Anwar Vs Anifah: Liar lying left, right & centre

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

SIVIL SUIT NO: S-21-146-2009





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

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

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

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

JJ : ​​Very well Yang Arif.

R :​​May I call the first witness

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

R:​​May I proceed Yang Arif.

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

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

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

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

​( A signed the witness statement)

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

Judge: ​Statement of Evidence of Plaintiff Witness 1


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

A : ​Yes.

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

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


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

A: ​Yes Yang Arif.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross- Examination

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

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


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

A: ​​Yes.

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

A: ​​Yes.

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

A: ​​Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

A: ​​Yes.

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

R:​8th March.

Q: ​​8th March.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can be voon or vun?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raslan (Plaintiff Counsel)

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

Next date, 3pm, after prayers, Friday Afternoon



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

Profiteering from misconduct

The Instagram of the passenger onboard MH20 KUL-CDG which arrived on 4 August 2014, believed to be Laura Bushney

The Instagram of the passenger onboard MH20 KUL-CDG which arrived on 4 August 2014, believed to be Laura Bushney

The woman believed to be the passenger onboard of MH20 from Kuala Lumpur to Paris Charles De Gaulle on 4 August 2014 who made a complaint about “A Chief Steward attempted to rape her during flight”, is probably making financial demands to get her to shut up.

AFP story on the ‘Sexual assault onboard MH20′:

Malaysia Airlines steward ‘sexually assaulted’ passenger

Published: 14 Aug 2014 at 18.45 | Viewed: 922 | Comments: 0Online news: AsiaWriter: AFP

KUALA LUMPUR – A Malaysia Airlines cabin crew member has been detained in France over allegations that he sexually assaulted a passenger who was scared of flying with the disaster-prone airline.

File picture taken on May 14, 2014 shows a Malaysia Airlines staff member walking up to a flight prior to departure at Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang

The case, involving the chief steward of a Paris-bound flight, is the latest setback for the struggling national carrier, which was struck by twin tragedies this year when one of its passenger jets went missing and another was shot down over conflict-torn east Ukraine.

The airline said in a statement Thursday that French police had detained a crew member for questioning following allegations by a passenger of “inappropriate sexual behaviour” on flight MH20 from Kuala Lumpur on August 4.

The Australian passenger complained to authorities about the incident after touchdown at Paris’ Charles de Gaulle airport, saying she had told crew at the beginning of the flight about her apprehension of flying with the airline in the wake of the two disasters.

The steward sat beside her and sexually assaulted her under the pretext of “comforting” her, she said, according to a source close to the French probe.

Malaysia Airlines vowed to assist French authorities in their investigation, adding “the safety, comfort and well-being of our passengers is always our highest priority”.

“Malaysia Airlines expects and accepts nothing short of the highest standards of conduct from its crew and takes any such allegations very seriously,” it said.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 disappeared mysteriously in March with 239 people aboard, en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. No trace has been found and the airline was widely criticised for its handling of the crisis.

On July 17, MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, with 298 people killed.

The airline stands on the financial brink after the disasters.

State investment fund Khazanah Nasional, which has controlled the airline for years via a 70 percent ownership stake, said last week that it plans to buy all remaining shares and de-list the company before undertaking a “complete overhaul”.


The Star report:

MAS crewman held over sexual assault

Friday, 15 August 2014

KUALA LUMPUR: A cabin crew member of Malaysia Airlines has been detained for questioning by the French police for alleged inappropriate sexual behaviour towards a passenger.

The alleged incident occurred on Flight MH20 that was travelling from here to Paris on Aug 4.

MAS expects and accepts nothing short of the highest standards of conduct from its crew and takes any such allegations very seriously, the airline said in a statement yesterday.

“We will naturally assist the French authorities as they conduct their investigations and would stress that the safety, comfort and well-being of our passengers are always our highest priority,” the airline added, confirming a report by French news portal FranceTVInfo that a MAS crew member was being investigated for allegedly sexually assaulting an Australian passenger.

The incident purportedly happened when the passenger expressed nervousness about flying following the disappearance of Flight MH370 in March and the downing of Flight MH17 in July.

The report stated that the crew member sat next to the passenger under the pretext of comforting her before “sexually assaulting” her.

AFP reported that the passenger lodged a report with the French border police upon her arrival in Paris and the crew member was detained on Aug 7.


The Chief Steward, believed to be a cabin crew by the name of Mohd. Rosli Abd. Karim, is now under custody in a Paris lock up pending investigations. Non relatives have been denied access to the accused.

It is believed that lawyers reprising the passenger, probably someone by the name of Laura Bushney and believed to be an Australian, was said to have demanded £300,000.00 from the accused for the case to cease from proceeding any further.

It is believed that Bushney would appear on Channel 7 Australia on the evening of Sunday 24 August 2014, to tell her story.

Sydney Morning Herald story:

Laura Bushney breaks silence over sexual assault on Malaysia Airlines flight

August 22, 2014

Tom Decent

submit to reddit

Email articlePrintReprints & permissions
Laura Bushney tells of her alleged sexual assault.

An aircraft steward believed he was comforting an Australian woman when he allegedly put his hands down her pants on a Malaysia Airlines flight, the female passenger has revealed.

Channel Seven’s Sunday Night will air a tell-all interview with 26-year-old Laura Bushney, who recorded the moment Mohd Rosli Bin Ab Karim, a married man with three children, put his hands under a blanket and down her pants while working.

Mr Rosli allegedly touched Bushney’s upper thigh before putting his hands under her clothing after being under the impression he was “comforting her”.

“He’s massaging my legs, I’m so scared I just want to get off this plane,” Bushney can be heard saying on the recording. “I don’t want to see you, go away, you give me the creeps you dirty old man.”

Bushney was travelling by herself when the 54-year-old steward allegedly sexually assaulted her, causing her to “freeze in panic”. Bushney recorded the incident on her iPhone under a blanket as well as another face-to-face altercation after the incident when Rosli realised he had been in the wrong.

“I just keep saying, ‘Why didn’t I scream, why didn’t I shout?'” Bushney told Sunday Night reporter Ross Coulthart. “I am a strong person because I can do that, I know I can. But when I was in the moment, I couldn’t. I felt so scared and so petrified.”

After MH20 touched down on August 4, Mr Rosli was detained by police at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport and remains in custody after making admissions relating to the sexual assault.

Given the disappearance of MH370 in March and the MH17 tragedy last month, Malaysia Airlines confirmed the allegations but has done very little to improve its tarnished image after making no attempt to offer compensation or counselling to the victim.

“Malaysia Airlines can confirm that the following allegations by a passenger travelling on flight MH20 from Kuala Lumpar to Paris of inappropriate sexual behaviour by a member of the cabin crew, the member of staff has been detained for questioning by the French police,” said the statement.

“Malaysia Airlines expects and accepts nothing short of the highest standards of conduct from its crew and takes any such allegations very seriously.”

Sunday Night airs 8.45pm Sunday, August 24 on Seven.

Read more:


If the French Police and authorities is still investigating the case, then it is unsure why Bushney is going in front of Australian TV to bare all about her alleged rape cry against Chief Steward Rosli.

Unless she and Australian media have ulterior motives to paint the picture against  Chief Steward Rosli and/or Malaysia Airlines.

An Instagram account believed to be Laura Bushney

An Instagram account believed to be Laura Bushney

Searches shown that Bushney is a person of dubious morality. An Instagram believed to be hers, shows that she is someone who is willing to share her lewd photos in public domain.

If Chief Steward Rosli did commit the ‘sexual assault’ as alleged, the he should be charged and tried under the French law. He must be allowed to defend himself. After all, as a National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM) Exco, the union should step up to assist him.

Search on Laura Bushney's Instagram

Search on Laura Bushney’s Instagram

Many wondered where exactly onboard the A380 aircraft that Chief Steward Rosli could progressed so far in ‘Sexual assault’ on Bushney, without the risk of someone ran into or saw them. Especially when she is an economy class passenger.

It is also funny if Bushney couldn’t cry for help when she was onboard, that she is courageous enough to appear on Australian national TV to tell her story.

A note from "Gran" to "Laura" in the Instagram

A note from “Gran” to “Laura” in the Instagram

Then again, there is a suspicion if not the possibility that Bushney through her lawyers is trying to profit from a case which has yet to be proven through the means of the legal system, including French.

That is immoral.

*Updated Monday 25 August 2014 1100hrs

Refresh on the Instagram account strongly believed to be Laura Bushney’s shown that all the photos, featured here as screenshots over 30 hours ago have been deleted.

The Instagram account strongly believed to be Laura Bushney's have been wiped clean after this blog's posting on her

The Instagram account strongly believed to be Laura Bushney’s have been wiped clean after this blog’s posting on her

That is a demonstration that Laura Bushney isn’t a credible person.

Published in: on August 24, 2014 at 00:30  Comments (352)  

Court Criticise Cameron’s Coulson

A London High Court Judge lashed against British Prime Minister David Cameron for his sub judicial statement against former co-editor controversial News of the World tabloid who later served Press Secretary to Prime Minister till January 2011, when the Conservative Party formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats in May 2010..

The Telegraph story:


Andy Coulson judge criticises David Cameron: full statement

Here is the full statement made by Mr Justice Saunders as he criticised the Prime Minister for commenting on the Andy Coulson case while the jury was still considering outstanding verdicts
6:55PM BST 25 Jun 2014

Application has been made to me to discharge this jury on the basis that it is no longer possible for Andrew Coulson and Clive Goodman to have a fair trial on the remaining two counts that the jury are considering. The application is based on the publicity last night and this morning following the verdicts delivered yesterday on count 1. Immediately after the verdict the PM issued a statement apologising for employing Mr. Coulson. That statement has been followed by pronouncements by a large number of politicians from all parties. I have not considered and will not consider anything that has been said in Parliament as that is covered by parliamentary privilege and is the sole prerogative of Parliament.
I asked for an explanation from the Prime Minister as to why he had issued his statement while the jury were still considering verdicts. I received a response from his principal private secretary which said ‘the Prime Minister was responding to the guilty verdict on hacking charges that had been delivered in open court. He did this in the light of the intense media coverage and understandable public interest. The Prime Minister was careful to make no further comment about any matters that might still be before the court.’
I accept that that was the Prime Minister’s intention but I am afraid that to an extent his explanation misses the point. He has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr. Coulson before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before and it is a matter which is capable of affecting Mr. Coulson’s credibility in their eyes. Mr. Coulson’s credibility is a matter which is in issue on the final two charges that the jury have to consider.
Other politicians have chosen to comment about Mr. Coulson and as a result the jury have heard of matters which were not admitted at the trial for legal reasons. I am certainly not seeking or intending to single out the Prime Minister. Politicians from across the political spectrum have seen fit to make strong comments about Mr. Coulson despite the fact that the jury are still deliberating. The Chairman of the parliamentary committee which investigated phone hacking has told the public that Mr. Coulson lied to them in the evidence that he gave.
Evidence of what Mr. Coulson said before the committee could not be given in court as it would amount to a breach of parliamentary privilege. That was the view of parliamentary counsel which was conveyed to the court and which I accepted. Again that information is capable of affecting the jury’s view of Mr. Coulson’s credibility.Mr. Langdale who made powerful and well argued submissions to me relies on the public importance of those who made the comments and the increased likelihood therefore of the jury being influenced by them. This was a significant factor in the court of appeal’s decision in the case of McCann and as he says, while the decision is an old one, the principle has not changed.
My sole concern is to ensure that justice is done. Politicians have other imperatives and I understand that. Whether the political imperative was such that statements could not await all the verdicts, I leave to others to judge. The issue for me now is to decide whether I am satisfied that Mr. Coulson will receive a fair trial on the other two counts or whether the prejudice is such that that is impossible.
I have been referred to the decision of the administrative court in contempt proceedings brought against parts of the media following the partial verdicts in the case of Levi Belfield. I am satisfied that the revelations in those reports were considerably more prejudicial to the fair trial of Belfield on the remaining counts than is the case here.
The decision in this application is entirely fact specific. Not merely is it fact specific but it is also specific to this jury who we all have been watching at work for eight months. First this jury have shown that they are entirely capable of putting out of their minds prejudicial material in reaching their decisions. At the start of this trial I heard two days of submissions on behalf of Rebekah Brooks to the effect that there was so much prejudicial material about her in the public domain that the jury would inevitably convict her and it was impossible for her to have a fair trial. She has been acquitted of all the charges against her. I trust that no one will maintain that complaint now. Everyone who has watched the jury have been impressed with their dedication and their ability to concentrate on the evidence and follow directions of law. Our legal system is based on the premise that juries comply with directions of law given by the Judge.
We should not forget the stage of the case that we have reached. The jury at the moment are deep into an analytical discussion of the evidence on counts 2 and 3 and have been for sometime. I am fortified in that belief by consideration of the notes that I have received from them. There is no reason to suppose that they will be diverted from that course. We underrate juries, and particularly this one, at our peril. It should also be born in mind that by virtue of the verdict that the jury have already returned, they are sure that Andrew Coulson has lied to them about his involvement in phone hacking. Therefore, while important public figures in defence of their own position or to attack another’s have revealed other lies told by Andrew Coulson, those revelations will have less effect on the jury.
I watched a fair amount of the news coverage last night in anticipation of this application. I have considered other material which has been referred to me. As I have made clear, I have also considered the cases of AG – v- Associated Newspapers and R – v- McCann.
I have decided that the jury should not be discharged as I am satisfied that the jury will continue to try Mr. Coulson and Mr. Goodman on the evidence that they have heard in court and solely on that evidence. That does not mean that I am not concerned about what has happened in this case. I consider that what has happened is unsatisfactory so far as justice and the rule of law are concerned. The press in court have been extremely responsible in their reporting of this case but when politicians regard it as open season, one cannot expect the press to remain silent. I accept that this case is very unusual if not unique, but the situation could occur again and I would urge that discussions take place to try and set up a better system of dealing with it.
I have considered whether, in the light of what has happened, I was correct to take partial verdicts. I am fortified in what I did by the fact that no counsel has suggested I was wrong even with the benefit of hindsight and by the fact that what I did accords entirely with the Practice Direction which lays down the procedure for taking verdicts and emphasises the necessity for the same procedure to be followed by all Judges. 


Opposition Leader Ed Milliband had a field day in the House of Commons taking pot shots against Prime Minister Cameron for “Bringing a criminal into No. 1o Downing street”.

The Guardian story:

Andy Coulson, the criminal who had David Cameron’s confidence

Former No 10 spin doctor is found guilty of hacking charge while Rebekah Brooks is cleared of all counts
Share 119

Lisa O’Carroll and Patrick Wintour
The Guardian, Tuesday 24 June 2014 21.32 BST

Andy Coulson, the former No 10 spin doctor, leaves the Old Bailey on Tuesday after being found guilty of conspiring to hack phones. Photograph: Will Oliver/EPA
Seven years of deceit by David Cameron’s former director of communications were undone in the Old Bailey on Tuesday, when a jury found Andy Coulson guilty of conspiring to hack into phone messages.

The verdict came at the end of an extraordinary eight-month trial that also saw Coulson’s predecessor as editor of the News of the World, Rebekah Brooks, found not guilty of phone hacking and three other charges. Her husband, Charlie, her former PA and a security guard were also found not guilty of the single charges they faced, as was the paper’s former managing editor.

But the jury’s decision in Coulson’s case prompted Cameron to make a rapid and unreserved apology – while Ed Miliband countered that the verdict demonstrated that “a criminal” had been brought into “the heart of Downing Street”.

The prime minister said he regretted his decision to employ Coulson first as communications director at the Conservative party in 2007, shortly after he left the News of the World after one “rogue reporter” from the tabloid had been jailed over hacking, and take him with him to Downing Street from 2010.

In a statement, Cameron said: “I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did so on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and those turned out not to be the case. I always said that if they turned out to be wrong, I would make a full and frank apology and I do that today. I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong decision and I am very clear about that.”

Nevertheless, questions remain about the personal judgment of Cameron and whether he put his desire to be close to Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers before a dispassionate judgment of whether it was likely that Coulson as News of the World editor had no knowledge of phone hacking to gather sensational stories.

Miliband was fierce in his criticism of Cameron’s attitude and his refusal to heed multiple “monthly warnings” from 2009, when the Guardian first reported that phone hacking at the News of the World may have been widespread.

Miliband said: “David Cameron has very, very serious questions to answer … we now know he put his relationship with Rupert Murdoch ahead of doing the right thing when it came to Andy Coulson.

“This was not small or accidental mistake. He stuck with Andy Coulson for a long period of time – it was not as if there was not information out there to arouse his suspicions. He was warned by the deputy prime minister, he saw front page stories in newspapers, he was warned by newspaper editors and still he refused to act”

No 10 recognises Cameron faces a few difficult days but believes his error will cause little long-term political damage. The man who recommended hiring Coulson in the spring of 2007, the chancellor, George Osborne, added: “We gave him a second chance but, knowing what we now know, it’s clear that we made the wrong decision.”

There were dramatic scenes outside the court as Brooks and her racehorse trainer husband, Charlie, who was also cleared, left the dock. Coulson stood emotionless as he absorbed the news. Looking faint and close to tears, Brooks walked with the support of the court’s matron and her solicitor Angus McBride.

The Brookses made no comment on the verdicts and left the Old Bailey to be confronted by a phalanx of photographers, TV crews and members of the public as she was shepherded to a waiting taxi. Asked if she had a comment to make, Brooks’s solicitor Angus McBride said she couldn’t say anything because the trial was ongoing, with verdicts still to be reached in charges faced by Coulson and the News of the World’s former royal editor Clive Goodman relating to corrupting public officials.

Coulson’s conviction brings the number of people associated with the News of the World convicted of a hacking conspiracy to five.

Before the trial three former newsdesk executives, including Greg Miskiw and James Weatherup, pleaded guilty, as did the phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire and a former reporter, Dan Evans, who confessed to hacking Sienna Miller’s messages on Daniel Craig’s phone.

Neville Thurlbeck, the News of the World’s former chief reporter and news editor, pleaded guilty after the police found the tapes he had of Blunkett’s messages in a News International safe. Sentencing is expected early next week.

The eight-month trial involving seven defendants came about following revelations first reported in the Guardian in 2009 that News of the World had routinely used hacking to get exclusives on celebrities, sports stars, politicians and royals.

Coulson resigned as editor of the paper in January 2007 after the imprisonment of the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire and the paper’s former royal editor Clive Goodman for hacking a limited number of celebrities and royal aides claiming he had to take “ultimate responsibility”. Months later, Cameron in search of a media professional with knowledge of the tabloid newspaper mind hired Coulson after he received assurances from Coulson that Goodman was a rogue.

It was not until Coulson entered the witness box that he dropped the bombshell that not only had he known about the hacking of Blunkett, but he had also listened to tape recordings of the intimate messages the cabinet minister had left on the phone of Kimberly Fortier, the then Spectator publisher. He also admitted lying to Blunkett when he failed to tell him how he knew about the affair when he confronted him at his Sheffield constituency office in August 2004.

Blunkett told the Guardian: “This is clearly not about me. This is about those who never asked to be in the public eye in the first place and who have been subject to the most grievous misreporting, personal misrepresentation and abuse, and now to further public scrutiny, simply because of the actions of people who acted illegally, brought the journalistic profession into disrepute, and put personal success before high standards.”

Born into a council estate in Essex, he became a star showbiz columnist on the Sun and went on to become editor of Britain’s largest selling Sunday newspaper from where he leapfrogged into Downing Street, becoming one of the prime minister’s closest aides.

Brooks’s acquittal will provide some relief for Rupert Murdoch, who once described the woman who rose to be chief executive of his London based News International operation as his “top priority” when the phone-hacking crisis hit the company in the summer of 2011.

Brooks was found not guilty of four charges including conspiring to hack phones when she was editor of the News of the World and making corrupt payments to public officials when she was editor of the Sun. She was also cleared of two charges that she conspired with her former secretary and her husband to conceal evidence from police investigating phone hacking in 2011.

A spokesman for News UK – the British newspaper publishing arm of Murdoch’s media empire – said that they had put in place measures to ensure that the wrongdoing at the News of the World could not happen again.


Published in: on June 26, 2014 at 02:30  Comments (1)  

Cabinet Reshuffle: Chinese Comeback

PM Najib’s inclusion of the recently validated MCA leaders (from left): Chua Mei Fun, Chua Tee Yong, Wee Ka Siong, Liow Tiong Lai, Lee Chee Leong and Dr. Hou Kok Chung. Hou is the only one in the photo not in today’s Cabinet reshuffle

Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak announces a Cabinet reshuffle, about 13 months after forming his first Cabinet from the mandate of a general election which he led BN as the Chairman on 5 May 2013.

New faces are brought into the Cabinet, although most of them at one time served as Minister and mostly as Deputy Ministers and been hiatus after MCA under then President Dato’ Sri Chua Soi Lek decided stay out of Government due poor performance in 13GE:

Dato’ Sri Liow Tiong Lai, Minister of Transport. Liow is MCA President.

Dato’ Seri Mah Siew Keong, Minister in PM’s Department. Mah is Gerakan President

Dato’ Wee Kah Siong, Minister in PM’s Department. Wee is MCA Deputy President

Dato’ Lee Chee Liong, Deputy Minister MITI. Lee is MCA Vice President

Dato’ Chua Tee Yong, Deputy Minister of Finance. Chua is MCA Vice President

Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun, Deputy Minister of Women and Family Development. Chew is MCA Vice President.

Mah recently won the Teluk Intan Parliamentary by-election, defeating the DAP experimental candidate, which puts Gerakan back on BN’s map of elected representatives.

This Cabinet reshuffle means that Chinese in Semenanjung are back being represented in the Cabinet. In May 2013, only Paul Low was the sole Chinese member in Prime Minister Najib’s first Cabinet.

After the 2008 12GE, MCA was accorded with the traditional four Cabinet posts where as Gerakan is allocated one. At the time, MCA had still manage to have 15 MPs eventhough is dropped from 31 from the previous GE.

Mah Siew Keong, the new Minister in PM’s Department

In the current 13th Parliament, MCA has only seven elected representatives. On 5 May last year, Gerakan managed only to secure one. Mah as Teluk Intan MP, is Gerakan’s second seat in the Parliament.

The swearing in to His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong XIV would be held in Istana Negara on Friday. It is also speculated that Prime Minister Najib would be announcing the second bit of his Cabinet reshuffle soon and this time it is about Ministers and Deputy Ministers from UMNO.

*Updated 2200hrs

MCA expressed its gratification because its party leaders representing the Chinese community and UMNO’s oldest strategic political partner are back in the Cabinet and now part of the most strategic forum formulating macro and strategic policies.

NST story:

Liow thanks Najib for including MCA in Cabinet

25 JUNE 2014 @ 3:27 PM

KUALA LUMPUR: MCA President Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai thanked Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak for the appointment of MCA’s representatives in his cabinet line-up in helping in nation-building.

Liow said the appointment proved that the Barisan Nasional (BN) government led by Najib always strive to practise power-sharing in ensuring a harmonious development of this multi-racial country.

“I thanked and appreciated the prime minister for this newly appointment of MCA ministers and deputy ministers. We will do our level best to perform and serve the nation and move the country forward,” he told Bernama here today.

Liow, who is Bentong Member of Parliament, said, after leaving the cabinet for over a year, there were a lot of things that must be done by MCA’s ministers and deputy ministers to help the prime minister.

“MCA needs to double up the effort to catch up with where we have left, there are many duties and, therefore, I urge all MCA new ministers and deputy ministers to give our level best to play out the role,” he added.



The principle of ‘power-share’ which is the fundamental working relationship between the Malays and Non Malays, particularly the Chinese, has been normalised with this appointment of two MCA and one Gerakan leaders back into the Cabinet as Ministers.

Published in: on June 25, 2014 at 13:15  Comments (8)  

Dirgahayu, A Malay Ruler

HRH Raja Muda Perak Raja Nazrin Shah accompanying His Majesty Seri paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong XIV Tuanku Sultan Abdul Halim Al Muadzam Shah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Badlishah paying his last respect

HRH Raja Muda Perak Raja Nazrin Shah accompanying His Majesty Seri paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong XIV Tuanku Sultan Abdul Halim Al Muadzam Shah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Badlishah paying his last respect

HRH Raja Muda Perak Tuanku Raja Nazrin Shah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Azlan Muhibuddin Shah has been proclaimed 35th Paduka Seri Sultan Perak, assuming the name Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Azlan Muhibbuddin Shah a few moments before the remains if HRH Sultan Azlah Muhibbuddin Shah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Yusuff Izzuddin Shah Gharafulullahu-Lah was taken for prayers at Ubudiah Mosque.

Soon after, HRH Almarhum laid to rest at the Royal Mausoleum.

58 years old HRH Sultan Nazrin is a Philosophy, Politics and Economics graduate from Oxford University and obtained MA and Ph.D from Kennedy School of Political Science, Harvard University, is probably the most academically learned Ruler. He is also honoured as a leading geo-political analysts, when appointed Royal Fellow at Institute of Strategic and International Studies.

He often speaks his mind about preserving Islam and Malay identity, tradition and values, in many opportunities to speak and address intellectual discourses. He has so far proven to have played his role as Constitutional Head very well and very firm about the Constitutional Monarchy democratic system.

As a Regent, his speeches about the development of Muslims are strong messages where the international community should take note.

The most remarkable was when Perak was in a deep political mess when DAP-puppet MB Ir. Nizar Jamaluddin and his DAP infested Perak State Government Excos were dismissed by HRH Paduka Seri Sultan on 9 February 2009, convinced that the Opposition lost the majority support in the State Assembly after 3 ADUNs left their respective parties and became pro-BN independent.

He also reminded that the Judiciary is not a platform for political dramas and stunts.

It is without doubt HRH Paduka Seri Sultan Nazrin Shah thought process and impartiality provided the perfect example for a Ruler in the times of greatness Malay Sultanate.

Hence, he brought the glimmer of hope that the Constitutional Monarchy, Federal Constitution and separation of duties between the Crown, Executive and Judiciary should be preserved and uphold, to ensure stability, harmony, prosperity and progress for nation building process is followed through and the nation be brought to greater heights.

An intellectual. Articulate. Composed. Humble. Compassionate. An obedient son and a family man. A great Regent. Now, a model Ruler.


Published in: on May 29, 2014 at 23:59  Comments (1)  


HRH Paduka Seri Sultan Perak Tuanku Sultan Azlan Shah Ibni Sultan Yusuff Izzuddin Shah

Reliable sources told that HRH Paduka Seri Sultan Perak Tuanku Sultan Azlan Muhibuddin Shah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Yusuff Izzuddin Shah just passed away in Kuala Lumpur. He was 86.

A barrister by profession, he was with the Malayan Judicial and Judiciary Service and appointed a High Court judge in 1965 at 37 years old, at the time the youngest in Commonwealth.In 1973, he was made a Federal Court judge and six years later in 1979, Chief Justice of Malaya, an office which he held until his appointment as the youngest-ever Lord President of the Federal Court of Malaysia on 12 November 1982.

Kissing the Cura SiMajna Kini Keris, which marks the installation of HRH Sultan Azlah Shah as Paduka Seri Sultan Perak

Kissing the Cura SiMajna Kini Keris, which marks the installation of HRH Sultan Azlah Shah as Paduka Seri Sultan Perak

Nine months later, he was made HRH Raja Muda Perak by his uncle HRH Paduka Seri Sultan Perak Tuanku Sultan Idris Almutawakkil Al Lallahi. Another twist fate happened when slightly over seven months later, Tuanku Sultan Idris passed away and HRH Sultan Azlah Shah was appointed by Dewan Negara Perak as the Paduka Seri Sultan.

Five years later brethren HRH Rulers appointed him as His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong IX between 26 April 1989 to 25 April 1994. He hosted Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain of United Kingdom and Eire and Commonwealth, and many Presidents and Head of Countries when Malaysia oganised the Commonwealth Head of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 1989.

HRH Paduka Seri Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah at the Lumut Naval base receiving Perdana Class Scorpene submarine KD Tun Razak, which sailed in with HRH Sultan Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idrs Shah, Deputy Defense Minister Dato’ Dr Latif Ahmad and Chief of Navy Laksamana Tan Sri Aziz Jaafar, July 2010

HRH Sultan Azlan was a keen sportsman and contributed immensely in the sporting of hockey, bicycle racing and golf. He also played his duty as the Constitutional Head for all military and diplomatic role very well.

He came into the political line of fire when he dismissed DAP-puppet Menteri Besar Ir Nizar Jamaluddin and the DAP led Perak Exco on 9 February 2009 after convinced that the Opposition coalition lost majority support in the Perak State Assembly, with the defection of two PKR and one DAP ADUNs. Instead, he appointed Pulau Pangkor ADUN Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as the 10th Perak Menteri Besar and invited him to form the Perak State Government.

His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong IX with HM Queen Elizabeth II on the state visit to United Kingdom

It became a point of contention from the Oppositions’ perspective where the appointment was challenged in High Court. The process went all the way upto Federal Court where it was ruled that HRH Paduka Seri Sultan lad constitutional powers to dismiss a Menteri Besar when one no longer enjoy majority support in the State Assembly.

*Updated 1545hrs

Perak Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir just officially announced the passing of HRH Sultan Azlan Shah on national TV. His remains would be brought back to Kuala Kangsar and would lie-in-state in the Iskandariah Bukit Chandan Palace Throne Room for the public to pay last respect between 1100am to 200pm tomorrow. HRH Rulers and foreign dignitaries shall pay their respect between 200-300pm.

HRH Sultan Azlan Shah would laid to rest after Asar prayers tomorrow in the Royal Mausoleum

Published in: on May 28, 2014 at 14:15  Comments (2)  


HRH Tunku Bendahara Kedah Tunku Annuar awarding MB Kedah Dato’ Seri Mukhriz Mahathir with Darjah Setia DiRaja Kedah (DSDK) on 20 Jan 2014

Deepest heartfelt condolences to His Majesty Sultan of Kedah and Kedahans for the sudden passing of Almarhum HRH Tunku Bendahara Kedah Tunku Tan Sri Annuar Ibni Almarhum Sultan Badlishah, Chairman of Kedah Royal Advisory Council and Regent of Kedah on very early hours of 21 May 2014.

On 12 December 2011, Almarhum was appointed Chairman of the Council of Regency after HRH Sultan Kedah Tuanku Abdul Halim Ibni Almarhum Sultan Badli Shah became Seri Paduka baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong XIV. Other members of the council include his brothers Tunku Sallehuddin, Tunku Abdul Hamid Thani, and Tuanku Abdul Halim’s daughter Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz.

HRH Almarhum Tunku Bendahara Kedah Tunku Annuar Ibni Almarhum Sultan Badlishah signing the instrument of appointment as the Chairman of the Kedah Royal Council and Regent of Kedah

May Allah S.W.T. bless his soul.

Al Fatihah.

The Kedah State Government has not announced the funeral plans for Almarhum. It is expected the State Secretariat would make the official announcement at the first order of the day.

Published in: on May 21, 2014 at 02:30  Comments (1)  

Striking the balance between journalism, patriotism and commercialisation of media reporting

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Mohd. Yassin reminded the journalism profession to stay true to their ethics and integrity of professional conduct, amidst mounting pressure to balance between journalism, patriotism and media being commercialised.








Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim
Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh,
Salam Sejahtera dan Salam 1Malaysia

Yang Berhormat Dato Sri Shabery Cheek,

Menteri Komunikasi dan Multimedia

Tuan Arif Mahmood

Naib Presiden Kanan, Perancangan Strategik Korporat Kumpulan Petronas

Yang Berbahagia Dato Chamil Wariya

Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Institut Akhbar Malaysia

Tan Sri-Tan Sri, Puan Sri-puan sri, Dato-dato, Datin-datin, Dato-dato ketua-ketua pengarang dari pelbagai media, pengamal-pengamal media, tuan-tuan dan puan-puan sekelian

1. Alhamdulillah, pertama-tama marilah kita sama-sama memanjatkan rasa syukur ke hadrat Allah S.W.T kerana dengan limpah kurnia dan izin-Nya jua, dapat kita bertemu pada malam ini bagi menjayakan Malam Wartawan Malaysia 2014.

2. Saya juga ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Malaysian Press Institute (MPI), selaku penganjur majlis ini, kerana sudi mengundang saya sebagai tetamu kehormat dan seterusnya menyampaikan hadiah kepada para pemenang Hadiah Kewartawanan Malaysia 2013 tajaan PETRONAS sebentar lagi.

3. Bagi saya, penganjuran Hadiah Kewartawanan Malaysia (HKM) yang diperkenalkan pada 1980 dan mula ditaja oleh PETRONAS pada 1994 adalah satu usaha murni yang mempunyai matlamat tersurat dan tersirat yang tersendiri dalam mengangkat bidang kewartawanan di negara kita.

4. Secara tersurat, Malam Wartawan Malaysia bukan sahaja diadakan untuk mengiktiraf karya-karya terbaik para wartawan di Malaysia tetapi ia juga menjadi lambang semangat setiakawan yang tinggi dalam kalangan pengamal media di negara ini. Kehadiran para peneraju media dan para supremo editorial pada majlis tahunan ini adalah testimoni nyata hakikat itu.

5. Saya percaya masing-masing berkongsi matlamat yang sama iaitu mahu meraikan kejayaan para wartawan dan jurugambar merangkul anugerah serta membawa pulang hadiah, walaupun kejayaan itu belum tentu lagi milik organisasi mereka. Tetapi atas nama untuk mengangkat profesion wartawan dan meningkatkan mutu karya-karya mereka seperti yang diserlahkan pada malam ini, ternyata mereka nampaknya bersatu hati.

6. Hadiah Kewartawanan Malaysia juga adalah satu wahana untuk mencapai matlamat tersirat kewartawanan kita iaitu untuk memupuk kewartawanan yang bertanggungjawab atau responsible journalism berpaksikan acuan kita sendiri dalam kalangan pengamal media di negara ini.

7. Dalam perjalanan kita untuk membina sebuah negara bangsa Malaysia yang bersatu padu, stabil, aman, makmur dan berjaya, peranan kewartawanan yang bertanggungjawab ini adalah amat penting.

8. Namun saya harus akui bahawa mencapai matlamat tersirat ini adalah lebih payah berbanding memenuhi hasrat tersurat HKM. Barangkali analoginya adalah membina jauh lebih sukar berbanding menghancurkan.

9. Kewartawanan bertanggungjawab adalah untuk membina, menjaga dan memelihara apa yang telah kita bina sedangkan kewartawanan tidak bertanggungjawab adalah sebaliknya – memusnahkan.

10. Bagaimanapun, apa yang melegakan dan membanggakan saya adalah komuniti wartawan di negara ini, terutama dalam kalangan media arus perdana, mempunyai komitmen yang bersungguh-sungguh untuk menjadikan prinsip kewartawanan yang bertanggungjawab sebagai pegangan mereka.

11. Hal ini dapat kita saksikan dalam laporan mereka sewaktu kita menghadapi tragedi kehilangan pesawat MH370 yang sehingga sekarang masih kekal misteri, walaupun sudah memasuki hari yang ke-42 hari ini.

Saudara-saudari sekalian

12. Tragedi MH370 itu telah menarik perhatian media seluruh dunia pada tahap yang belum pernah kita saksikan sebelum ini. Boleh dikatakan sejak 8 Mac 2014 sehinggalah ke hari ini, kehilangan MH370 serta usaha kita mencari dan menyelamat serta cara kita menguruskan krisis itu menjadi makanan ruji liputan media global.

13. Boleh saya katakan laporan mengenai MH370 pada era moden ini lebih mendalam, lebih intrik, lebih misteri, lebih sofistikated, dan jauh lebih komprehensif berbanding dengan laporan media dalam tragedi-tragedi bersejarah lain dan sebanding dengan kisah tenggelamnya kapal RMS Titanic di utara Lautan Atlantik pada 15 April 1912.

14. Ketika tragedi itu berlaku kira-kira 102 tahun lalu, Titanic yang dalam pelayaran dari Southampton, United Kingdom ke New York, Amerika Syarikat membawa 2,224 penumpang dan anak kapal. Dalam tragedi itu, lebih 1,500 orang terkorban. Kisahnya menjadi berita besar di seluruh dunia pada era ketika dunia hanya dihubungkan dengan telegraf dan telefon berwayar.

15. Misteri kehilangan pesawat MH370 bersama 239 penumpang dan anak kapal ketika dalam penerbangan dari Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ke Beijing, China pula telah menarik perhatian komuniti jurnalisme global, daripada akhbar-akhbar, stesen televisyen dan radio serta portal berita di seluruh dunia.

16. Apabila kita meneliti kembali pendekatan kewartawanan dalam pelaporan MH370, kita akan dapati bahawa apa yang dipanggil standard antarabangsa dalam jurnalisme adalah sesuatu yang abstrak, tidak seragam dan tidak konkrit. Sebenarnya, tiada satu panduan yang jelas tentang standard tersebut.

17. Yang tergambar dalam laporan wartawan dan pengamal media mengenai tragedi MH370 ialah elemen patriotisme kumpulan wartawan dari negara-negara yang terlibat dalam pencarian MH370.

18. Wartawan Amerika Syarikat dengan caranya, China dengan pendekatannya, Australia dengan gayanya, tetapi semua wartawan daripada organisasi media yang berbeza itu diikat dengan suatu unsur psikologi yang sama. Mereka bersaing memaparkan kebenaran dengan objektif untuk mengekalkan rating bisnes media, tetapi pada masa yang sama menyerlahkan aspirasi nasional masing-masing.

19. Berdasarkan tingkah laku yang ditunjukkan oleh media-media dari pelbagai negara dalam melaporkan kehilangan MH370, kita harus sedar bahawa kepelbagaian itu adalah sesuatu yang bersifat global. Jadi, janganlah kita terikut-ikut dengan momokan kononnya wujud keseragaman atau standard tertentu kewartawanan. Kononnya set nilai antarabangsa perlu dipatuhi dan dilaksanakan oleh wartawan tempatan di mana-mana negara termasuk di Malaysia.

20. Saya harus menggunakan kesempatan pada Malam Wartawan Malaysia ini untuk memberi pujian dan mengucapkan jutaan terima kasih kepada semua wartawan dan media Malaysia yang terlibat dalam laporan tragedi antarabangsa kehilangan MH370.

21. Anda semua telah memainkan peranan masing-masing dan menjadi penyumbang kepada pembinaan negara bangsa. Adalah jelas bahawa kita bergerak melaksanakan tanggungjawab kepada audiens – dalam bentuk menyampaikan maklumat serta berjuang memaparkan kebenaran -dengan suatu kesedaran nasional.

Saudara-saudari yang dihormati,

22. Saya berharap wartawan di Malaysia sentiasa mempertahankan kepentingan nasional dan bumi yang kita pijak.

23. Akan ada usaha-usaha untuk mendominasi perdebatan mengenai isu-isu yang berlaku dengan sudut pandangan negatif oleh pihak-pihak tertentu dari dalam negara dan juga dari seberang laut, tetapi saya yakin media dan wartawan di Malaysia telah cukup matang untuk menanganinya.

24. Saya yakin komuniti media di Malaysia bersatu hati dalam tugas-tugas memperjuangkan kewartawanan yang kompeten, memiliki jati diri dan progresif.

25. Wartawan Malaysia tidak boleh lagi berasa apologetik apabila mempertahankan kepentingan nasional, kerana seperti yang telah diperlihatkan, media di negara lain juga mempertahankan kepentingan nasional negara masing-masing.

26. Menjadi responsif kepada kepentingan nasional dan memajukannya adalah sebahagian daripada karakter media global.

27. Apatah lagi dengan peledakan perkembangan teknologi informasi komunikasi maklumat, dunia jurnalisme yang menyaksikan kemunculan akhbar-akhbar dalam talian, penyebaran berita melalui twitter juga facebook, maka cabaran mempertahankan agenda nasional sesungguhnya menjadi amat besar. Portal-portal berita dan juga sosial media mengemaskini berita mereka hampir setiap minit. Aliran maklumat menjadi terlalu pantas, informasi samada yang sahih atau tidak disebar kepada orang awam dengan sekelip mata sehingga ada kalanya tidak memberi ruang kepada otak pembaca untuk mencerna intipati yang disampaikan.

28. Saya percaya biar secanggih mana pun teknologi yang digunakan dalam dunia kewartawan baik di media cetak, elektronik mahu pun portal-portal berita, etika serta tanggungjawab anda sebagai wartawan tidak pernah berubah. Arus pemodenan tidak boleh menyanggah prinsip asas pemberitaan yang hakikatnya bersifat universal dan terpakai dahulu, kini dan selama-lamanya. Berita yang ditulis tidak boleh semberono, mesti berpaksikan fakta dan paling penting adil kepada subjek yang ditulis. Kesungguhan untuk memartabatkan profesion kewartawanan dalam menyampaikan maklumat yang adil, tepat, jujur dan sahih harus diberi tumpuan dan penekanan yang jitu.

29. Tuntutan itu sejajar dengan peranan wartawan sebagai cerdik pandai yang tahu apa sebenarnya yang mereka ingin sampaikan. Terlalu ghairah menulis berita tanpa ada usaha untuk memastikan kesahihan fakta dan membiarkan maklumat tersebut sampai kepada pembaca adalah menyalahi etika dan boleh merosakkan profesion sebagai wartawan. Jangan jadi wartawan kering minda atau pun wartawan yang popular kerana menulis berita-berita tidak benar, mengejar sensasi dan didorong oleh agenda tertentu yang kemudiannya tanpa ada rasa bersalah menyebarkan pula kepada pembaca.

30. Peranan media bukan sekadar menyampaikan maklumat terkini kepada masyarakat, malah media juga melibatkan diri dalam pendidikan, perkembangan ekonomi negara, politik semasa, kebudayaan dan hiburan. Tanggungjawab media dalam menyampaikan informasi, mendidik, membentuk jati diri masyarakat dan seterusnya menjadi agen transformasi minda dalam kalangan masyarakat sehingga membentuk sesebuah masyarakat itu yang lebih bermoral, bermaruah dan berdaya saing merupakan prinsip yang harus dipegang teguh oleh pengamal media.

Saudara-saudari yang dihormati,

31. Berada bersama rakan-rakan wartawan pada majlis ini memberikan saya kegembiraan kerana saya dapat merakamkan sendiri penghargaan kepada wartawan dan pengamal media yang begitu banyak membantu pembangunan negara serta menjadi pengkritik yang membina selama ini.

32. Saya sekali lagi mengucapkan tahniah kepada MPI kerana berjaya menganjurkan Malam Wartawan Malaysia 2014.

33. Saya juga ingin mengambil kesempatan ini mengucapkan setinggi-tinggi tahniah kepada semua pemenang yang telah berjaya menghasilkan karya-karya cemerlang dalam pelbagai genre penulisan. Semoga pengiktirafan malam ini dapat meningkatkan lagi kualiti kewartawanan tanah air. Sekian, Wabillahitaufik Walhidayah Wassalamu’alaikum wbt. Terima kasih.



This message came in the episode over-zestful reporting by media, especially foreign, in the globally shocking yet highly mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines B777-200 scheduled flight to Beijing MH370 on the early hours of 8 March 2014.

Published in: on April 18, 2014 at 21:00  Leave a Comment  

MH 370 missing

Malaysia Airlines B777-200 with Rolls Royce Trent 892 engines, acquired from 1997

Malaysia Airlines B777-200 with Rolls Royce Trent 892 engines, acquired from 1997

Malaysia Airlines B777-200 MH 370 bound for Beijing from KLIA is believed to be missing after two hours flight. The flight is carrying 2 flight crew, 10 cabin crew and 227 passengers went off the radar screen without any distress call.

Exact location has not been determined but  the aircraft is believed to be off the coast of Semenanjung Malaysia and somewhere over the South China Sea closer to Vietnam.

It took off from KUL at 0041hrs and was expected to land in PEK at 0630hrs, which is an hour ago. All communications to contact MH370 failed. HKG air traffic controllers confirmed at 0530hrs that MH370 did not enter Hong Kong airspace. The air traffic controller in Subang delacred code red at 0530hrs. Search and rescue has been activated, to locate the missing aircraft believed in the South China Sea.

The commander of the missing aircraft with tail number 9M-MRO  is believed to be Captain Zahari Ahmad Shah, 53. He is an experienced aviator.

*Updated 0900hrs

NST story:

08 March 2014| last updated at 08:54AM

Malaysia Airlines ‘lost contact’ with plane carrying 239 people: carrier

 27  5 Google +0  0 0 comments

KUALA LUMPUR: A Malaysia Airlines (MAS) MH370 flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing has lost contact with Subang Air Traffic Control at 2.40am, today.

The plane was carrying a total number of 227 passengers including two infants and twelve crew members.

Malaysia Airlines said in a statement that the B777-200 aircraft had departed Kuala Lumpur at 12.41am today and was expected to land in Beijing at 6.30am the same day.

“Malaysia Airlines is currently working with the authorities who have activated their Search and Rescue team to locate the aircraft,” the statement said.

The airline said they will provide regular updates on the situation.

Meanwhile, the public may contact +603 7884 1234 for more information

Read more: Malaysia Airlines ‘lost contact’ with plane carrying 239 people: carrier – Latest – New Straits Times


*Updated 1130hrs

Malaysia Airlines GCEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya’s media conference

This was AJ’s PC 40 mins ago;

MH370 Incident

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are deeply saddened this morning with the news on MH370.

Malaysia Airlines confirms that flight MH370 had lost contact with Subang Air Traffic Control at 2.40am, today.

There has been speculation that the aircraft has landed at Nanming.

We are working to verify the authenticity of the report and others.

Flight MH370 was operated on a Boeing 777-200 aircraft.

It departed Kuala Lumpur at 12.41 amearlier this morning bound for Beijing.

The aircraft was scheduled to land at Beijing International Airport at 6.30am local Beijing time.

The flight was carrying a total number of 239 passengers and crew – comprising 227 passengers (including 2 infants), 12 crew members.

The passengers were of 14 different nationalities – citizens from:-

1. China – 152 plus 1 infant
2. Malaysia – 38
3. Indonesia – 12
4. Australia – 7
5. France – 3
6. United States of America – 3 pax plus 1 infant
7. New Zealand – 2
8. Ukraine – 2
9. Canada – 2
10. Russia – 1
11. Italy – 1
12. Taiwan – 1
13. Netherlands – 1
14. Austria – 1

This flight was a code share with China Southern Airlines.

We are working with authorities who have activated their Search and Rescue team to locate the aircraft.

Our team is currently calling the next-of-kin of passengers and crew.

The flight was piloted by Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a Malaysian aged 53. He has a total flying hours of 18,365hours. He joined Malaysia Airlines in 1981.

First officer, Fariq Ab.Hamid, a Malaysian, is aged 27. He has a total flying hours of 2,763 hours. He joined Malaysia Airlines in 2007.

Our focus now is to work with the emergency responders and authorities and mobilize its full support.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all affected passengers and crew and their family members.

The airline will provide regular updates on the situation.

The public may contact +603 7884 1234.

For media queries, kindly contact +603 8777 5698/ +603 8787 1276.

Please also log on for updates.

Next-of-kin may head to the Support Facility Building at KLIA’s South Support Zone. For directions, call 03 8787 1269


*Updated 1430hrs

Transport Minister Dato' Seri Hishamuddin Hussein giving a media conference at the  media centre in Sama Sama

Transport Minister Dato’ Seri Hishamuddin Hussein giving a media conference at the media centre in Sama Sama. Together with him are Malaysia Airlines GCEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya, DG DCA Dato’ Azaharuddin Abdul Rahman and Security of National Security Council Dato’ Mohd. Thajudden Abdul Wahab

In his media conference at 1430hrs Minister of Transport Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin Hussein confirmed these points:

1. After consulting Chief of Defense Forces, Chief of the Navy and Chief of the Air Force this morning, Malaysian Armed Forces would be deployed in the area where the aircraft at the last known position which is 065515N, 103443E
2. Operation Command Centre headed by DCA Chief Dato Azharuddin Abdul Rahman would co-ordinate all search and rescue operations. OCC would update the media every two hourly.
3. The OCC and all Malaysian Government agencies involved in the operation are working very closely with relevant agencies and governments of Vietnam, The Phillipines and China, through their embassies and foreign offices on the operation to locate, search and rescue of the missing aircraft and if there are any survivors
4. Confirmed that the earlier stories about the ‘Landing at Nanming’ and ‘Debris at an island off the coast of Vietnam’ are not true and cannot be validated

The Minister also added the since the DCA and National Security Council denied the report about debris seen nearer to the Vietnam coast, he has asked the Chief of Navy to work closely with the Vietnamese Navy of the search and rescue.

“Our C130s and EC725s already started the search and rescue operations. All RMN vessels  in the vicinity have also joined the operation”.

He also reminded that public shouldn’t be reckless and over-eager in spreading unconfirmed reports or stories as it would complicate the situation further.

“We will be transparent with this operation. Please liaise with the OCC, which would update the media every two hourly”.

Malaysia Airlines GCEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya, Head of Engineering Azahari Mohd. Dahlan, DG of DCA Dato’ Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, National Security Council Secretary Dato’ Mohd. Thajuddeen Abdul Wahab and Malaysia Airports Bhd. Director of Operations for KL Dato’ Azmi Murad were present at the Transport Minister’s Press Conference.

“Our sympathies are with the families of passengers and crew of the missing MH370. We would do our best to help them”.

Ahmad Jauhari said an emergency respond team has been activated and the moment are engaging all the family members. Most affected families have been contacted and they have started to come to Main Terminal Building KLIA.

“We would send an aircraft with some of these team very soon, to faciliate all necessary efforts in the operations”.

Published in: on March 8, 2014 at 07:41  Comments (15)  

Agong: Allah is exclusively for Muslims only

His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong XIV Tuanku Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Badli Shah made it clear that kalimah “Allah” is exclusively for Muslims only.

Agong says ‘Allah’ exclusive to Muslims, cites 1986 fatwa

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong today said several words including “Allah” were the exclusive rights of Muslims, citing a 1986 decree by the National Fatwa Council on their use.

Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, who is also the Sultan of Kedah, said that religious sensitivity must be observed and the status of Islam as the country’s official religion must be respected.

“Confusion and controversy can be avoided if all parties abide by the law and judicial decisions,” he was quoted by the New Straits Times as saying in his speech during an investiture ceremony at Istana Anak Bukit in Alor Setar, today.

The ceremony was in conjunction with the Sultan of Kedah’s 86th birthday.

The Sultan’s speech was read out by the Sultan of Kedah Council of Regency chairman, Tan Sri Tunku Annuar Sultan Badlishah.

The Sultan, who is presently the head of Islam in Malaysia, said the public should respect religious and social sensitivities, including on the “Allah” issue, to preserve peace and stability in Malaysia.

“Mutual respect of religion and race in Malaysia’s multiracial society has long been the pillar of stability and peace in the country.”

“Without stability, the state and country would descend into a state of chaos. It is also feared that enemies from within would seize the opportunity to implement their agenda.”

He also urged Muslims to reject all other Islamic schools of thought other than Sunni to preserve the interests of the ummah.

“This is of paramount importance to avoid civil war breaking out among Muslims, like what is happening in other Muslim countries,” the Agong said in his speech.

The Sultan’s speech comes against a backdrop of rising religious tension between Muslim and Christian groups in the country over the use of the word “Allah” by Malay-speaking Christians.

Yesterday, Minister the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Nancy Shukri insisted that Putrajaya remained committed to the 10-point solution signed with Sabah and Sarawak, allowing Christians to use “Allah” in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible.

The 10-point solution was announced in April 2011 to resolve the issue on the use of the word “Allah” in Bahasa Malaysia Bible used by majority of Christians in East Malaysia.

Among others, the agreement, drawn up by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala, allows Bible of all languages to be printed locally or imported into the country.

The controversy boiled over again early this month following a raid by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) at the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM), seizing some 300 copies of Malay- and Iban-language Bible and detaining two BSM officials.

Christian and Muslim groups have been at loggerheads after the October 14 ruling by the Court of Appeal, barring “Allah” to the Catholic Church.

The “Allah” row dates back to a 2009 High Court ruling upholding the Catholic Church’s constitutional right to use the word in the Bahasa Malaysia section of its weekly Herald, and has its roots in laws prohibitng non-Muslims from using the Arabic term.

The legal dispute between the government and the Catholic Church is still pending before the Federal Court, which will hear the case on February 24 to decide on whether it would hear an appeal by the Catholic Church. – January 19, 2014.


His Majesty said this is his titah commemorating his 89th birthday, which was read by Chairman of Kedah Regency Council HRH Tunku Tan Sri Annuar Sultan Badlishah at Istana Anak Bukit, Alor Setar, Kedah.

This is reference to the 1986 National Fatwa Council definition. In 1988, almost all states rectified the Enactment for Propagation of Non Muslim Religions. This is direct reference to existing provisions to safeguard the interest of Malay-Muslim majority as per enshrined by the Federal Constitution Articles 3(1) and 11(4).

This is the highest level titah for HRH Rulers on the definition of kalimah “Allah” exclusively for Muslims only after HRH Sultan of Selangor’s titah on the same matter 6 January 2013.

In his 2012 Christmas Day message, Chinese Chauvinist DAP Secretary General Lim Guan Eng demanded that Christians be allowed to use kalimah “Allah” in place of God.

The matter of Catholic Church Malay publication Herald to challenge in court Minister of Home Affairs decision to ban the use of kalimah “Allah” in 1986 has been used as a matter of contention to provoke the sentiments of the Malay-Muslim majority. In the same stroke, the matter is used to systematically challenge the sanctity of Islam as the Religion of Federation and position and role of HRH Rulers as Constitutional Heads of Islam.

This had been part of the ‘politics of hatred’ strategy to demonise the authority, which is mainly under the watch of Malay-Muslim power base, to portray the example of ‘The majority oppressing the minority’ when decisions or actions are taken against them. It doesn’t matter is these decisions or actions are within provisions enshrined by the Federal Constitution.

This decree by His Majesty Seri Paduka Yang DiPertuan Agong should provide some bearing on how interpretations of the kalimah “Allah” contention should be made, once and for all.

Published in: on January 19, 2014 at 13:00  Comments (9)  

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,092 other followers