negeri Selangor hari ini ialah memberikan Menteri Besar kuasa untuk menentukan pegawai Kerajaan Negeri Selangor yang jelas diperuntukan sebagai pemilihan oleh ‘Suruhanjaya Yang Berkenaan’. Jelas Khalid dan barisan Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor dipengaruhi chauvinis Cina DAP untuk mengambil alih kuasa perkenan baginda Tuanku Sultan atas lantikan pegawai pentadbir dari kalangan pentadbir awam professional, yang jelas bukan jawatan politik.

Permainan mempolitikan semua aspek termasuk lantikan pegawai pentabir awam hanyalah kemampuan PR, yang pada hakikatnya gagal mengurus dengan baik dan membawa pembangunan demi kesejahteraan rakyat yang memberikan mereka mandat.

Mencabar kedudukan, peranan dan kuasa DYMM Tuanku Sultan merupakan permainan seorang yang durhaka.

Oleh itu, Khalid dan keseluruhan Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor wajar berundur secara terhormat dengan segera. Keyakinan baginda Tuanku Sultan dan majoriti rakyat Selangor dijangkakan akan tiris akibat tindakan durhaka dan kegagalan ‘rampasan kuasa’ DYMM Sultan Selangor melalui usul pindaan Perlembagaan ini. Jika mereka berdegil dan menjaga kepentingan Kerajaan dan rakyat Selangor, mungkin sudah tiba masa Akta 150 dipertimbangkan secara serious untuk dilaksanakan.

*Perkembangan dikemas kini 1145pm

Published in: on January 24, 2011 at 20:42  Comments (17)  

Defending Rogue-bert & demonisation of law enforcement agencies

 

Din Merican: An Anwarista in uniform

An Anwarista has been proven systematically out to get Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and former IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan. This time, he is using the digital democracy of his blog-space to campaign in the defense of  MACC consultation an corruption prevention panel member  Tan Sri Robert “Rogue Commissioner” Phang and demonise Gani and Musa.

A few days ago a highly respected SOPO blog Another Brick in the Wall scooped a story about Phang tried to bribe a Chief Secretary of a strategic ministry a few days before Hari Raya Aidil Fitri. That came just days after Phang refuted MACC consultation and corruption prevention panel ChairmanTan Sri Ramon Navaratnam’s opinion in the open and issued a press statement.

It was obvious that Phang is out after Gani and Musa. The linkage is simple. Phang is a very good buddy of Former Police Commercial Crime Director Dato’ Ramli Yusuf, who was charge for corruption. Ramli was defended by Rosli Dahlan. Despite being acquitted from the charge, Ramli never did explain how as career Police officer, he amassed so much money which was said to be in the neighbourhood of RM 27 million. Rosli was also investigated by MACC and eventually charged.

Phang refuted Another Brick in the Wall’s most sensational scoop so far for the year. Again, the SOPO blogger argued that Phang’s dismissal of the charge was very petty and the linkage of Gani’s recent Hajj trip and personalities that he conveniently bumped into in the Holy land was used as a lame excuse to incarcerate Gani.

 

The Anwarista duo who rabidly when after Gani Patail & Musa Hassan

What is baffling is that a blogger recently made Dato’ rabidly went after Gani and Musa in the same breadth as defending Phang, without any investigations ever carried out. How did Dato’ Din Merican know that Phang is totally innocent and the charge against Phang giving bribe was a fabrication?

The fact that when Another Brick in the Wall scooped that story and the paper that cares quickly took it on the mainstream media’s domain, a proper investigation could be launched, with or without a Police and/or MACC report. The said Chief Secretary, who was said to be ready to spill the beans, should be interviewed and his statement taken with regards to Phang’s audience with him with the excuse of “Presenting a t-shirt”.

Why is it Din Merican was ultra quick to defend Phang and in the same breadth, campaigned to demonise Gani and Musa?

As for Phang, they now accuse him of being in conspiracy with me, RPK, and a few others. Conspiracy for what? According to them, we are out to attack and discredit former IGP Musa Hassan, the MACC, and A-G Gani Patail. These proxy attackers should know that there is no need for me to attack A-G Gani or his Chambers.”

Again, in another para:

Now they accuse Phang of bribery! The intention is clear. It is to make Phang the subject of investigation by PDRM and  MACC. A-G Gani Patail will then decide to press charges against Phang. That is what happens when you go against A-G Gani Patail. That was what happened Dato’ Ramli Yusuff and Rosli Dahlan in the MAS Scandal. Instead of going after the real crooks, they went after the Police Director and the lawyer!

But they made a big mistake in Rosli’s case and he is now fighting back. Are these bloggers, MACC and AG Gani Patail making the same mistake now by attacking Phang?

In his wealth of experience and intelectual stature (now, a ‘Professor’), can’t Din possibly imagine if not really think through that Ramli and Rosli are actually the real crooks? Like the saying goes, “When there is a smoke, there is a fire”. Just because they were let of, doesn’t mean that they are innocent. A court case is about presentation of evidence and interpretation of the law.

 

Din Merican once as Anwar's Chief of Staff. Now, Nurul is Lembah Pantai MP, Nik Nazmi is ADUN for Seri Setia (Selangor) & Sim is ADUN for Pantai Jerjak (Penang)

As a responsible citizen, Din instead should demand for a thorough investigation if not a Royal Commission of Inquiry. Until the statement of the said Chief Secretary is taken, then it is baffling that he could simplistically refute a very serious charge of an anti-graft-fighter is actually attempting an act of graft. The investigation is necessary to exonerate MACC where as a crime fighting agency, one of its top people  is practice the crime the commission was formed to combat.

Unless, as a onetime supporter of a band-of-anarchists’ sordid political agenda, he is undertaking the role now that he claims to be ‘outside’ the PKR ‘circle of trust’.

It is obvious that the one-time adviser of the partyless-Opposition Leader Anwar “Mat King Leather” Ibrahim is still very much an Anwarista, despite claiming to no longer enjoying the role as a ‘Startegic Adviser’ to man who has now deep into the conundrum of a second sodomy trial. It is also very obvious  that Abuse-of-power-ex-convict Anwar “Mat King Leather” Ibrahim and his band of bandits are out to demonise the entire law enforcement agencies fraternity in their strategy to ascend onto power.

Din presented that the Attorney General’s Chambers, Royal Malaysian Police and Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission are not to be trusted and not the crime fighting agencies that they are supposed to be but instead a tool for some parties’ specific agenda and/or protecting specific interests. That is very much the strategy of Pakatan Rakyat, in sundry.

 

Anwar's Band of Bandits

It is empirically evident that Pakatan Rakyat is unable to manage, let alone deliver its promises despite the mandate given. So for these anarchists’ mentality politicians, for them to remain in power in what ever shred of support they can garner from rakyat is by deception. The major hindrance to their brand and style of  ‘politics of hatred’ and ‘politics of blatant lies’ is the law. Thus, demonising the law enforcement agencies had been the Oppositions’ strategy ever since they capitalise on the emotions of the rakyat that were managed to be provoked upon the humiliating sacking of Anwar from the Deputy Prime Minister’s position on 2 September 1998.

Din Merican as a true-blue Anwarista is now functioning exactly on that notion and node. Demonising Gani, Musa and MACC Chief Commissioner Dato’ Seri Abu Kassim Mohamed and all the law agencies in the manner how it was presented be him should be seen as nothing but ‘seditious’, as it is clear he breached Section 3(1)(c).

Excerpts 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 connection of dots between Anwar Ibrahim, Phang who some thought to be a rogue businessman, rogue-Police officer Ramli and Rosli is very clear. Probably if a thorough investigation is conducted, then it could be proven with incriminating evidence that Phang and Ramli is connected with ‘Lords of Underworld Vices’ and Pakatan Rakyat especially DAP is the provider of the ‘political-patronage’ of this very large unaccounted economy.

The plot thickens.

Published in: on January 21, 2011 at 00:54  Comments (23)  

Melayu Liberal memang sengaja mudah lupa

 

Melayu mudah lupa: Dr Azly Rahman

Lanjutan dari artikel professor ekonomi Dr Azly Rahman yang disiarkan di dalam Laman blog Lim Kit Siang bertajuk “MRSM schools obstacle to national unity?”, dan meneliti artikel-artikel lain nukilan beliau, kelihatan agak jelas bahawa ‘kegagalan’ yang beliau sebut di dalam artikel tersebut mungkin merupakan pengaruh luaran dan bukan merupakan kegagalan sebahagian atau keseluruhan dari sistem pembelajaran MRSM.

Dalam artikel beliau bertajuk, “Addressing the Eternal Question” yang diterbitkan ada 10hb Disember 2007 dalam meneliti polemik kaum India dan HINDRAF, beliau menyebut :-

“It is not the time to focus on how many of the Bersih or Hindraf protestors ought to be thrown in jail and how must we construe the demands of Indian Malaysians, but to ask ourselves this question: how can our eyes, our minds, and, our souls be opened to the plight of those who have laboured for the power and glory of the few?

Let me propose a programme of action to help improve the lives of the Indians. It is partly based on what Mara has done for the Malays, through its well-funded MRSM (Mara Junior Science College) system. I think the excellent and benevolent plan should be duplicated.”

Amat dipercaya Dr Azly Rahman berpandangan bahawa sistem MRSM yang diperkenalkan sememangnya merupakan satu method pembelajaran yang komprehensif dan berkesan. Mungkin apa yang merungsingkan beliau adalah ‘campurtangan’ pihak ketiga yang telah ‘mencacatkan’ konsep pembelajaran seperti yang diperkenalkan awalnya.

Tidak dinafikan daripada perubahan dan pendekatan baru yang dibuat, terdapat sebahagian kecil yang telah memberikan kesan negatif. Antaranya, campurtangan kuasa politik yang telah menyebabkan pakaian seragam MRSM ditukar kepada warna khaki. Ianya telah menambahkan beban kepada ibubapa pelajar serta ‘mencalar’ identiti MRSM, yang pada asalnya tidak mempunyai pakaian seragam khusus.

Jika MRSM dirancang seperti yang dikatakan oleh Dr Azly Rahman untuk melahirkan ‘Malay extremist’ (Ekstremis Melayu), MRSM telah gagal sepenuhnya. Buktinya, rata-rata pelajar lepasan MRSM mempunyai corak pemikiran sendiri dan mampu hidup dalam apa jua keadaan. Corak pemikiran yang  ‘luas’ (diverse) ini adalah merupakan identiti pelajar lepasan MRSM.

Visi MRSM adalah untuk melahirkan pelajar yang serba boleh, kreatif dan mempunyai daya saing dan survival dalam apa-apa keadaan dengan berpaksikan Agama, bertunjangkan Negara dan bernaungkan Bangsa. Pelajar yang lahir dari system MRSM disediakan untuk menjadi ‘serba boleh’ (all rounder).

Kami percaya pelbagai kaedah dan method diperkenalkan saban tahun untuk terus mempertingkatkan mutu pembelajaran di MRSM. Pengenalan kaedah pembelajaran ‘Lateral Thinking‘ yang diperkenalkan Dr Edward de Bono seawal tahun 80an, misalnya, adalah bukti yang menunjukkan bahawa sistem pembelajaran di MRSM adalah dinamik dan sentiasa progresif dan melatih pemikiran di’luar kotak’. Mana mungkin program-program seperti ini diperkenalkan jika MRSM mahu pelajarnya terus berada diruang litup ‘pemikiran yang dipastikan’ (conditioned), tidak kritis dan bersifat ‘kow tow’.

Kemampuan lepasan pelajar berinteraksi dan berasimilasi dalam dunia nyata juga membuktikan rancangan ‘mendoktrinasi anak melayu kepada pejuang ketuanan melayu yang lebih kompleks’  telah gagal. Kalau lah itu matlamat penubuhan MRSM. Budaya pemikiran kritis dan berani menyahut cabaran dalam suasana dan cara sendiri adalah antara nilai-nilai yang cuba ditanam oleh MRSM.

Jika penerapan sifat Patriotik, cintakan Agama, Bangsa dan Tanah Air dikatakan sesuatu yang mampu memecahbelahkan perpaduan, mungkin Dr Azly perlu terlebih dahulu menilai ‘sumbangan’ sekolah-sekolah jenis kebangsaan Cina dan Tamil dalam ‘memantapkan’ perpaduan nasional. Mungkin Dr Azly seterusnya boleh mengenalpasti siapa yang cakapnya ‘bermusim’ dan bersifat ‘chameleon’. Mungkin Dr Azly Rahman sepatutnya turut memperjuangkan “Satu sekolah Untuk Semua, Satu Bahasa Satu Bangsa Satu Negara”. Dr Azly Rahman selanjutnya boleh memperpanjangkan perjuangan beliau tersebut kepada Lim Kit Siang dan lihat bagaimana Lim Kit Siang akan mendokong kempen tersebut dengan bersungguh-sungguh demi perpaduan rakyat Malaysia.

Perenggan-perenggan akhir Artikel beliau menyebut :

 

“In MRSM, that predominantly Malay-elite secondary institution for the best and brightest young Malays, Malay-centric indoctrination work have been happening since the 1980s. Courses such as Kursus Kesedaran (Self Awareness Courses) are conducted to instill the questionable idea of Ketuanan Melayu, making the children afraid of “Malaysian bogeymen and bogeywomen” and their own shadows.

Open-mindedness is rarely encouraged and students take control over each others’ lives transplanting retrogressive ideologies into each other’s head, with the help of ultra-nationalist and anti-multiculturalist teachers.

Even if these children survive the ideological ordeal and experience ‘tough love’ and go on to get their degrees from top American and British universities, they will still be Malays with a shallow understanding of multiculturalism or become more sophisticated Malays with more complex arguments on Ketuanan Melayu.

They will then design policies to affect the needed sustenance of ideology in order to protect the interests of the few. Neo-feudalistic cybernetic Malays are then the new creations of the political-economic ruling class. They run the country and many are now running it down.

As an educator wishing to see Malays progress alongside in peace and prosperity with other races, I call upon us all to put a stop to all forms of indoctrination held especially by the BTN (Biro Tata Negara); an organisation that is of no value to the advancement of the Malays they claim to want to liberate.

It should be taken over by progressive Malaysians and replaced with a systematic effort to promote not only racial understanding through teaching respect and deep reflection on the cultures of the peoples of Malaysia, but also teach conflict resolution and mediation through cross-cultural perspectives. All must question the presence of BTN on campuses. All must reject BTN’s programme for indoctrination.

Let us no longer allow any government body of that sort to set foot on our campuses or our schools. As Malaysians we have to demand an end to the further dissemination of racist ideologies.

Open up, not only institutions such as UiTM (Universiti Teknologi Mara) and MRSM but also Umno to more students of the major cultures. We will then have a great celebration of diversity and respect for human dignity in the decades to come.”

 

Cuba bandingkan dengan perenggan-perenggan berikut dalam artikel lain beliau bertajuk “BTN must leave all campuses beginning with UiTM and MRSM”, beberapa perenggan dalam Artikel tersebut menyebut :

“In MRSM as well, a predominantly Malay-elite secondary institution for the best and brightest young Malays, similar things have been happening since the 1980s as well. Kursus Kesedaran (Self Awareness Courses) are conducted to instill the questionable idea of Ketuanan Melayu, making the children afraid of “Malaysian boogeymen and boogeywomen” and their own shadows.

Open-mindedness is rarely encouraged and students take control over each others’ lives transplanting retrogressive ideologies into each other’s head, with the help of ultra-nationalist and anti-multiculturalist teachers.

Even if these children survive the ideological ordeal and experience ‘tough love’ and go on to get their degrees from top American and British universities, they will still be Malays with a shallow understanding of multiculturalism or become more sophisticated Malays with more complex arguments on Ketuanan Melayu.

They will then design policies to affect the needed sustenance of ideology in order to protect the interests of the few. Neo-feudalistic cybernetic Malays are then new creation of the political-economic ruling class. They run the country and many are now running it down.

As an educator wishing to see Malays progress alongside in peace and prosperity with other races, I call upon us all to put a stop to all forms of indoctrination held especially by the BTN; an organisation that is of no value to the advancement of the Malays they claim to want to liberate.

It should be taken over by progressive Malaysians and replaced with a systematic effort to promote not only racial understanding through teaching respect and deep reflection on the cultures of the peoples of Malaysia, but also teach conflict resolution and mediation through cross-cultural perspectives. All must question the presence of BTN on campuses. All must reject BTN’s programme for indoctrination.

Let us no longer allow any government body of that sort to set foot on our campuses or our schools. As Malaysians we have to demand an end to the further dissemination of racist ideologies.

Open up, not only UiTM and MRSM but also Umno to more cultures. We will have a great celebration of diversity and respect for human dignity in decades to come. I speak as a silent reproduction and capitalised human of both MRSM and UiTM; a product of the human capital revolution of the Mahathir era.”

Perenggan-perengan di atas  jelas menunjukkan pertindanan hujah dan corak generalisasi (generalisation pattern) yang membimbangkan. Kelihatan Dr Azly Rahman cuba menggunakan satu hujah dan mempersalahkan semua entiti yang dilihat tidak sehaluan dengan beliau. Budaya ‘one size fits all’ dan ‘quick fix‘ adalah amat merbahaya disamping memperlihatkan kedangkalan dalam berhujah.

Malah dalam Artikel kedua belum, penambahan ayat berikut :

“I speak as a silent reproduction and capitalised human of both MRSM and UiTM; a product of the human capital revolution of the Mahathir era.”

Kami percaya sebagai pelajar Perintis di MRSM Kuantan, era semasa beliau menuntut disana (1974 – 1978) tiada kena mengena secara langsung dengan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad walaupun Negarawan pada masa itu ialah Menteri Pelajaran. MRSM pada masa itu ialah dibawah penguasaan Kementerian Pembangunan Luar Bandar dan MRSM adalah satu Bahagian yang diujudkan, berlandaskan Akta MARA.

Kami tidak pasti apakah maksud yang tersirat disebalik ayat tersebut. Namun sistem MRSM, peluang yang ujud bawah Dasar Ejonomi Baru (DEB) dan eko-sistem pembangunan dan perindustrian yang dijana semenjak 1971 memungkinkan pelajar pelajar Melayu cemerlang dilahirkan, diberikan peluang pengajian di luar negara dan kembali menjadi professional. Eko-sistem ekonomi yang berkembang dan jajaran peningkatan sistem sosio-ekonomi menjadi pemangkin antara garduan MRSM ini maju dalam bidang masing masing. Antara rakan MRSM seangkatan dengan beliau yang telah berjaya adalah personaliti seperti Dato’ Kamaruddin Meranun (Pengarah Eksekutif Kumpulan Tune/AirAsia), Dato’ Shazali Ramli (CEO Celcom) dan Dato’ Dr Mohd. Nasir Muda (pakar cardiologi IJN), Dato’ Mohamed Zainal Shaari (Pengarah Eksekutif dan Ketua Pegawai Operasi Khazanah Bhd) dan Hj Mohd. Yusoff Sulaiman (CEO MIGHT).

Adalah tidak adil bagi Dr Azly Rahman membuat andaian sendiri dengan produk MRSM, terutama pelajar era 1980an dan 1990an. Jika MRSM telah berjaya melahirkan ‘Malay extremist’ sepanjang dua dekad tersebut, sudah tentu persekitaran sosio-politik Negara ini tidak seperti sekarang. Dimana ‘Malay extremist’ ini semasa bangsa mereka dinoda oleh pemimpin melayu sendiri, dianaktiri oleh menantu pemimpin dan diliwat oleh bekas bakal perdana menteri. Dimanakah ‘mereka’ bila bangsa mereka dihina dan diherdik oleh bangsa lain. Bacul kah mereka, atau sememangnya pada realitu golongan ‘Malay extremist’ produk MRSM sebenarnya tidak wujud?

Sebagai bekas pelajar yang menuntut di MRSM pada era awal sehingga pertengahan 1980an, kami terdedah dengan kursus-kursus anjuran SEDAR dan BTN. Bertentangan dengan teori yang ditawarkan oleh Dr Azly, kami tidak menjadi lebih rasis walaupun lebih patriotik dan kami tidak menjadi lebih elitis, malah lebih inklusif.

Produk yang lahir dari sistem MRSM berjaya menjadi pemimpin, samada dalam bidang politik, korporat, pendidikan dan perubatan. Timbalan Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri YB Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir (Kota Bahru) dan Timbalan Menteri Belia dan Sukan YB Dato’ Razali Ibrahim (Terendak) merupakan pemimpin BN sekarang, sementara Exco Kerajaan Negeri Kedah YB Dato’ Ir Amiruddin Hamzah (Seremban). Pengersui UDA YB Dato Nur Jazlan Mohamed (Kulim), yang juga MP Pulai.  Wakil rakyat semasa dikalangan warga MRSM ialah ADUN Sg Tiang, Kedah YB Suraya Yaacob (Seremban) dan ADUN Guai, Pahang YB Norol Azali Sulaiman (Kuantan).

Sebelum ini Setiausaha Parlimen Kementerian Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar dan MP Machang Dato Sazmi Miah (Kota Baru) dan MP Jeli Hj. Apandi Mohamad (Kota Bahru), juga warga bekas pelajar MRSM.

Pengerusi Eksekutif Kencana Petroleum Bhd. Dato Mokhzani Mahathir (Kota Bahru), Pengerusi Shell Malaysia Annuar Taib (Muar), Presiden/CEO Maybank Bhd. Dato’ Seri Abdul Wahid Omar (Seremban), CEO UEM Bhd. Dato’ Izzadin Idris (Seremban), CEO Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji Dato’ Ismee Ismail (Seremban), Presiden Institut Akauntan Malaysia Nik Hasyudden Nik Yusof (Kota Bahru), Pengarah Urusan Edaran Bhd. Dato’ Bistamam Ramli (Seremban), CEO Symphony House Bhd. Abdul Hamid Sheikh Mohamed (Kuantan), CEO DRB Properties Mohd. Razman Osman (Kuantan), CEO PKNS Othman Omar (Seremban) dan CFO Malaysia Airlines Mohd. Azha A. Jalil (Muar) merupakan nama nama tokoh korporat yang lahir dari sistem MRSM.

Dekan Fakulti Perubatan HUKM Dato’ Dr Lokman Saim (Seremban), Timbalan CEO/Ketua Pakar Bedah IJN Dato’  Mr Azahari Yakub (Kota Bahru), Pakar Bedah Padetrik Dato’ Dr Zakaria Zahari dan Pakar Bedah IJN Dr Rais Sanusi (Kuantan) merupakan tokoh tokoh perubatan kebanggaan dari sistem MRSM.

Angkasawasan Negara Dato’ Sheikh Muzaphar Shukor (Muar) dan Pegawai Pemerintah kapalselam TLDM kedua KD Tun Razak Cdr. Baharuddin Md. Nor (Taiping) merupakan professional luar biasa yang amat berjaya dalam bidang masing masing.

Tiada dari senarai ini yang dianggap sebagai ‘Ekstremis Melayu’ dan ‘Rasis’. Malah, mereka berkhidmat dan menyumbang untuk eko-sistem Malaysia dengan pendekatan inklusif.

Ilmu yang dikongsi mendedahkan kami dengan pelbagai nilai. Dengan mengenali diri dan hak sendiri, kita akan lebih menghormati hak orang lain. Kita tidak akan mengambil hak orang lain dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Kita menghormati asas Negara ini, Rukun Negara & Perlembagaannya. Perjuangan untuk mempertahankan hak sendiri sebagaimana yang telah ditetapkan oleh Perlembagaan Negara tidak boleh disifatkan sebagai rasis atau anti-perpaduan. Hak sendiri wajib dipertahankan, hak orang lain mesti dihormati.

Pengalaman menuntut selama satu tahun dibawah kelolaan usahasama MARA dan KPP-ITM pada itu semasa mengikuti program Northern Consortium United Kingdom (NCUK) adalah pendedahan pertama kami diluar kepompong MRSM dan MARA. Kami percaya, walaupun kami merupakan golongan minoriti, pelajar lepasan MRSM telah meninggalkan kesan dan memberikan impak kepada sistem dan pengurusan program NCUK (pada masa itu).

Kumpulan ini jugalah, apabila tiba di United Kingdom, telah digelar sebagai ‘DAP Melayu’ oleh kumpulan pro-Anwar Ibrahim pada masa itu, era akhir 1980an sehingga 1990an. Hanya kerana tidak menunjukkan minat untuk turut serta secara aktif dalam siri ‘usrah’ anjuran kumpulan mereka dan menghabiskan menghabiskan lebih masa di fakulti kami bersama rakan-rakan pelajar jurusan undang-undang yang terdiri dari pelbagai kaum.

Tanyalah siapa individu yang kini bergelar Prof Dato Dr dan punyai Universiti di Malaysia (walaupun beliau sendiri gagal memperolehi PhD, tidak seperti isterinya) dan konco-konco beliau yang bermaharajalela sekitar Manchester dan Cardiff. Tanyalah bagaimana usaha-usaha mereka untuk menguasai Kelab UMNO UK Eire. Tanyalah bagaimana mereka mendabik dada dan mengaku boleh menghantar pulang pelajar-pelajar Melayu pulang ke Malaysia dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Nama Anwar Ibrahim disebut dan diperdagang kerana kumpulan ini telah menguasai Jabatan Penuntut Malaysia.

Tanyalah siapa manusia di Cardiff yang menuduh pelajar-pelajar melayu jurusan undang-undang sebagai ‘DAP Melayu’. Tanyalah siapa yang memperlecehkan anak-anak Melayu yang datang untuk menyambung pelajaran mereka di Cardiff. Fenomena yang sama berlaku di Newcastle (dimana gerakan post graduan pro-Anwar Ibrahim amat tegar) dan bandaraya lain seperti Manchester, Leeds dan Sheffield.

Kumpulan yang digelar ‘DAP Melayu’ inilah yang telah menguburkan Cardiff Area Malaysian Students Association (CAMSA) kerana tidak mahu melihat perpecahan dikalangan rakyat Malaysia di Cardiff. Kumpulan yang digelarkan ‘DAP Melayu’ oleh golongan pro-Anwar Ibrahim ini jugalah yang bekerjasama dengan Malaysian Students Association di Cardiff sehingga berjaya mengadakan Malaysian Night bersama-sama dengan semua kaum dan turut dimeriahkan oleh pelajar-pelajar asing.

Tanyalah salah seorang peguam Anwar Ibrahim sekarang, jika pelajar jurusan undang-undang di Cardiff pada masa itu merupakan golongan rasis. Sebahagian besar dari mereka merupakan pelajar lepasan MRSM, MCKK, RMC dan matured students dari ITM (kini UiTM).

Tanyalah bagaimana seorang pelajar Melayu yang datang belajar di Cardiff di atas biaya sendiri dihalau oleh ‘post grad’ Melayu (juga merupakan konco-konco Anwar Ibrahim) dari menumpang dirumah mereka. Tanyalah bagaimana kumpulan yang digelar “DAP Melayu” oleh kumpulan pro-Anwar Ibrahim ini, dengan bantuan rakan-rakan pelbagai kaum di Cardiff membantu untuk mendapatkan peluang pelajar tersebut menduduki-semula beberapa subjek beliau di British Council, Kuala Lumpur kerana kekangan wang beliau. Tanyalah bagaimana insan yang telah hampir berputus asa telah berjaya menjadi peguam dan kini beramal di Terengganu.

Beberapa bekas pelajar MRSM juga terdapat di dalam kelompok kumpulan “DAP Melayu” dan turut ‘mencorak’ halatuju kumpulan tersebut. Kumpulan tersebut, dengan bantuan rakan-rakan pelajar lain telah Berjaya mengekang kelompok pro-Anwar Ibrahim dari menguasai Kelab UMNO UK Eire, Cawangan Cardiff & Pontypridd.

Amat malang, bila kupasan Dr Azly Rahman gagal melihat ‘pelakon’ sebenar yang cuba mencorak pemikiran pelajar-pelajar Melayu pada masa itu. Dr Azly Rahman lebih gemar mengambil jalan mudah menyalahkan UMNO sebagai sebuah institusi daripada cuba menghalusi siapakah dalang sebenarnya. Pelakon yang berimej ‘alim’ melalui ABIM, PKPIM dan gerakan sekumpulannya. Pelakon sama yang berimejkan ‘nasionalis’ melalui cengakaman di dalam Kerajaan, UMNO dan BTN yang telah dikuasainya pada masa itu. Pelakon yang cuba menampilkan imej ‘ilmuan’ melalui Institut Kajian Dasar. Pelakon yang terlalu berminat dengan kesihatan melalui sukan tenis bersama Nalla Karupan.

Amat malang lagi, apabila pelakon tersebut kini diagung-agungkan sebagai “Tokoh Anugerah Tuhan” dan memperjuangkan hak samarata. Negara kita cukup malang di anugerahkan dengan pelakon ini. Retorik-retorik yang diucapkan sekarang ini sepatutnya diterjemahkan semasa beliau mempunyai peluang dan kuasa pada masa itu. Sebaliknya, keutamaan, perlakuan dan tindakan beliau terlalu sonsang dan bertentangan.

Untuk rekod, Dr Azly Rahman dan isteri pernah disaman UUM kerana gagal melengkapkan khidmat bawah bon skima pra-graduan beliau.

 

 

Published in: on January 20, 2011 at 12:10  Comments (13)  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,092 other followers